Rebecca Minnock - on the run with child after court battle

[BreakingDad77]

Is this one of those cases we wont get to the bottom of as to whether she is someone with MH problems or scheming father driving her to them?

manipulative, I mean.

I certainly don't think anyone would for one second try and defend his actions, and certainly wouldn't try and blame the courts or the mother.

There is no link and add nothing to this discussion.

Yes, strange comment King Tut - can't see any link between the two - TK does not seem to have courted publicity but tried to escape his financial obligations to a baby. Was he also a victim of the incompetent 'system' that dared make him accountable for his actions?

There's them pesky double standards again Spero.

It must be a man behind all of this, it's got to be, please let it be.

It'll be the Patriarch that's behind all of this, it always is.

Well, I think, ultimately, the patriarchy is to blame for the attitude that children need their mothers but not their fathers. And the belief that a woman is innately a better parent than a man.

I think you might be confusing feminism with man-hating, sonny.

To be fair to sonny, I often find myself confused between the two as well.

And surely the patriarchy did not put women on a pedestal as superior child carers, but simply made it clear it considered child rearing to be grunt work that a woman was fit for?

Patriarchy was also clear that children were the property of their fathers.

You can blame patriarchy for many things but I don't think all the evils of the selfish narcissist can be laid at its door.

No, there is no evidence that 'the patriarchy' is to blame for the attitude that children need their mothers but not their fathers.

There have been an abundance of man-hating and victim blaming comments made publicly in direct relation to this case.

I was referring to the ridiculous notion that after trying to blame the father, the court, male judges, psychologists and laughably, Thomas Kenny as some kind of mastermind manipulator that 'could' have advised RM, why do some people refuse to accept that a mother is entirely responsible for this situation.

It is all there, plain to see but many people just refuse to accept it.

Admittedly, I was being rather sarcastic.

The simple fact of the matter is, thanks to this case being made public, it is clear to see the sexist reactions against men.

Society has no hesitation in denouncing 'deadbeat' fathers such as Thomas Kenny and their like, hell even David Cameron likes to join in the chorus on Fathers Day of all days.

But when we have a clear public example of a 'deadbeat' mother, a very significant minority will try, in the face of facts, try to blame anyone but the mother.

I would suspect it is more likely that feminism is responsible for these attitudes to a mother being the superior parent than any 'patriarchy'.

Well, we're all products of the society we are part of, including RM. She didn't get the idea that mothers are better parents from nowhere. Her FB page appears to be full of people agreeing with her, on that point.

And surely the patriarchy did not put women on a pedestal as superior child carers, but simply made it clear it considered child rearing to be grunt work that a woman was fit for?

But it gets women to do that "grunt work" by patronising them that they are the best ones to do it, because of their lovely caring nature ( a by product of the lovely caring nature meaning they couldn't be clever enough to do men's work, poor dears!).

Of course, we all have the opportunity to question our society, and decide for ourselves whether there's any logical reason why men should not be as caring, and make equally good parents, as women. Which, clearly RM hasn't done.

I agree. If a father had done this the headlines, the media response and this thread would have been utterly different in both the language used and the emotions raised by the kidnapping father.

When the response to any parent of either sex who attempts to cut the other parent out of their child's life should be exactly the same - condemnation and a swift response from the court.

How could feminism, which argues that men and women should be treated as equal, be responsible for an attitude that says they are not?

But it gets women to do that "grunt work" by patronising them that they are the best ones to do it, because of their lovely caring nature ( a by product of the lovely caring nature meaning they couldn't be clever enough to do men's work, poor dears!)

Precisely. But when I raise this point with Twinklestein, she tells me I am going 'off on a tangent' and am 'too silly' to engage with.

I'm a woman and a mother. But I have to try very, very hard to be nurturing. Its not in my nature. I am alarmed by how many people on this thread just don't seem to 'get' that and assume women are automatically the 'better' parent.

And 'better' in what way and way? Nurturing taken to extremes becomes abusive and stifling.

That is one of the reasons why it makes me angry that she's gone to the Mail. In one respect I was mildly surprised that they took up her cause because they usually subscribe to the patriarchal view in these cases combined with the agenda that fathers in such disputes are inevitably treated unfairly by wicked lefty judges. But I suppose that, for them, it plays along with their agenda that woman's place is in the kitchen/nursery, and they're perfectly happy if they can string RM along pretending to sympathise, whilst at the same time pressing all the appropriate buttons to bring out their misogynist readership. And RM has played right into their hands.

How could feminism, which argues that men and women should be treated as equal, be responsible for an attitude that says they are not?

Ah Sanity, if you have a few hours (days) to spare, I could share with you some of what I have read and what has been posted at me on this site and on many others which has given me significant pause for thought about the sanity and likability of many self identified feminists.

But that's an argument for another thread perhaps. There is usually one like that every few weeks 'why o why won't people post on the feminist boards' for eg.

Icimoi, I agree. Lots of people think they are 'using' the Mail, in the same way a fly thinks its just found a comfy bed in a spider's web.

There are good reasons why some people were at least initially concerned as to whether RM was right to flee with her child: there is a long history of abusive men gaining either access or residency and continuing to do harm.

Again, this is due to hundreds of years of laws maintaining that women are not fully people, or that they are unreliable, spiteful, untruthful, hysterical etc. This whole business of 'parental alienation' ie obstructing contact with a percieved abuser, has been pretty much discredited. Most of the time when women state that their partner is dangerously abusive they are telling the truth. Abusive men frequently pursue contact/residency purely to punish the woman who has dared to leave them.

To say that most abusers are male is not the same as saying that most men are abusive, nor does it mean that women are never wrong, never cruel, never deluded, never selfish, etc. Rebecca Minnock does very much appear, as evidence emerges, to be pretty immature, impulsive and self-centred. For the sake of that poor boy, I hope that is the truth and that his father is the decent man he is being portrayed as.

I would hazard a guess that RM got the idea from her own mother, possible lack of father figure (would be interesting to know the story there) and the fact that many mothers know, that if that way inclined, they can quite easily make life very difficult for the father to have a relationship with the children upon family separation and he will have to fight like hell to have a relationship with his own children.

All it takes is a few standard unfounded malicious allegations - He was controlling - He was emotionally abusive - he is an alcoholic - he is a drug addict - he abuses the children.

They seem to think that they will get away with it, and often they do with little more than a slap on the wrists.

The worst part is that women that do this make it so much harder for the genuine victims, so much for the sisterhood.

Although cases of bad behaviour are relatively rare with both genders, it is rare that a case such as this is open to the public and the reaction of those trying to defend the mother at any cost is shocking but, to me, not surprising.

Most of the time when women state that their partner is dangerously abusive they are telling the truth

You have cited some Canadian research which looks interesting. I would like to know if there is any similar UK research. What do you mean by 'most of the time'? More than half? More than 75%?

I think the issue here is in a criminal context this is probably true. But in the civil courts, I think there are many more allegations made which don't have a firm factual basis. That is based on my own experience over many years. What seems to be driving a lot of these cases is the emotional fall out of the end of a relationship.

Dangerously abusive men tend to be in the criminal system, not floating about on the edges of private law disputes.

The data supports the fact that children's life outcomes are statistically better when both parents are involved.

There are clearly going to be outliers of both genders who shouldn't be let anywhere near children. These should not be used to set the rule of how the overwhelming majority of men and women choose to parent.

When there are disagreements in the cases of separated parents we need a ground up overhaul of the entire family law system. Rather than an adversarial footing the law should do what it says on the tin and focus on children's rights and needs.

Perhaps this should include support for all parents to help them work through the negative dimensions of splits, Parenting courses and training in conflict resolution and negotiation.

Trouble is all this would likely cost the state more than there is a political will to provide.

SGB,

The facts of the case were there all along, due to it being made public.

I could just as easily say there is a long history of women making false allegations to block contact with fathers.

Parental Alienation has not been discredited. Is has not been accepted as a syndrome but Parental Alienation is very real and becoming more accepted,
thanks to the work of people like RM. Courts are more comfortable with the use of the term implacable hostility.

I don't agree with you that most abusers are male. The abuse I have suffered in my life has all been at the hands of women.

How can anyone still doubt the father.

My X is dangerously abusive. i was so scared he'd strangle me, I wouldn't have dared report him to the police as it would have made him so angry. And yet, I have to allow my children to go and visit him a few times a year. If I didn't I'd be the bad one, I'd be abusive, I'd be controlling. Unless a woman is brave enoguh to call the police and then face the consequences for having called the police afterwards, there's no proof. Even with a few calls to the police fathers still have a lot of rights. I just have to HOPE that my x won't manipulate, control and belittle the children. I just couldn't have fought the battle that would have been required to keep him away from the children. Sometimes I do get a moment of like super lucidity where I step out of myself and think, my children are going to stay overnight with the man who strangled me and offered me a cup of tea five minutes later and then got pissed off with me for being in a mood when I wouldn't drink the tea. He has never been in trouble with the law. he is a professional.

When there are disagreements in the cases of separated parents we need a ground up overhaul of the entire family law system. Rather than an adversarial footing the law should do what it says on the tin and focus on children's rights and needs

the law does. The parents don't. the law can't make unreasonable people act reasonably. It can merely punish them, but not alter their mind sets.

Yes, SGB for the sake of the little boy i really do hope that the father is worthy of all the sympathy he's receiving.