do you htink its a BAD thing that fathers 4 Justice has been disbanded or not

[cod]

Message withdrawn

..and (sorry to go on), I believe only hindered by extremists like F4J - there are plenty of fathers advocacy groups around who work with women's groups too. I'm all in favor of those. Parents working together.

Ahem - it isn;t an anecdote actually

It is a direct comment[perplexed emotion]

soapbox - citing the experience of your friends and people you know is called "anecdotal evidence". It has value, but it is a very limited form of evidence. I'm sorry you don't like the word "anecdotal", but that is what it means, I'm afraid.

I'm not too sure waht the future holds but I hope very much that men will not continue to be treated as bit part players in children'd lives.

I reiterate, children need both parents - this is not about choosing men over women, but looking for more equal shared care arrangements.

No one's writing men off as useless! I love men! Some of my best friends are men ()

But F4J are are a group of men with a specific conservative political aim - and that is to silence women in society. Really it has nothing to do with the children. Like I said, I've all the time in the world for organised and civil debate but that isn't what F4J ever proposed. It was all reactionary and extreme. And very very nasty.

I certainly don't recommend men acting as "bit part players" in their children's lives. I believe I've said several times that fathers are very important. But unfortunately, the ugly reality of divorce is that one parent is going to lose out on seeing the children as much as they are used to (joint custody being a very impractical and unstable state of affairs). And in the overwhelming majority of cases, when push comes to shove, children are better off with their mothers.

Soapbox, i really can't see that we disagree on many pints, other than what F4J as a group stand for. There are other legitimate fathers advocacy groups. F4J were the only ones grabbing the headlines though and to the detriment of the real debate.

On that basis MoM - all of your assertions this evening about mothers being superior carers would be anecdotal

lol sorry, points

I have certainly offered some anecdotal evidence, though I don't think most of my assertions were accompanied by anecdotal material. Anecdote is a perfectly valid way of illustrating a point. I'm not sure what your problem with the word "anecdote" is!

MT - I ahve made it clear several times on this thread that I am not talking about f4J!

I think children get a raw deal in family break ups, being separated from a parent for 12 days out of 14 must be horrific.

I think also in talking about those men who go to court, I am already narrowing it down to those men who care enough about wanting more time with their children to fight to see them! In most instances this weeds out the feckless and useless ones (and they do exist I agree). I concede that a small number of these applicants will be there to 'control' the mother but I suspect these are in the minority!

an·ec·dote (ăn'ĭk-dōt')
n.
A short account of an interesting or humorous incident.
pl. -dotes or -do·ta (-dō'tə). Secret or hitherto undivulged particulars of history or biography.

MoM - a defintion of anecdote - I suppose I just can't quite make it fit to the discussion

But that's the point, the vast majority of families settle out of court and are very happy with the arrangements. It's another distortion of the truth (disseminated by F4J endlessly) to say otherwise.

Has anyone ever asked the children if they are happy with the arrangements? Or for that point the fathers?

Historians use the term "anecdotal evidence" in the way I have described it to you. It's an accepted form of oral or written evidence. I suppose it depends on the dictionary how detailed/comrehensive the definitions are. I can't see that it matters.

okay, I'm off to bed. G'night lasses

What I mean is they reach a workable agreement to the mutual satisfaction of all involved. Of course teh kids would probably be happier if they got back together but..blah blah ad infinitum..

Yes, the courts generally do consult the children if they are old enough to speak for themselves. But the opinions of the children are only one factor taken into account. It would be very irresponsible to allow young children to make decisions of this magnitude entirely on their own - children do not always know what is good for them or make balanced decisions.

And as for whether the fathers are happy or not - that's hardly the issue

Anecdotal is usually taken to be assertions made on the basis of experience rather than scientific analysis. As such it encompasses a lot of what we say on threads like these. You were quite dismissive of points I made on the basis that they were anecdotal - I was merely pointing out that your's were also not based on measurable data either!

Anecdotal can also be used in the context of 'story telling' rather than direct experiences as well. In which case it didn;t fit particularly well either.

In any case it was the dismissiveness to the points I made which rankled!

MoM - why does the happiness of fathers not matter??????

I was not dismissive of any of your points on the basis of their being anecdotal. Although I did at one point refer to the limitations of anecdotal evidence, ie that it can only illustrate microcosmically and does not show broader trends/the wider picture. I have disagreed with you vehemently. I do not think I have been dismissive. If I was dismissive of your view I would have gone to bed an hour ago

The only people whose happiness matters in a custody settlement are the children. Simple. The parents can take care of themselves.

OK fair enough - maybe it's just being the minority that is rankling

I don't think that the happiness of children is best served by denying them access to their fathers for 12 days out of 14 - I really don't.

The thought of my 2, not seeing their dad for that amount of time every fortnight is awful!

I think it would destroy them - really I do

It is always hard on a topic like this to write from anything other than your own experiences. IME we have asked men to be more involved with the care of their children, but when it doesn's suit us anymore we just chop them off, just like that [chop]

I do understand that. I used to physically ache for my father when I was growing up without him... and I hated knowing he was suffering too (there you are, anecdote!!!). I remember lying on my bed sobbing "I want my Dad" over and over again. I am not taking this lightly at all. But it is still my view that there are no nice options with divorce, for the children or anyone else. It's about damage limitation. I think the stress and acrimony that joint custody can cause within families is just intolerable. Children frequently end up close to breakdown, or running away from home altogether because they feel they are being cut in half. That's not right. And nothing is going to change my view that if one parent has to have custody, the vast majority of the time it should still be the mother. I do think that's rough on good fathers. And I believe generous access arrangements are important. But it's hard cheese, at the end of the day. Children come first.

Anecdote is just as valid and should be welcomed. That said, these band of fellows rightly or wrongly through their actions highlighted a very imporant issue That in an age purporting equality for all, there was an equality issue underpinning their arguments leading to injustice at most and unfairness at the very least.

An argument which i fear would have gone nowhere had not someone in a spiderman outfit not climbed a tall building!