Feminism chat thread

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Hello

Been saying for ages that it'd be nice to have an area for just saying hi, letting off some steam and sharing the little things that don't warrant a whole thread.

So, I'll start...

My brother made me :o:o:o last night when we were talking about some crap sexist song. And he said (in all honesty) - well this is just one of the millions of ways the patriarchy keeps itself going.

Also got the updated email from the Feminism in London conference this morning - can't wait.

Anyone else?

ooh yes I have a friend in Edinburgh whom I keep threatening to visit

Oh god does this mean we all have to watch it and shout at the TV?

Proles - thanks!

And I did think 'Silk' was good, actually. Althought I didn't understand the comment about how many male QCs there were, vs. female -w hat was the point he was making?

SGM, I began a thread on that. About how women are forced to allow their children to see their abuser once they've left him but at the same time, when they're livign with the abuser the authorities have no way of removing the abuser from the home.

What they can do however, and this is the sick part, is threaten the mother with removal of her children for allowing the father to abuse them

WTF WTF WTF

Lots of social workers came on the thread sneering at me and saying it was because SS don't have the power or authority to remove the father, only to remove the children..

Which makes it okay, apparently.

BUt I said to them, if The Authorities have enough evidence to remove the children, then they surely have enough evidence to remove the father.

Apparently not.

If the mother finally manages to leave the family home with her kids (and remember the father, the abuser, is under no obligation to leave, and also remember that abusers often kill their spouse once they realise she's leaving) then she will obligated to allow him to see them.

The RAGE

Sakura I was with you on that thread.

SaF the gist was this

A man is abusing his family
What should be done?
Ideally the man should be removed from the family
Maybe the woman and children could be removed and rehomed?

What is done at the moment?
The children are removed.

Why?
The authorities accept that there is evidence of abuse this enables the children to be removed. The authorities even though they accept there is abuse cannot remove the man

This seems to indicate that men have more rights than women and children. The authorities have had it proved to their satisfaction that there is abuse - that is why they are takng the children. If they have it proved to their satisfaction that there is abuse, why can't they get the man out?

I thought it seemed arse about face and set up all wrong. In a better society we would have a better way of handling this.

Unfortunately many people on the thread could not even conceive of a different way of doing things, which I find strange.

Sakura and I were talking about in an ideal world, surely the man could be removed, if there is enough evidence of abuse to remove the children (an extraordinarily drastic action) then why not the man ie the person who has actually done something wrong.

No-one agreed

But your analysis misses out the fact that the state could take the man out of the equation, SAF.

They could simply get an injunction on him and tell himm that if he comes near the hosue, the woman or the chidlren, he will go to prison.

You shouldn't need the woman to press charges. If there is enough evidence to take away the children without her pressing charges, then there is enough evidence to take an injuction out on the man.

You're not attacking his civil rights any more than taking away his children, in fact this is a far less harsh pyunishment than taking away his children, so why can't the state do that instead?

Because men have more rights than women and children.

SaF I'm not painting anyone as anything. I'm just saying, that in a situation where a man is breaking the law, it's the children who have their lives turned upside-down further by being taken from both their parents and their family home, possibly the school etc etc.

While if the man were removed the family could carry on as usual, the children would not lose their home and mother on top of everything that's already happened.

I dont understand why people say that they cannot conceive of a possible situation ever where that would be possible. It seems that people are terribly entrenched in how things work now. In an ideal world, would we punish the children for the sins of teh father? No of course not. We would try and keep everything as stable for them as poss.

SaF you seem to be talking about specific cases. You talk about children being removed where the father is abusing them - but in many situations the children are not being directly abused. You talk about it happening for years, and interventions, as if you have a sepcific scenario in your head. I'm talking about a general point. Obviously it's an awful situation when a father is violent but I can't agree that in all cases the mother is automatically an awful parent who needs to have her children permanently removed, while nothing is done about the man who has caused it all.

There is a resonsibility on the victim to take all of this action - where is the responsibility on the man not to abuse his family?

SaF again you are talking about specific situations.

At the moment the law says that the evidence required to remove children is less than the evidence required to remove the person who is doing the abuse. That seems wrong to me, and indicates that children have less rights than adults.

So my husband comes home and punches me in the face. The law then allows my children to be permanently removed. However it does not deem itself able to do anything about the man. It does not deem itself able to remove him from the home - the person who has done the punching - or indeed to prosecute him. It just thinks it has enough evidence to take my children away.

That seems illogical to me.