Do you think that men are oppressed?

[poshsinglemum]

For example; the traditional male role is to go out and work so technically men are oppressed by capitalism. Aren't they? Mabe not as oppressed as us girls are though. Thoughts please.

"Why do men need a campaign for more involvement in families. Surely they can negotiate that with the women they are partnered with."

Well, if we assume we live in some magical world where everyone always negotiates in good faith and everyone always works towards solutions that solely hold the child's best interests first then, yes, such negotiations can be guaranteed to work. Back in the real world, however, some people don't/can't do that and that's when it gets difficult.

As for the CSA, you'd have to ask FNF that. I think their stance is that as courts see finances as separate from contact, then as an organisation that is interested in contact issues they don't want to get bogged down in financial stuff. For what it's worth, though, I've never seen any hint from any FNF official statement or member that maintenance should be witheld for any reason.

"I didn't post the link for you, I posted it so everybody else here could be aware of FNF stances."
Gosh, that's a funny way of spelling "Actually, you're right, they don't say that"

LeninGrad, I think that's a fair point. I don't think FNF really considered lesbian parents when they decided on their name. But I do also think there are studies which suggest that where there is both a mother and father on the scene, then the children tend to have better outcomes if both are committed to and involved with their children.

FNF's message works in two directions. One is as a general campaign to the government, family courts etc that fathers should be considered - and, ideally, viewed as equal parents to the mothers - when families split up. But the other message is to the men involved. It's an encouragement to them that they can, and should, remain involved in their children's lives post-separation and to not just drift away and lose touch.

'I'm a man, and I did press for flexible working to accomodate family commitments and I got it. From that instant it became clear that my career had stopped dead. I wasn't going to get promoted any further. I was also the only one out of my team who got made redundant a year or so later.'

Exactly so men have to make the sacrific because not many women would do the full time work and the extra time instead. I know I wouldnt or any other women I know. I love my husband for it but one of you has to work full time and do the extra regardless of the job they are in. I am just thankful that men do that for women.

I accept less money for pay as I can go off when I want if my child is sick, have days off to go to anything I need to go to etc. Men cant get that and so for that I am happy to take less pay so I can do what I like and have flexibility etc.

1 in 4 women are victims of DV
1 in 6 men are victims of DV

How close do those numbers need to get to each other before you regard DV as an issue that affects both men and women?

Hey dittany, did we just "whataboutthewomen?"

I am trying to read that document. But I've got as far as where it's saying "expanding the definition of DV is an insult to victims of real DV" and my hackles have just miraculously risen. So nice when men's groups presume to explain to Women's Aid what is and isn't DV.

However I persist.

"Figures about DV against men often include women defending themselves against attacks."

Got some proof of that or is this another example of you talking through your hat?

That being said though Dittany I think your mildly repugnant but sadly common attitude towards male victims of DV is being aired in just the right thread. You don't think that DV really affects men, or if it does it's only in gay relationships and, anyway, even if they did get hit by a woman they must've hit her first. How sad.

You failed to answer my question - how many male victims of DV will you need to see before you accept that DV affects both men and women?

LeninGrad, speaking as a single parent I hope you're right

I have read that men are at a lot more risk in same sex relationships than in straight ones. A crucial factor seems to be whether you are facing down an angry man or an angry woman in the kitchen.

Exactly. You say that it's a "handful" of victims in "very rare cases" whereas the home office statistics (remember, 1 in 6 men are victims of Domestic Violence) prove you to be wrong. Even if every male homosexual beats up his partner (and of course they're not) there simply aren't enough gay men out there to get anywhere near to hit 1 in 6 of all men.

But yet you persist in hand-waving the hard evidence away and, instead, flaunt your prejudices by saying that it's a "handful" and women are the perpetrators only in "very rare cases". Why is that, Dittany?

Why is it misogyny to realise that there are a significant number of women out there hitting their boyfriends and husbands? I'm perfectly willing to accept that, yes and very sadly, there are more men out there hitting their girlfriends and wives but to try to pretend that woman-on-man DV is "very rare" is simply not supported by the facts.

And at the risk of highlighting your ignorance again there are groups out there who see DV as a crime that affects both men and women and that it should be treated as such. I gave some links to them earlier.

P.S. I note that, yet again, you have avoided my question - how many male victims of DV would you need to see before you believe it to be a crime that affects both men and women?

Care to answer the question Dittany or are you going to continue to ignore anything anyone asks you except for whatever trivia you think you can score points against?

And since when did I say I represented the FNF party line?

The British Crime Survey 2008/9 rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0809.html gives the following statistics on domestic violence:

female victims 77%
male victims 23%

Oh, right, so you answered the question of "how many male victims of DV would you need to see before you believe it to be a crime that affects both men and women?" where, exactly?

And you answer to the request for a quote where FNF advocates violent men having unsupervised contact with their children is where, exactly?

And your evidence that the Home Office has got its figures wrong and that, instead, only a "tiny minority" of DV is female on male is where, exactly?

Dittany, you don't half talk a lot of bollocks sometimes.

Given that you claim to be a feminist one would hope not.

Hang on a minute... ah, I get it. You're trying to imply that I'm a misogynist, aren't you? Just because I believe (based on personal experience and demonstrable facts) that some women are violent towards men then, of course, that must mean that I hate all women. Stands to reason.

Oh Dittany, you little minx, you.

And I note you rounded it off with a gorgeous little passive-aggressive smiley too! What a card you are.

Uh-huh. Of course. Saying that some women are violent towards men is exactly the same as saying that I hate all women. Obvious misogynism. Thank you, Dittany, for pointing out the error of my ways

Meanwhile, back in the real world, I'm happy I'm not a misogynist either. I don't hate anybody. It seems that there is at least one area in which you and I are similar.

On the other hand, I don't tend to make wild, sweeping and offensive generalisations and then avoid backing them up so I guess we're not that alike.