Unconscious bias and privilege - thoughts

[ca101]

Hello. First post here, be nice.

I count myself, broadly, as a feminist. That is to say, in my case, I have a genuine heartfelt belief in equality across all spheres and in all directions, where at all possible and practical. As a white man myself, I fully agree that men have had privilege for thousands of years, time immemorial, and entirely see the that erosions of these is seen by certain types of man as some kind of victimisation, rather than a simple move towards equality. I feel it can be seen across our society, this 'hard done by' thing many men feel, and believe it's reflected in our politics, retrenchment to supposed tradtionalism etc.

It is hard, then, to ignore what I feel is the one sphere that men usually get an awful rap in, and that is family matters. I don't, in most ways, think white men have a leg to stand on when they talk about bias. In general, even in cases where they may feel things are unfair, even if there is a minor argument of merit, it's simply a small issue, and unlike anything ethnic minorities, women, LGBT etc groups have had to face. When it comes to one's children, though, it ceases to be a matter of injustice that doesn't matter because this demographic 'has it coming' or something similar. Children transcend all things and place this issue separate and universal.

I'll be honest. I had some hesitance about joining because I have read threads in the past where it has felt - and I use that word deliberately - that a lot of people on here are essentially anti-father, or at least the sentiments run so strongly against men for some individuals that it feels quite intimidating. I'm sure the same thing can be levelled at many men. But I do believe this is a big issue and an important one for contemporary society, and frankly it's exemplified by this being called Mumsnet. I fully understand the context and background, but I guess I just believe that, if society really does espouse equality, the ideal would simply be Parentnet - at least moving forwards.

I must confess: I wonder about all this because I feel I'm in a terrible position with my children, and cannot but feel it is because of my gender. Boohoo, you might say, but again - if we ignore gender, or if this was happening to a woman, I believe the boohoo-ers might feel different, and that isn't right. The more I have read about the current 'justice' system, the more powerless and depressed I feel about any chance I may have to address my situation. I also feel very vulnerable as I'm told [by some genuinely objective, people, including a mediator!] that some solicitors etc. advise women to lie about their exes in order to 'win' in court situations. All that I've seen in the last year leads me to believe my ex is not at all the person I thought she was, and is capable of anything, including the classic do-not of using our child as a weapon. Ultimately, it is due to the actions of men in the past and too many Weinsteins of today, but there seems to be a genuine unconscious bias against men in this sphere.

Imagine a pilot. White man, middle aged, for most people.Unconscious, unintended to be harmful, bias. Imagine a single parent. Chances are, that's a women. That may be the social history, but there's no reason for it now. And a pertinent one - how many assume that I must somehow have been a bad dad, or a bad person, to have found myself in this situation? Or that I am simply bitter, or jealous, or somehow not simply invested fully in my children with a heart that breaks as much as yours would if simply being excluded due to someone else's selfishness?

A perfect example is that I - as a young man - saw those Fathers 4 Justice guys climbing up Big Ben or whatever, and you know what? I remember thinking 'Well, mate, you shouldn't have cheated on her, or beaten her up, or been an idtiot' - that kind of thing. This was me, a man, assuming that the man must've DONE something to deserve being excluded from his children. Isn't that something? Again, for anyone still boohoo-ing, I say this - thisisn't about man vs woman for me, at all. I don't at all defend the sexism that has and does exist in society towards women. I just don't think an appropriate response is spite and cruelty in some kind of perceived justice-by-revenge. All I've learnt over the last few months are things I simply can't believe are allowed to be the case in this country, and can't believe that people allow it - particularly those calling themselves feminists. I honestly had no idea things were the way they are, to the point that 88% of men being given 'contact' in court is considered inherent proof of fairness (including those limited to phone contact), or that even a mediator doesn't think it's madness to freely tell me that I might have to simply accept a situation that isn't fair or, arguably, best for my child.

If it was you, would you be ok with someone saying "at least you see your children..." or "Some dads don't see them at all!" Believe me, this is no answer to fundamental injustice, and in my case, and for my children, I fully believe that's exactly what this is. Would the Pankhursts have been placated by "Hey, at least we don't legally own wives any more..." I don't think so. And before you say "it's not the same" - I fully agree. But equally, this can't be an issue that is marginalised because society doesn't see it as big as a social issue - because, again - this is my children.

Sorry for the ramble. And if you say I'm angry - yes, of course I am. I am distraught and bitterly disappointed in people and astounded at how things are, and how little importance society puts on it - particularly those people in society for whom this status quo is beneficial.

To be honest, I think this is an example of what I'm talking about. I can't help but feel that if an agreement of 50:50 was made consistently only for a dad to essentially run off without any consultation when it clearly wasn't in the best interests of the child, this would be seen as somehow awful. No-one would say to the mum, "yes, you don't see your child now, despite all the promises you made between you and all the commitment you've made, but at least you can work all the time now while your ex sees your child all the time."

Why does fundamental balance not come into your thinking at all? It seems to me that dads should simply have as much rights as the mum in all things, and that seeing one's child is not "minor stuff". Would it be minor stuff if it was you in my position? It seems to me that this idea of 'best for the child' is really not at all about best for the child. It is hidden behind and used an an excuse for inequality. She can do what she wants and it is somehow ok because she is the mum - right?

My ex has every right to 'rebuild' her life. I genuinely have no issue with that. Of course she can save for a deposit or whatever. I would still say, though, that in that time, why should she simply have no responsibility for the situation? Had we been married etc., she'd have been responsible for taking into accout the mortgage payments and lack of contribution I was left with. As it is, I was nearly a grand down a month with also having to pay her, without any effort to mitigate for that at all. I don't think she has an automatic right to do anything that is just about her at my child's expense, and you may disagree, but I think her simply deciding his relationship with his dad and brother is not important is genuinely not good for him. She has actively taken a choice to move to benefit her new partner rather than everyone else in her life, and has put him - when it's close enough so that he could've moved here - ahead of our son. Why should I, my older son, everyone else in his life, be put second to the convenience of her new partner? It isn't about our son, but about her. If she put him in primacy, she wouldn't be doing this. Yet for some reason this doesn't matter. It seems to me that she is alienating me in effect, and doing so on purpose. I already moved once to be near my older son when, once again, the mum decided her right to make things as convenient as possible for her outweighed any sense of convenience for me and thus our child. So my little one's mum knows full well I can't move again, and has moved in such a way that it is difficult.

This idea of a situation that works for both - the assumption seems to be that her seeing our child far more than me works for everyone. Tell me - how can people so easily dismiss inequality in the home where it is at the forefront of public life now? It is so simple to simply characterise a man who wants to be a dad properly and is denied this as selfish rather than the opposite. The best interests of the child? I believe that both parents being fully involved is what that looks like, rather than the acquiescence and subservience of one to the other all the time.I believe my sons should grow up in a world where equality is modelled. She knows very well I'm a good dad.

If not being at throats mattered to her, she could've made different choices very easily - yet you seem to be saying that I am the one who has to suffer all the negative consequences for whatever she chooses to do. Why should she be absolved of the lies and deceit that have taken place, or the rash choices she has made, or the selfish choices she has made, or the base entitelement she has acted with? It's about time that inequality wasn't conveniently ignored in the service of living up to 1950s myths, and the best intersts of the child is understood to include a dad rather than be used as an excuse to dismiss them. Children and dads should have as many rights to a full life together as mums, and to simply dismiss this as an inconvenience or awkward bitter revenge act of a dad seems to be the very root of the problem.

Here's the thing.

Rightly, generations of dads who didn't care mean that at last, there is an expectation that dads take full reponsibility. Yet when we do, we're told we are less important, that we are an optional extra that the mum has some nameless, inherent authority to be able to say "no thanks - I actually only meant financial responsibility, but you don't get to see them as much as me." The fact that we love our children and are emotionally engaged seems to be a matter of convenience only. And yet this talk is all dismissed based on, in my view, the unconscious bias that pervades to say we can simply dismiss equality and essential fairness when it suits us, and we can say it's all in the child's best inerest, even where evidence seems to go against that - because we, the mum, must by default represent that interest at the exclusion of all others.

I recognise parts of what you're saying, but to engage with them - I think a huge part of the problem here is that 50 50 is the preference of a lot of parents, but it actually quite rarely works well for the child. It means they're constantly unsettled, with no clear 'home'. Adults who spend half their week in one place and half in another rarely enjoy this way of living, but we put it on children who have no say or control.

I do also think it's relevant that you're talking about such a tiny baby - it would seem well under five months when you split up? Again, what's best for the baby here has to come above what either parent wants, and few people would say that spending half the week with one carer and half with another is ideal for a tiny baby.

I do think that it should weigh more heavily in your favour as the child gets older that you've reduced hours at work - because I think that this is often a large problem for men seeking equal custody. Many suddenly claim to be completely equal caregivers when they split up with their partners, but have done absolutely nothing to suggest this is the case when they're together. I agree that if you have arranged your life in a way to make primary care possible then that should very much be taken into account.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that neither of you have rights over the child - you have responsibilities. The child has rights, and, I'm afraid, it may be decided (though this should be by a court, not your ex) that your wants don't match with the child's rights. And your wants - even a really deep, profound need like seeing your child - don't and shouldn't win in that case.

How old are you and the mother? How old is the child? How long were you together? What sort of home were you providing for the mother and child.

I believe that the parent who has undertaken the majority of the care of the child up to the point of the split (especially where they have gone part time to facilitate this) is probably the parent who the DC would be most comfortable spending more time living with. Especially given that a separation (possibly with a house move) is a tricky and unsettling time for any child - their comfort and happiness must be preserved. The person who undertakes the majority of the care currently tends to be (but may not be) the mother. I also believe this is what the courts try and preserve although in the UK they go further and consider 50/50 in most situations (which, as Margaret said above, can be to the detriment of the child).

It seems that you haven't been to court but are just railing against what what sounds an incredibly tough situation (I do hugely feel for you - it does sound a total nightmare) with a very difficult person who is not putting your son's needs first. I'd focus on your situation rather than feeling it's a conspiracy against fathers - use the system, use what you can to try and change things. All situations are different and courts are having to try and work out what is in the best interests of the child which is incredibly hard.

I'd suggest going to mediation with a view to taking this to court. If she doesn't attend mediation, it'll look worse for her in court. Can you take on some supply teaching for 2 days of the week (not sure how easy this is to do!) for now to top up finances but show that you can drop those work days to care for your son if required. You could also suggest an arrangement where you have plenty of school holiday time with your son. I believe you can represent yourself in court to keep costs down. Keep evidence of everything including when her parents have your son as that could be useful. Also, see a solicitor and find out what they think about the situation.

How far away from you is she currently living?

As hard as it must be, try and focus on the long game - what can you do to bribe/compromise/lure her into a fairer arrangement? Think outside the box, try and make suggestions that could work for her as well as you. Above all be reasonable - my uncle (a psychiatric nurse!) says "surround them with a sea of reasonableness"! Stick close to and be nice to her family if possible, of course they'll take her side but it can't hurt to have reasonable relations. Also, enjoy and appreciate every second with your DS (I'm sure you already do but though it was worth mentioning) and don't let bitterness at the situation take away from the time you do get.

I say all this as someone who has bent over backwards, forwards and sideways and put my needs a very definite last when dealing with my DS's Dad and how much they see each other. As have many other mums I know (in fact, all of the single mums I know!). I'd love to move away (various personal reasons) but never would while DS's Dad lives nearby (we live less than a mile away) as i realise that would impact on their relationship and that would not be right for DS. Don't let your particular very tricky situation make you think it's a big conspiracy. Some people are dicks who don't put their kids first, sometimes that's men and sometimes women.

When a relationship ends it is because the interaction of two people didn't work. It may not have been the fault of one person or another. There are always two views of an argument. It simply wasn't a happy union and apportioning blame doesn't help your children.

Each party has to adjust to new circumstances, moving or downsizing their home to fit within a new budget etc. It's stressy but mums and dads do it every day.

You aren't being told you are less important or an optional extra, but that your dc at this early stage in his childhood needs a settled home with a primary carer. Indeed your ds will need you as a good role model very much.

In the end, the child's needs will always come before either parents' in the eyes of the law, so your interests are best served by working with the mother to be involved in best meeting his needs. Whether you go to court or come to an amicable agreement, this is equally true.

OP, access isn't the gun stuff. By your reckoning, in the fairness of parenting and acess, my ex should have equally put his job in jeopardy, taken months of unpaid leave and lost his job taking time off work for our disabled daughter. Seeing your kids regularly and actually having the legal & medical responsibility of parenting is totally different

Yes, @PickledOnionspaceraiders, second that. The hours of access don't mean so much, it's flexibility and communication that count. In the last 7 years my ds has gone down with swine flu & been in paediatric ICU on Christmas Eve, he's been bitten by my ex's dog, contracted an infection & needed emergency care. He's had gastric flu and vomited every 20 mins for 4 days. At the worst, my ex slept in my spare room and cleaned vomit because I'd been on my feet for 96 hours and couldn't function. Whose day it was is frankly irrelevant.

In the end, me & ex have a happy ds because we flex, because ds's needs come first, because if I am made redundant, he pays. If he is made redundant, I pay. No grumbles. No guarantee either will get the money back. Because I tolerate his new woman interfering in my son's life. Because he accepts that I decide on schooling and sport. We don't nitpick because the only thing that matters really is that DS is happy & secure. We separated as a couple but still work as a team for parenting.

What you need to realise op is that the bias works both ways. When it comes to maintanence, even the legal minimum doesn't place where near the responsibility on the nrp than it does on the rp. There's no allowance for the real cost, financially, emotionally, time etc involved in raising a child. And the nrp doesn't need to be particularly cunning to avoid paying anything at all. And we all know that it's usually the mother who is the rp. So in short a system that places all responsibility on the mother and fuck all on the father.

And the flip side of the coin is that the same applies to contact and residency.

That doesn't make it right, but it's male dominated decision makers who have caused the system. If fathers are going to ever be assumed to have equal rights when it comes to contact and custody, then the system will also have to assume they have equal duties in the case of those that don't do their share. And frankly I don't see that happening.

They can't even enforce the joke that is legal minimum maintanence. They certainly aren't going to enforce a system that makes Mr wanker pay for all the sacrifices his ex has had to make to raise a child with sporadic or even no contact.

The system as a whole is biased in favour of men. We have equality legislation but still women are paid less than men for the same job. Still there are more male managers in inherently female job roles (nursing, primary teaching, for example). Despite legislation around parental leave and parenting, business managers still think nothing of creating a cultural environment where men do not take time off when children are ill and there is no shame in a manager saying ‘can’t your wife do that?’. Even more so, I don’t see men challenging this norm and taking on a fair share of parenting, I am not sure I have ever k nown a couple where the man has dealt with birthday cards and presents, dental appointments, play dates, haircuts or feet measuring. Sure, dad will be happy to take child for a haircut but I have never seen dad take that initiative without mum pushing for behind.

Women have babies. Women breastfeed. Men cannot do either of these things. The suggestion that babies should be removed from their mothers to give dad equal parenting time is particularly abhorrent. And sod the rights of a child to be breast fed. My ex actually tried to argue in court he should have a newborn on a 50/50 basis and I could hook myself up to a breast pump and provide him with breastmilk if that was my preference. No consideration as to the baby’s best interests.

Men are expected to ‘have it all’. That they can work full time, and have a wife and children goes without saying. Women, however, are expected to juggle and sacrifice and fit it all in with the recognition that it isn’t easy. Nothing in societal expectation suggests it is men needing to juggle and make sacrifice.

Mumsnet is a forum full of women who exacerbate these norms. In recent years, the CMS has seen legislation that permits the non payment of maintenance where 50/50 residence is agreed. And despite the fact that men earn more, no corresponding legislation was made which secured the 50/50 in real cost terms. Like many women, I earn about a quarter of what my ex earns so on a week on, week off basis for residence, I still have to pay full time childcare and nothing can make my ex pay for school meals, haircuts, uniforms, trips, shoes etc. He uses the childcare I pay for. But there is no protection for me because the courts separate maintenance and residence and if it’s 50/50, the CMS can’t help either. I reality, I pay for everything other than 7 breafkfasts and 7 evening meals out of 14.

The current court system supports the status quo because whether you like it or not, children generally form a primary attachment with the person who is doing everything for them. Until we address the wider issues of equality in our society and men begin to use equality legislation to be equal parents and actually parent on an equal basis nothing will change. Making 50/50 in terms of where a child sleeps and the overall costs of parenting legal challenge-able and ultimately easily enforceable would make a huge difference, as would recognising discrepancies in salaries (you can’t have a fair parenting situation when one parent earns £150k and the other £25k and expecting them to pay 50/50 costs, for example).

When that’s sorted and men are willing to take half of their children’s sick days off and spend endless afternoon making small talk at soft play parties, I will happily support a fair residence situation. Whilst I accept men indivdially May have made sacrifices and may well be more than willing to play fair with money and residence, there is so much more broad,y that impacts on the ability of men to necessarily carry on through with that. A massive shift is needed.

Well, I am a mother who finds the British family court system to be a complete and utter shambles. IT is completely biased towards women and I find it quite embarrassing that a proportion of women will justify the system because it benefits them directly. These are the women that also complain society is not equal and women are massively disadvantaged (basically hypocrisy is ok asking as the women who are guilty of this benefit).

I could go on..

@Ivy3621, hmmmm, I think you might get some kickback on that one, from all the women who have been awarded £7 a month in maintenance to raise children, whose dads then move abroad and refuse to pay even that.