Agenda, much?

[Malificence]

I don't usually wander onto the MN facebook page but I was pretty horrified to find what looks very much like an MRA agenda posted on there.
I'm trying very hard to see what relevance the photo used for their site has regarding the voices of unheard children. Looks more like how they would like to see their women to me.

www.facebook.com/#!/mumsnet?sk=wall

he likes ice cream very much

he can't be all bad

That is a very enlightening article. Thanks YF.

there's a guy on the fathers for justice fb group who says he is fighting to see his daughter more often but the social worker keeps messing it up. I searcged online and found a report of a man with the same name from the same place being in court for "assault causing actual bodily harm on a woman".

makes you wonder about the real reasons why some men are denied access to their kids.

There was a documentary about F4J where O'Connor admitted pretty much the same thing. That he'd been a shit dad who was never there and drank too much, but that his ex far from being "vindictive" or "malicious" had actually given him as much access as he wanted once he had sorted himself out. She said however it didn't happen that much because he was so busy with F4J.

A person with a serious drink problem is not a suitable person to be looking after children, but for some reason that doesn't bother F4J.

Know how I found the letter he wrote that I linked to? By looking at the F4J website . He's made rather unflattering comments about the woman on there, so I Googled her name.

crazy.

it's like in the article where the journo asks if he thinks sophie was unreasonable and he says no, but i still should have had the right to see them exactly the same amount of hours as her

so you agree you were a shit dad and she was right to protect the children from you but the court shouldn't have cared about that but should have put your 'right' above their wellbeing??

it's baffling entitlement.

YF good detective work - though doesn't sound like it took much. he clearly genuinely believes that even if he batters women and is a danger to children the court should put what he wants above what's fair or best for all concerned.

i think they just cannot believe that other men are not automatically giving them what they want and are incensed by the idea of not getting their own way.

it does sound like a lot of them have issues with anger and violence.

I read this article which referenced an ONS survey but I couldn't find it, but I did find this one from the University of Oxford department of something or other. An interesting snippet.

However, among the dissatisfied, insufficient contact
was a key theme, particularly for resident parents (31%
compared with 17% of non-resident parents). This
finding reinforces the findings of many studies (see
Hunt, 2003) that, in general, resident parents want their
ex-partners to see the children more, not less, and
suggests there is scope for an increase in contact.

Hey, apparently there has been some sort of study done on whether family courts find evidence of abuse. Over 1/3 of cases requiring welfare reports, abuse was established/admitted (p8).

''so you agree you were a shit dad and she was right to protect the children from you but the court shouldn't have cared about that but should have put your 'right' above their wellbeing??''

jesus christ, how is it putting children first to treat them in the same way as the sodding DVD collection?

i think some men (and women too) ave issues with wanting to make things as difficult as hey can for their exes.

so less than 1% of male nrps (going back to the 1 in 100 of 10% business) are refused access and bear in mind that's a percentage of men who are nrps rather than a percentage of men at large. i wonder how that compares to the percentage of men who are violent alcoholics, abusers, pedophiles, have psychotic disorders that they don't manage etc etc?

can someone tell me what percentage 1 in 100 of 10% becomes please? my brain is buckling a bit.

0.1%?

am i right in thinking that if you added up all the male pedos, drug addicts, drinking alcoholics, psychopaths, child abusers, etc etc etc they'd account for more than 0.1% of all men who've managed to reproduce?

And actually, while googling to try and back up my 10% statistic, I've realised that the 3.8 million children (ie, 1 in 3) "living without their father" is those in single mother families. So many of them will have a relationship with their father, they just don't live with him.

oh! god that makes it even more ridiculous doesn't it???? twats. so manipulative and deceitful a little video - and using children in it so cynically. very disturbing. i hope ss will look into it.

It's semantics isn't it? I suppose technically they are living without their father as they don't live with him, but it's a misleading statement because a large proportion will still have a very healthy relationship with him.

a large proportion will still spend at least every other weekend with him. of the remaining a large proportion will be children whose fathers do not want to see them. some of them will be living with lesbian couples or single women who conceived with donor sperm. others fathers will be dead ffs. very misleading.

but hey 0.000000001% of them will be doing so because the family courts decided the father was unfit to spend time with children.

what video is this?

Children4Justice video SmellsLike, linked on one of the first posts in the thread.

My children's father refuses to see them more than once a month. He lives 15 minutes away.

Mine stopped seeing them a year ago and then moved 400 miles away. He saw them 4 times briefly in the April and May and then moved and hasn't seen them since. That's all my fault though apparently

ThisIs I expect he's joined F4J with his sob story.