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?

jenny how relevant is it that the Spirit Level was co-authored by Kate Pickett.
Caitlin Moran, for example, has a book out recently and it is full of male-identified, male-pleasing tosh.
Men are women's bosses, and sometimes women have to make the non-choice of choosing to pay their rent and aligning with male views, or telling the truth for free, as i do. Professional women who speak the truth lose their jobs for it

no he's definitely worth a read.
The SPirit Level was crap. I'm surprised Jenny thinks the only reason I see a problem in it is because I see problems in everything (see the snarky sentence aimed at me in her last post) when really, it's just so utterly crap isn't it.

yes, absurd is the right answer. It's like he's gone out of his way to ignore the fact that female oppression is inextricably linked to the economic crisis. It's the elephant in the living room.He even accidentally on purpose forgets to mention that the only bank that was not affected in Iceland was the one run entirely by feminist women. ANd if he didn'T know about that, then he's not very good at his job is he, as a researcher, I mean.
It was basically a what-about-teh-menz diatrabe. Embarassing, really. Don'T think anyone will be reading it in 2 years time.

What was snarky and unreasonable about suggesting that we would have different impressions of books? It seems perfectly clear that we might. Anyway... it's relevant that the book is co-authored by Kate Pickett because you used The Spirit Level as an example of your point. Based on what you said I agreed that the book was lacking. I bloody agreed ffs! You have since, however, talked about how 'he' did this and 'he' did that, excluding Pickett from the criticism. I wondered why you did that.

FWIW I also agree that the economic model would have been significantly improved if we had more women in relevant positions throughout the business world. I'd liked to have talked about Enron and Lehman Bros (Dick Fuld at least) with you since you expressed an interest in the crisis, but it does seem you have made up your mind to shout me down at every available opportunity - see above.

sakura...You constantly underestimate women being masters of themselves and I think this is to the detriment of your own critical thinking. Some women do control how they think and how they work. I do find the idea that all women are subject to a man's view or they have no job rather silly. If that is the case then surely men are as much 'victim' of patriarchal thinking as women. Afterall what choice does a man have to fit in or not if a woman doesn't? My husband has no more room to be outside looking in than I do, he wasn't born into the elite.

Whilst a woman fares (sp.context) a lot worse in our capitalist patriarchy she is no less master of herself than most men.

posie, this is not about what I think. women could think they were masters of the universe, that they had equal power to men, and it wouldn't make a jot of difference to the actual figures, and women's actual status, as recorded by sociologists, political scientists, economists and psychologists.
Take any example you like. Depression rates are much higher among married women than single women. It doesn't matter if one married woman feels on top of the world (it could be denial and cognitive dissonance after all), you have to look at patterns and stats. take any other stats you like: violence against women, property ownership, the wage gap, political power...

That's what radfems do. We use logic and data to analyze. If a woman feels powerful, despite her actual subordinate status as defined by the evidence we have, then she can only be described as suffering from delusions of grandeur!!

And, apologies for wording, what about men do they actually have choice? Are they not victims also? Is it a man's fault for the way a woman is viewed anymore than a woman's? Generalising is fine, but to think that generalisation applies to every woman is madness.

What subordinate status? Every woman is subordinate?

?

Prolesworth? because I think in choosing to post a rather than provide a civil response to my post (2012 yesterday) says rather a lot and it made me laugh.

Why did Sakura exclude the female author? It seems reasonable to me to wonder why.

POsie, I think that some relationships overcome the power difference. I suppose that's what is known as love And believe it or not I do believe in it. I've fallen in love, with men, and they with me. But every single man benefits from his caste=male.
I do think it's men's fault they benefit from male privilege. They're the ones who invented it. One of the biggest hurdles for an awakening feminist to overcome (believe me, it was difficult for me) is to name the agent
Naming the agent means we can't simply say women are oppressed,. or women are raped, or women are exploited, or women are objectified in the media... at some point we have to say by whom and if you dig deep enough you find the answer is... men
Not your man, personally, no, but each man contributes to male privilege unless they're actively working against it.

Men get promoted just for being male. Men get book deals, for being male. They get slots on TV, for the same reason. I read an article recently on how Amnesty INternational wanted to create a programme about human rights and it chose 11 white men, and no women to host it.
Can you imagine?
And not one of those men thought something was a bit fishy, or privileged about the situation at all.

All men are responsible for rape. Nice.

Actually I'm glad you've decide not to answer my questions Sakura. I just don't think I can deal with your completely myopic and theoretical interpretations of real life and real people. Once someone has reached the outer-stages of obsession with a subject there is no hope at all of conducting a rational dialogue. You are every bit as sexist (albeit not as historically entitled) as the people you rage against and, ironically, you damage the very cause you hope to promote every bit as much as they do.

Damn, you made me lose my temper again.

"we can't simply say women are oppressed,. or women are raped, or women are exploited, or women are objectified in the media... at some point we have to say by whom and if you dig deep enough you find the answer is... men"

"Not your man, personally, no, but each man contributes to male privilege unless they're actively working against it."

Ergo, each man is responsible unless he actively works against it. Men are thereby hanged for doing nothing. Are we reading the same post?

Proles. I do think Sakura has a point but it's too much tbh. I have no understanding of implying that women have an assumed subordinate position beyond their control but men have control over their position, we know that isn't true.

no they don'T have individual control over the fact they were born as members of the privileged class, but they are privileged by the fact they are, and many men, such Nick Clegg, are keen on creating laws and policies that specifically damage and attack women.
Another example I can think of is the way that women are far more likely to get a custodial sentence for a first offence than men.** THis is one of the benefit's men received for being a member of the upper "caste", who designed the system for their own benefit at the expense of women. Each Individual Man might not be complicit, especially if he actively opposes pornography and chauvinism, but still, as long as patriarchy exists, each individual man still benefits from male privilege.

**Did you read that thread where a mother was sent to jail because a male hit and run driver killed her 4 year old son as she was trying to cross the road. She was jailed for "jay-walking" and he only got six months. He had a previous hit and run conviction as well!!! This is the type of thing I mean, when I say men, simply by default of the fact they are men, are hugely advantaged over women in all areas of society.

** Women certainly seem to be treated in a different way to men in the courts, however the claim that women automatically receive harsher sentences than men or are more likely to receive a custodial sentence for a first offence are entirely spurious.

A reasonable summary of the complexity of the issue and recent trends can be found at this link here

Research which specifically states that women are, in fact, less likely to recieve a custodial sentence for a first offence than men, is cited on page 9.