Geldof on marriage - Grrr!

[Sheila]

Anyone see this appallingly unbalanced programme last night? Bob's solution to the current breakdown in marriage is:

1)Women (who initiate 70% of divorces) should learn to put up with men's emotional illiteracy.
2)Divorce should be made more difficult.
3) Single parents should be made less well off (hah!)

Clearly Bob's still smarting from being thrown over for Michael Hutchence ("Taj Mahal of crotches" - that must've hurt).

As for Germaine Greer's contribution - how that woman can call herself a feminist any more is beyond me!

Sorry for the rant but I'm still fuming that someone with such ill-thought out views is given air time. I also worry that his views might influence policy-makers. As if reducing benefits to low income families (single parent or not) is going to decrease the divorce rate!

Well said Puddle. However, I do think that there are more opportunities these days for fathers to stay at home and nurture. Pay and opportunities for women have improved, and most couples can reverse roles in the home if they're both willing. Fact is however, many women who have grown up with very liberal mothers now exercise their 'choice' and still opt for the childcare role. I'm sure there is more 'nature' than 'nurture' in deciding who takes the main responsibility for child-rearing and that this is being reflected in court custody decisions. Maybe militant fathers should concentrate their efforts on negotiating greater rights for access rather than fighting bitter and potentially damaging custody battles, at a time when the kids really need security and time to adjust.

maybe I missed something - I thought BG's message was to allow 50/50 access AS A STARTING POINT and work from there - allowing for the many different and complex cases involved. For every shit father there is a loving and caring one that is truly hurting from lack of access to his kids.

I take the (probably) old fashioned view that women are far better equipped to take on the care of children and I'm not advocating there should be a sudden turnaround and all kids suddenly go and live with their dads. I'm just advocating reasonable access to loving fathers and clearly a lot feel they're not getting that.

Again I am with Joolstoo.... I must have missed something....

JoolsToo, the problem with 50/50 parenting is that you need 2 suitable homes with 2 co-operating parents. When parents split, quite often they split because they discover that their values and beliefs, which they'd thought were compatible before children came along, are not, after all.

You would then have the situation of children having 2 lifestyles with 2 different sets of rules and values being applied. (At one home, they are allowed to smoke, wear mini-skirts and make up and not do their homework, while at the other they have to go to bed at 8, have TV limited to an hour a day, only fresh organic food, etc.) While this might work OK for older children who are able to cope with mixed messages, I can't see it being anything but a complete disaster for younger children who need stability and consistency.

Sheila, explain what was so irresponsible about BG's message?

Why would anyone complain about a television programme on a fathers love for his kids? I can think alot more crap on TV that you could complain about.

And why does your personal situation with your XH have anything to do with the thousand's of fathers who actually do give a toss?

What does Bob Geldof's personal situation have to do with anyone else? I suspect Sheila's situation is considerably more representative than rockstar Geldof's.

Caligula - agree that it would be difficult but quite often in loving relationships parents disagree about whats right and wrong for their child - hours of tv - what they watch - what they eat etc but at the end of the day, most times both parents want whats best for their children and who's to say whats right and wrong? You can't say cos you're the mother you're ideas on parenting are better than your partners.

Children do need stability and consistency - they also need their mum AND dad (when they're loving parents).

from what i understand this prog wasn't about his love for his kids, it was about his musings on the current plight of separated/divorced families and how the system favours women (but definitely not in the division of assets, imo!)

BW - I think it is irrepsonsible of channel 4 to allow BG this airtime without presenting the alternative point of view. As others have said more eloquently than me, what BG claims as gospel is NOT reflected by the facts (see the article by Angela Philips in the Guardian today which quotes the statistics).

My concern is that because BG is such a big name he will influence policy makers to make life harder for women in my situation. And I don't know any single mothers (or, frankly, many mothers who are still married) who wouldn't like more help with parenting from dads.

In any case, as far as I'm aware BG DID get custody of his own and MH's children, so the courts can't be that far wrong, can they?

He didn't get them when he and PY split up though, did he, Sheila? Not until she died? Isn't that why he takes this stance?

He did get TigerLily after PY died but that was in competition with MH's family; TL was allowed to live with BG and her sisters rather than the grandparents/aunt she didn't really know.

JoolsToo, you can't say because you're the mother your ideas are better, but you can say they are the ones which should be followed if you are the one with primary responsibility for the child. If I'm doing 90% of the childcare, and I'm spending 90% of the money on raising the children, I sure as hell expect me to have 90% of say in how they're raised! If I'm the one who is going to be held accountable for whether they do homework or not, I resent someone telling my little darling that their homework doesn't matter! Similarly, if I'm the one who is going to be sent to prison if they play truant, I expect the parent who is not going to be held that accountable, not to tell them it's OK to play truant!

And if you have 50 50 responsibility, that's great if you have co-operative parents, but some people are simply more interested in getting one over on the other parent, than they are in the welfare of their children.

And in many cases, it's not the xp who is doing the parenting - it's his current girlfriend! (who will know your children for precisely 2 years of their lives, before he moves on to the next model, who will know your children for 18 months of their lives - why should these temporary people have any input at all, if they send out different messages to the responsible parents?)

Oops - wrong again -

BBC News Oct 98

OTOH:

May 1996 After divorce, Yates goes back to her matrimonial house in Chelsea, while Geldof moves into Hutchence's home nearby

Sept 1996 A childcarer finds opium at Yates's home. Yates is arrested but not charged

Oct 1996 Geldof wins custody of the children, but later agrees to share the responsibility

June 1998 Yates loses custody of Fifi, Peaches and Pixie.

Complicated...

The underlying message I have recieved from watching both programmes is that we as a society have devalued the true sense of the word "family" and forget how important that is to our children.

I hope he does influence policy changes to make things easier for fathers to be with thier children. Why on earth would anyone worry about that?

I thought most of what he said made sense TBH we have devalued the home and family and the ease of divorce is quite shocking at times.

BW, the reason many lone mothers would be worried about the courts giving fathers more rights, is because they are rights without responsibilities.

Fathers presently have the right to dump their children, then two years later swan into their lives with full contact rights, then get bored one year later, disappear for another two years, then come back two years later, leaving confused, hurt, emotionally devastated children.

They also have the right to let down their children. Believe me, to watch your child?s little face as it gets to 4 o?clock when Daddy should have been there at 10, is heartbreaking. To see that happening every fortnight, and to have to pick up the pieces afterwards, is a job no-one should have to do. Which is why some mothers decide they are not going to allow their children to be emotionally abused in this way anymore - and as soon as they do, the men involved start complaining about being denied contact. I don?t want fathers like that to be given any more rights than they have already.

"My concern is that because BG is such a big name he will influence policy makers to make life harder for women in my situation. And I don't know any single mothers (or, frankly, many mothers who are still married) who wouldn't like more help with parenting from dads."

The current policy makes this difficult already, why not change this? Most divorced fathers apply for access rather than joint custody because they know the stand no chance of ever getting it. As you say, single mothers could use all the help they can get, so why not get that help from the child's own father?

I never knew it is legally advised for Dad's to not mention or state
that they "love" their children when pursuing through the courts. What? Could that really be true?
Unbelievable.
Sickening.

Whilst I think there were some valid messages in the progrmme, it was the confrontational approach that annoyed me. 'State-sactioned kidnap' was a disgraceful way to describe granting residency to mothers. The frequent use of the term 'child abuse' I felt was too strong and belittled the real victims of child abuse.

The Mp Mrs Hodge actually spoke quite sensibly in that it is predominantly mothers who are the prime carers.

Caligula, I take your point, though policy should be looked at on a case by case basis.

Some fathers don't deserve the priveledge or the right to the see their child.

but batwoman, isn't it about whether the children should have access, not whether either parent deserves it? (obviously it's a given that they behave themselves, but i realise this doesn't always happen)

I didn't think this programme was outrageous in the least. I think our legal system is outrageous in the way it treats fathers when relationships break down. I have worked within this system and did solely contact and residence cases for 2 very long years. As unpalatable as it might be for some people to believe, there are some women out there (and more than you would think) who completely use the situation to their advantage. There are women who deny access for reasons solely to do with their own welfare and not the kids. I felt completely sickened by some womens behaviour. Men too can behave terribly when relationships break down as some of the postings on this thread have illustrated. But so can women. That is why in my opinion it is quite wrong to presume the kids will always stay with the mother. I can't see why its so wrong to try and work out a more equal and balanced format. To be honest, we are all completely outraged when a child is abducted from its mother and taken to live abroad with its father. We see the women on GMTV crying and saying how much they miss them but are denied access. To a father who wants very much to see his children, but is told by a court that he can only do it for one sunday every other week, it must feel very much like his child has been abducted.

Caligula - women also can have many lovers and the children end up with Uncle Tom, Dick and Harry in fleeting relationships - things work both ways. (obviously this isn't your experience but it does happen). leglebegle says it very well in her post.

My husband's ex wanted his contact cut down to one weekend a MONTH. He is a fantastic father, his daughter adores him and they are very, very close. He phones every day. His ex, who left him for another man, hates him and wanted her new family to be her daughter's only family - she even told the court that it was more important for her daughter to go riding than to see her father. She doesn't even LIKE riding. I get very shocked by men who don't want to see their kids, but really, yes, there are some wonderful fathers out there who have to fight and fight and pay thousands of pounds just to see their children. My husband has been in tears quite often over the whole situation. Fortunately it seems better now, but it has been hell. He still misses her all the time though.

oh aloha, that makes me think of a little girl i saw this morning at nursery, whose parents are separated and it was daddy's turn to drop her off, there were tears (as there are with mum too) and it made me feel v sad although i know she needs them both (i think they agreed 60:40 residency), there are no winners in these situations

That's very true JT, but generally the fleeting men in women's lives aren't taking responsibility for parenting their partner's children, whereas fleeting women are often dumped with that responsibility.

I think leglebegle does say it well, and I would be in favour of more contact for fathers, but I would also like to see more mediation and agreement about fathers actually exercising their contact rights and agreeing a discipline structure. I think it's so important that parents agree to back each other up and don't continue to fight the battles they had throughout their marriage via their children. And I do think that if fathers regularly let down their children for no good reason (and believe me, many of them do) then they should be made to report to the court as to why that is happening.

It is a child's right to see their father, but more often than not, it is the father himself who denies the child that right, not the mother. And if the erratic exercise of that right is damaging a child's emotional well-being, then I can't see that it's a very useful right, tbh.

Bundle, I think we are very lucky. She's a wonderful, wonderful girl and we do get to spend time with her every other weekend and she always comes on holiday with us. But there have been lots of tears along the way. I remember one hideous harrowing time when she was so desperate not to leave her dad that she cried so much she had a nosebleed and then had to be literally physically carried/dragged to her mum's. Dh was in tears and so upset that I had to drive home...and he hates me driving him (!). Her mum then told her off for crying! Makes me shudder to remember it. Thankfully those days are over, though she still has to phone him secretly if she is sad and missing him as her mum hates that. I hoped it would be better than this. His ex has got no reason to resent me or dh, but she seems to.