Can we DO something about the awful system in this country WRT courts and access to children after divorce?

[BertieBotts]

I've heard one too many awful story now. Why the hell are we letting children down, forcing access with abusive ex partners, even when the children don't want it, making it difficult to gain supervised contact when supervised has already been given, forcing the resident parent (mainly mothers) to make their children available for contact, getting their hopes up and doing NOTHING when the NRP breaks that same contact order by not turning up for weeks on end, causing considerable distress to the children involved. NRPs being allowed to refuse to bring children home if they are repeatedly showing prolonged distress at being away from their main carer. It being extremely difficult to reduce contact or restart it off slowly, regardless of the age of the child, even if the parent has good reason to want to do this.

I understand there are bitter ex-partners who will try to deny their ex access to the children because of personal differences or spats, but seriously? Are there that many that we need a court system which immediately assumes all resident parents are conniving and bitter and all NRPs are loving and involved? Or is this just another fucking media frenzy like how common so-called "false rape accusations" are?

Snorbs...I would like to see further research.

Me too.

If I hear a resounding 'we don't want men posting in the feminism section' I'll stop posting.

FFS men have created a billion spaces for them to talk and air their views. Every single newspaper I open is all about men's views of the world. Every single news channel. Men's views. Ditto every single history book (except the ones written by and for women, the ones that men never read). Excluding women is a traditional male pastime. THe greek symposium. parliaments and religions around the world.... I could go on all day.

Everywhere I look it's just men men men blathering on about themselves an what they think and always, always missing the point, when they fail to take 53% of the world's population into account as they pontificate their "thoughts"

So yes, if men want to post on the feminist topic I don't think it's too much to ask if, for once, they stop going on about their problems, and how oppressed they are, when all hard evidence points to the fact men are the oppressors worldwide, that men cause wars and famines, and that women bear the brunt of all the violence.

Honestly

I don't think it's too much to ask for a man posting on the feminist topic not to take things personally, either. Men as a group =/= every single man who has ever existed.

Difficult to comment, unlike with the 'isn't it awful when men get accused of rape when they never done it' line, because I don't know what the figures are on this.

But, despite considering myself a feminist, I do think men can get as shit a deal on this as women. Is that wrong?

It might be worth, by the way, if you haven't come across the notion of examining your privilege, to read some stuff around this area if you are genuinely interested in having a discussion without being shouted down for (what you feel are) minor transgressions or genuine opinions or whatever. I was going to search for an article to link but then decided if you want to look it up, you will, and I have no idea which article might speak to you personally better than another.

(As an aside, "examine your poop" came up as a suggestion while searching for this )

Is that post to me?

I recently studied Literature and Gender as part of a degree course, so I'm reasonably well read, A Doll's House, Margaret Atwood, Louisa May Alcott, Charlotte Perkins Gilman amongst others.

That's why I was interested in posting in the feminism section, and as I'm a single parent, I was also interested to see if I have stereotypical views.

But sometimes this section can be too much for me.

I'm trying to see how I'm more priviliged than my ex, and as I have the children more it's difficult to define. I think the main-carer is the one who is disadvantaged in the UK.

Truck I wouldn't disagree with that. All the research I've come across shows that many of the male LPs out there experience very similar problems to female LPs.

I think being a male LP is a perfect demonstration of how being the primary carer significantly disadvantages people. It becomes a feminist issue because the vast majority of primary carers/LPs are female. But any solutions that work on improving the lot of mothers will also improve the situation for males too.

As a feminist I would argue that a male LP generally has a slightly easier time of it than a female one. Male LPs are generally lauded for their role whereas female ones are often scapegoated. This may not translate as making the role any easier in terms of practicality of course, but the effect of social status should not be underestimated. Also, as a man the effect of DC on your (generic your) ability to work is not even likely to be asked about, let alone affect your likelihood of getting a job, should you attempt to get a job. Ultimately, like most things in life, any one individual's life cannot be assumed to be easier or harder than another's, but in terms of overall trends I'd say male LPs have it easier than female ones but have it much harder than men who are not primary carers.

So we're both right.

for someone who appears to not care about domestic violence and child abuse you are awfully touchy about being sworn at on an internet forum.

Belittlement now ;) I'm actually quite thick skinned and you are jumping to conclusions if you think I don't care about DV or child abuse.

All I'm saying is that objective judicial decision can be very different from the subjectivity litigants expect. Whatever the parent's gender impartial independent evidence of DV (or neglect) and that a child is suffering significant harm or is at risk of harm is required to prove contact (or residence) isn't in the best interests of the child. You may not agree but that is the law set down by elected Parliament.

I can't take the opinions of anyone who supports the male rights movement seriously.

To avoid any doubt I don't support the men's rights movement.

The women's liberation have never preached hate

Err? what about those who declared war on men, advocated giving up or even murdering male children, ran bombing/arson campaigns, preached that all men are rapists and violent ?

If your criticisms are based on feminism in the 70s you need to refresh your knowledge.

I think we need to distinguish between feminists who believe in equality and those who don?t, who hate men and boys, carry on about the patriarchal hegemony and want an end to marriage and the nuclear family. Whether its the 70s or 2011 polarising rhetoric that invites backlash undermines the gains of the women's movement.

If I hear a resounding 'we don't want men posting in the feminism section' I'll stop posting.

Please don't stop posting, there needs to be balance. Segregation is a form of discrimination.

STIDW, to be fair, considering it's pretty painful to see you wielding around your unchecked male privilege on one of the few spaces on the planet where women are genuinely able to express their views (as opposed to parroting the views of their male employers).
Therefore I suggest it is not your place to decide whether or not men should stop posting on a female-only space.

Why don'T you go and pontificate at Misogyny is free at the guardian, or anywhere else in the goddam world where the male point of view, is considered to be THE point of view that matters.

Why do you have to bring it here?

Your misogyny sticks out like a sore thumb.

I credit Truck and the other one with trying .
Truck, i've read literature written by black people. DOesn't mean I know the first thing about what it's like to live their oppression. And I would never, as you are doing, tell them that they are oppressing white men, coz I once saw a black man be mean to a white guy. I wouldn't go onto a forum where black people where discussing their marginalization and expect my views to be taken seriously. It's important to ask yourself why you do think women should take your opinions seriously, when your opinions are the ones that are rammed down our throats by the media and the history books i.e that there is no "women problem" or if there is, it has been exaggerated and oppression no longer exists/

STIDW, I would also suggest (if you still insist on hanging around here, as I7m sure you will, lucky us ) that you quote the person's name next to each particular bolded sentence. Because I for one have no idea who has said those quotes you've highlighted

Truck,
Where to start when answering your questions?

Mothers have traditionally been, and continue to be vilified, blamed and mocked in the media for all society's ills. THe bar is set so high for women that the only "good" mother is the one who dies in childbirth. Both SAHMS and WOHMs are accused of being not good enough, and in fact are not, in the eyes of society.

Not so for dads. SAHDs are heroes. So are "Breadwinning men". Women are forced to allow the most abusive of men have access to their children upon divorce, but buT doesn't take much for a woman to be labelled a BAd Mother , and have her kids taken off her. In some cases it can be something as small as an untidy house. Because in the eyes of society women who are dirty are dirt . They are slovens. Again, not so for men. The term "sloven" is gender specific and only applies to women.

What is more galling for me is that if the status of child-rearing is improved anytime soon it will be precisely because it is increasingly being done by men. Whatever work women do is trivialized and exploited. Whenever a large amount of women enter a profession the prestige of that profession drops, and vice versa: women are only allowed to enter professions if the prestige has already gone from it (teaching, clerical work, medicine are good examples).

The ultimate feminist dystopia, is women going out to work in the office for peanuts while the men enjoy the prestige of staying at home and caring for the children the women carried and birthed. There is something very wrong with this picture. Patriarchy has created a situation whereby it is emotionally and financially impossible for women to enjoy taking care of their own babies.

but although the aforementioned scenario us the ultimate feminist dystopia, the ultimate hell for women is the situation men shunted them into until recently whereby they were emotionally and financially dependant on one man.

There are plenty of ways to structure society so that women can spent plenty of time with their children ( the ones they risked their life to bring into the world) and not have to be dependant on a man.

The most misogynist element of this conversation is the men on here who are minimilizing and trivializing of the risks and physical toll of pregnancy and childbirth

sakura wrote;

STIDW, to be fair, considering it's pretty painful to see you wielding around your unchecked male privilege on one of the few spaces on the planet where women are genuinely able to express their views (as opposed to parroting the views of their male employers). 
Therefore I suggest it is not your place to decide whether or not men should stop posting on a female-only space.

Why don'T you go and pontificate at Misogyny is free at the guardian, or anywhere else in the goddam world where the male point of view, is considered to be THE point of view that matters.

Why do you have to bring it here?

Your misogyny sticks out like a sore thumb.

I credit Truck and the other one with trying .

Oh dear, more put downs. As I said earlier I am not male so I don't need to try. Neither am I misogynistic. In any case as far as I'm aware MN is "The country's most popular meeting point for parents" so it isn't a female space only and as long as people remain respectful of one another and differing opinions it isn't any posters place to regulate who should or shouldn't post.

Just because someone is opposed to some forms of feminism doesn't make them misogynistic. For example, the author Doris Lessing of the ground breaking book about women?s dissatisfaction with gender roles said she was "increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly noticed. " The terms "misogyny" and "anti-feminist" can be used to control and silence debate. As far as The Guardian is concerned it seems to be reviled by extreme feminists and MRAs alike so perhaps the paper is actually getting something right.

Sakura "Everywhere I look it's just men men men blathering on about themselves an what they think and always, always missing the point, when they fail to take 53% of th*e world's population into account as they pontificate their "thoughts""

Are you saying that those men who fail to take 53% of the world's population into account always miss the point? That might be pretty clear cut... If you're saying that (all) men fail to take women into account or (all) men always miss the point then this might be a little OTT.... even more OTT than " the only "good" mother is the one who dies in childbirth".

STIDW Lol at the MRA, Doris Lessing.

STIDW, if you're not male then I truly feel sorry for you. How on earth a woman could internalize the amount of misogyny you have managed to is beyond me. Your snidey little "oh dear" for example. When I see that, the first thing that comes to mind is, "this is either a man/trans woman or a woman who doesn't like women, (and therefore herself), very much at all.

jenny I was talking in particular about culture and society: books, academia, newspapers, articles, documentaries... 90% of the media we come accross is owned, headed and run by men, with the mandatory female go-fers and tokens parroting their bosses' opinions so that they keep their jobs and therefore a roof over their heads.

Pick up any book written by a man on any subject (I've been interested in the economic crash, myself) and you'll find it to be so male-centric, so male-oriented, so marginalizing of female reality, so dismissive of half the world, that you wonder if the author has any empathy at all or whether he actually opens his eyes when he walks out of his front door.
FOr example, The Spirit Level, was touted as a book about social equality, so I bought it out of interest. It didn't mention the oppression of women, once. THe author simply didn'T think women were relevant to the discussion. He completely forgot that the only reason powerful men exist at all is because of women, and that the men get powerful off the backs of the oppression and unpaid labour (including childbirth), of women (including all the extra unpaid emotional wifework women do).
He simply didn't factor women into the equation in all his analyses. ANd he seriously missed the point over and over again because of it. What did he have in his book about social equality instead? An entire chapter on fat women . I shit you not. He went into lengthy, smug detail about how being low down on the economic rung makes women, in particular, fatter. And he managed to sneak in a pic of a naked young woman somewhere around page 333, therefore contributing to the objectification of the subordinate class.
In a book with the word "equality" in the title.

These men are a joke.

Now, there are a few out there. A few men who are trying to get it. Daniel Dorling, who wrote INjustice--now that is a man I can admire for his work. Dostoyevski was also able to empathize with those human beings known as women. Can't think of many more, thought. Not really.

Sakura You have unintentionally shamed me - The Spirit Level is sat on my bookshelf; I read the first chapter when I first got it and it's now languishing on top of another unread book... Someone really should invent an osmosis machine for books. Anyway...

You do know it's co-authored by Kate Pickett, right?

I also thought it was a macroeconomics book regarding the law of diminishing returns of happiness on economic growth... I'm surprised that social justice doesn't feature in the argument or that women's rights isn't included if it is, though. It does seem a bit short-sighted, I'd agree.

"Pick up any book written by a man on any subject (I've been interested in the economic crash, myself) and you'll find it to be so male-centric....etc" This seems very harsh indeed. No, I don't think 'I would find', but agree that you might

Prolesworth, I'm re-reading INjustice right now, and having moved on a bit in my feminist journey, I am noticing a few more flaws than I did before. He bemoans the breakdown of the family on one page, albeit briefly. ANd this, of course, is a little at odds with the radfem analysis that marriage supports men and destroys women.
BUt his book is, by far, the best written by a man. And he does address women's issues many times throughout the book. For example, although he says we would all be better off restructuring society and living in smaller communities, he suggests that this would make it easier to subordinate women.
Great bloke, basically.