Absent fathers to be made into scape goats

[ivykaty44]

absent fathers

as a single mother who has lived without maintenence for periods of time and at times struggled to make ends meet I still think it is awful to suggest making a group of people stigmatised.

there are good NoneResidentParents and there are useless NRP, it isn't just absent fathers but sometimes absent mothers. What sort of country do we live in thuogh where we would want to stigmatise a whole group of people.

Better to keep the CSA free and make it work rather than the clerical mess it is at the moment.

What research have YOU done?

I'm sure I'd be willing to make an exception for RobF. You sound like you were dumped, Rob. Were you?

ime women dump men when they cannot take any more. It's not about changing them or not, it's about being treated unacceptably. Women tend not to consider kicking their men out 6 weeks post partum without VERY good reasons.

Maybe, just maybe, the "not changing" bit Rob refers means not willing to make any allowances or changes in oneself or one's life when one's new baby was born. eg continuing nightly trips to the pub, refusing to wake up at night for the baby, taking on no extra housework duties, ie behaving like an inconsiderate tosser despite the fact that the partner's life has changed beyond recognition and she is weeping with hormones and tiredness. If is this refusal to adapt is what Rob is referring to as "not changing" it's no wonder poor iddle manny gets kicked into touch as the woman realises she doesn't want an extra child to look after.

I agree with that, if the man had a reasonable say on wanting to have a baby in the first place.

A "reasonable say" is that you fuck someone knowing that that might lead to pregnancy

Most men do have a reasonable say. Most of the ones who walk out on their children and don't support them, had a reasonable say. Don't try and pretend that 60% of NRP's were "tricked" into having babies they didn't want. (The research for that was done by Gingerbread and is accepted by govt, since you ask)

And women never put pressure on men to stop using condoms when in a "loving relationship"? Then suddenly find themselves pregnant? This never happens? Ever?

Hear hear Herbex. You'd have to be really very stupid to have unprotected sex with someone you didn't want to have a baby with, cos that's how babies get made.

Are you a man? Do you think it is fair for women to use their sexual power over men to effectively force them to subsidise their lifestyle for 18 years?

It's 2011. We have legal, safe abortion, the morning after pill etc, etc. There is no reason for children to be born that are not wanted by BOTH parents. What we need is a men's liberation movement to free men from the tyranny of outdated laws regarding child maintenance.

It's still the same old Adam and Eve situation thousands of years on. Blame the woman for the fact that poor little Adam had no self-control.

RobF: every man has a reasonable say on wanting to have a baby.

Condom on v condom off. Simple.

use their sexual power over men to effectively force them to subsidise their lifestyle for 18 years

I'm sorry but that is just laughably, appallingly, well, sexist although that's actually not a strong enough word. I can't believe that nobody wants to breed with you Robbo my man. You are obviously such a catch.

Their sexual power over men?

What the power to rape men you mean?

Which we do at the rate of 1 in 4 men?

Oh, wait, that's the other way round isn't it? Men raping or sexually assaulting us at the rate of 1 in 4? That's sexual power mate, not you looking at a woman and thinking you might like to fuck her.

Incidentally does anyone on this thread know of any woman receiving enough money to live on every month from their ex? Apart from Paul McCartney's ex that is. As far as I can ascertain most women get a couple of hundred a month at most in maintenance for their DC. I can see that would have them laughing all the way to the bank.

Those nasty women using their sexual power over men, Rob. What did they to do to those poor men? Tie them up, rape them, force them not to use a condom?

And what kind of "lifestyle" are you talking about Rob? Cruises around the Med, expensive shopping trips, luxury penthouses? Cos last time I looked dirty nappies, nights in and bad housing were the lifestyle choice of single mothers.

One common problem is that [some] men can't disassociate themselves from their failed relationship with the woman. Their relationship with the woman is larger to them than their relationship with the children. It's how they feel about the woman that drives their actions, not how they feel about their children. This is where you get the bitter non-maintainance payers who say "I'm not giving HER any money". It's all about control, revenge and failure.

Part of it is the Suffer-Without-Me mentality, wishing for his ex-family to fall apart so they can see what they are missing. And the Suffer-With-Me part when he wants them to feel his pain. All mixed in with hitting where a man thinks it will hurt the most: money. And this is ultimately aimed at the woman.

Not so long ago emotional abuse wasn't seen as an offence. One day, not supporting your children (emotionally AND financially) will also been seen as such. This is my thinking behind what DC is trying to achieve.

Roll on that day.

duchesse - as a matter of fact, I do know someone. Her DH had a sordid little affair because he was "feeling emasculated" - it only lasted 8w but was enough to precipitate a threatened disembowelment (never happened) and a quick divorce. She made sure that her divorce settlement saw her right in terms of maintenance. To be fair though - he hasn't since met anyone else, and they co-parent their DS well, even still going on holiday together. Perhaps if he had another family, things would be a bit different (although not much because of the divorce settlement - don't know if that can be challenged afterwards?)

sunshine (i'm ignoring rob as he's clearly just a wind up merchant) My partner would have loved to have spent more time with his DD during his marriage but sadly with his wife refusing to ork, he had to work doubly hard, meaning his time with DD was limited. Once they seperated he could thankfully spend more time with DD as he could change jobs owing to the fact that he didn't have to cover excrusiating credit card bills.

We would actually love his DD to live with us, but it's not allowed as mum would lose all her maintenance not to mention benefits and would have to work full time.

Sorry, I am projecting my own experiences on to this debate which are obviously where my opinion stems from. My DP is sick of being 'the one who chose to leave us' and doesnt deserve that tag at all.

thumwitch I don't beleive the divorce settlement can be challenged after the event but after 1 year the maintenance agreement can be challenged and brought in line with CSA.

duchesse - yes, I do know women receiving plenty of money from their ex. For example, a friend of mine is divorced and has a lovely apartment, two full time nannies, three children in private school and regular foreign holidays paid for by her ex. She works FT, but doesn't earn much herself (she has scaled down her working life to make things manageable at home).

mary I don't think anyone (me included) can use personal experience or anecdotal evidence to provide support for this argument. We have to go with facts, figures and research.

The facts are that 92% of single parents are women. This is a massive proportion and cannot be fully explained by saying women always want to keep the children. Men do too. Where are the statistically significant number of cases where men have fought for residency? Where are the significant number of cases where men are lobbying for increased paternity rights? There aren't any because the majority of men (note I am not saying all) don''t want that responsibility. An the excuse that men don't contest because "what\s the point, it would hurt the DC or the couts are against them" are just that excuses. The same could be said for women achieving the vote, equal pay and maternity rights. Women still stood and fought. In your case you do know that your DP didn't have to just accept what his wife wanted and if he thought it was in his DDs best interest he could have contested it, don't you?

Research shows that when parents separate the child adjusts best if the status quo is continued. So if the mum carried out 80% of the childcare before the split it is in the child's best interests for that to continue after the split. This is why if men want more time with their DCs they need to put the effort in before the split.

Most single mothers do work. 57% of all single parents work, rising to 70% once the child is 12. They are not all sitting at home raking in the benefits and maintenance. If you believe that you've bought into a myth. I repeat again, 60% of single mothers receive no maintenance whatsoever.

50% of single mothers are classed as poor, including those that work, with a lof of them living below the poverty line. Hardly something to be aspired to, which is worth remembering when you read nonsense about women having children to rake in benefits.

Bonsoir with respect your example is hardly representative is it.

sorry for various typos

'There aren't any because the majority of men (note I am not saying all) don''t want that responsibility'

Surely that's anecdotal?

How many mothers are happy to do 50-50 care? Even before a split.

This is very general but it seems to me men meet women who are a bit younger and earn less, and women tend to go for men who are a bit older and earn more.

and women get maternity leave, so it seems engineered for women to become the main carer.

Neither parent give up the career and both reduce their hours and share child-care seems to me the way forward.

And if the man isn't prepared to do that don't have children with him.