Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Telly addicts

Related: Film discussion forum.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Original poster

Geldof on marriage - Grrr!

174 replies

Sheila · 12/10/2004 12:51

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!

OP posts:

edam · 15/10/2004 11:10

Well said Twinkie.

Leglebegle I think it really is inflaming the situation to compare children who have been abucted and taken overseas to children who have contact with their fathers although less than the father would like. And very hurtful for any parent who has been involved in a situation like this. I'm worried that someone working within the family courts can have such a lack of perspective, to be honest. Fathers who have contact but less than they would like still know where their child is, where they go to school, whether they are safe, ill or unhappy. They still get to see their children. I think it's outrageous to compare the two and typical of the fathers' rights brigade.

The generally agreed line these days seems to be that mothers are no more important than fathers. Rubbish. Women go through pregnancy and birth and have a direct physical relationship with their baby. Women still do 90 per cent of the childcare and domestic work - look at any research you like. Of course individual families differ and every decision on residence and contact has to be made based on the circumstances of that family. But the context is that it is women who give birth and it is women who still have the prime responsibility for childcare. The fathers' rights brigade are engaged in a wholesale attack on mothers and women's role in society. I can sympathise with individual men and families who have a hard time. But I think the big picture is a frightening one.

JoolsToo · 15/10/2004 11:14

I'd LOVE to get stuck into this again BUT I MUST go and do the ironing!

edam · 15/10/2004 11:19

I really don't think you can carve children down the middle as the 50/50 proposal suggests. My parents divorced and I would have HATED shuttling between two homes and not knowing where I actually lived. I would have liked to have seen more of my father but he had better things to do with his time. Although we are very close now; he's become a much better dad since we grew up, oddly.
In a way that's a positive message to dads who don't see their children every week - my dad has a really good relationship with us despite only bothering to see us once a month.
50/50 is more about the parent's needs than the children's, IMO.

leglebegle · 21/10/2004 22:34

EDAM can't believe I missed the personal attack on me. I'm entitled to my opinion which isn't the same as yours obviously. Sorry you are man hater. I'm not! And I don't work in the family courts, so you can sleep at night.

edam · 21/10/2004 23:11

Not a personal attack at all, just explaining that I disagree with you vehemently in comparing fathers who don't get the contact they would like with the parents of abducted children.
Can't be bothered to respond to man hater rubbish

Caligula · 21/10/2004 23:38

Edam hear hear.

As usual, you're right about practically everything.

Not trying to get the OBN, just slightly pissed and inarticulate tonight.

edam · 22/10/2004 11:19

Hi Caligula, sorry missed your message until now. Wow! Thanks very much (assuming you aren't taking the michael?? which would be fine, anyway!).

WideWebWitch · 22/10/2004 11:33

Edam, great posts, agree with you, although I didn't see the prog. Someone needs to make a programme to answer this one, based on facts rather than the ill informed rantings of an ageing rock star I think. But I doubt it'll happen.

jamiesmom · 22/10/2004 16:57

edam i have shared custody with my ex husband where the kids are at both houses 50/50 of the time, it was there sugestion not ours and i was not happy about it at first but i felt and still do that the kids were suffering enough because mom and dad could not live together, as it happens it has worked out really well, the kids no who's house they are at on which nights and if asked for an address for official reasons they give mine. They have not been carved down the middle or being shuttled from one house to the next. 50/50 is certainly not more about the parents needs than the childrens as my children did not want to have to be made to choose between mom and dad

themoneyshot · 28/10/2004 10:21

The children of parents who divorce should be removed and placed in a two parent stable environment. After all, if two adults are unable to cope with dealing with their own emotions in a rational, educated manner, then how are they supposed to deal with those of their traumatised children?

Twiglett · 28/10/2004 10:25

Oh no dear troll .. oh no

if you want to spark an argument or flaming .. you really have to be a little bit more clever than that

JoolsToo · 28/10/2004 10:33

can we leave Bob in peace please?

Batters · 28/10/2004 10:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

marthamoo · 28/10/2004 10:58

Why stop at parents who divorce - children should be removed from parents who argue or even look crossly at each other once in a while. I'm all for it.

bundle · 28/10/2004 10:59

what about getting a licence (a bit like the dog licences we used to have)

Caligula · 28/10/2004 11:08

Yes Marthamoo, and as we all know, there are thousands of couples up and down the country, who are just waiting to have traumatised children "placed" with them. And then when they get divorced, those children can be re-placed with someone else!

In fact, I think husbands and wives should be taken away and placed with other people as well. And teachers and bosses.

Oops, I'm beginnning to sound like PolPot!

marthamoo · 28/10/2004 11:09

Why don't we just have a big, random re-shuffle of everyone in the country - see if we all get on any better then?

Caligula · 28/10/2004 11:14

I think Stalin tried that, didn't he? Worked well, according to his PR agent!

marthamoo · 28/10/2004 11:16

Hey I have Stalinist tendencies and I never even knew

moomina · 28/10/2004 11:58

Can I go and live with themoneyshot, then? I think he/she/it sounds just super...

Must try harder, tms.

themoneyshot · 28/10/2004 12:29

I agree. Enough of this subject. Who thinks that children's television perpetuates negative social stereotyping...that is, mum stays at home whilst dad goes to work, as a starting point?

Blackduck · 28/10/2004 12:32

as Twiglett said - you'll have to try harder than that tms.......!

edam · 28/10/2004 12:45

Jamiesmam, sorry, didn't see your message earlier. I was talking about Geldoff's proposal to force an assumption of 50/50 on every divorcing couple unless they could persuade a judge different. Obviously if a family want 50/50 and it works for them, that's great!

Batters · 28/10/2004 13:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7