Really? we think that "that organisation" are representative of fathers in general? really?

[NormaStanleyFletcher]

"They are already telling us that F4J (and by association every dad in the land) are bullying and intimidating them in this latest campaign, a stance that completely ignores the decades of intimidation that has been suffered by fathers at the hands of women?s organistions and which attempts to control the space around the campaign..."

Do they think we are as mad and misguided as them?

Intimidation by women's organisations?

From http://karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/on-the-tyranny-of-the-weak-a-mothers-day-musing/

Who is this handmaden person?

Most male rape is perpetrated by other men so I can't really see the point in bringing that up. Perpetrators of rape are overwhelmingly male, regardless of the gender of the victim.

Women fought long and hard to get shelters for victims of abuse and rape. It wasn't handed to them on a plate by some philanthropic males. They pushed it so hard it went from being a non-issue (because men had the right to beat their wives and rape was only a crime if the woman was already married to someone else because she was property) to something in the public eye that could no longer be ignored.

Do I think we should have more refuges for men? Yes.

Do I think male victims of rape and abuse get a raw deal and that the true extent of the problem is unknown? Yes.

Do I think men can make just as good primary carers as women? Yes.

Do I think men should have greater paternity rights and greater access to flexible working so that they can play a more active role in family life? Yes.

Do I think women should be fighting to right these injustices? No. Women should not fight against them and should be in agreement with these aims, but they have enough issues of their own to fight for.

I will campaign for men's rights when:
? we have eradicated rape against women
? we have eradicated abuse against women
? we have eradicated a situation where women are forced to hand over children for contact to men who use it as an excuse to continue their abuse
? we have eradicated the detrimental effect of having children on a woman's career

But I don't see that many men actively campaigning to help me with this, so I, as a woman, will concentrate on these women's issues rather than mens because if I don't, nothing will change. Funnily enough, while fighting for these issues I don't find the need to go round to male rape crisis centres and tell them they're moaning about nothing because women get raped too.

it does seem to be utter disgust that we are directing our resources, concern and energy towards woman's issues. instead of matching that by campaigning for male issues, raising funding, opening shelters, encouraging men to take on 50% of childcare whilst in relationships, campaigning for better paternity leave etc etc men's rights activists moan about feminists and moan at feminists. i don't get it.

is it that you think we should do it for you? or is it that we should just not try to change things for women because you want it to stay as it is? is men's compensation for their perceived terrible lot to at least have more power than women and therefore uppity women should stfu and stop trying to take that prize from them?

i'm lost. mra seems to equal anti feminist rather than pro anything. it reminds me slightly of the private sector whinging about public sector pensions and not stopping moaning till they lose them instead of campaigning for better pensions themselves. except there at least was a real issue there rather than a fabricated one.

how does women working together to combat dv against women threaten men? how does it stop men doing the same thing for male victims? how does it harm you or effect you if women are trying to improve things in areas where women are clearly suffering? they're not doing it at the expense of men (unless you identify with men who abuse, rape, exploit etc and i'd hope you don't).

Basically, it's a resentment about women's focus being taken from men.

Because we are supposed to focus our energies all around them. And when we focus on ourselves, that doesn't happen. Which is wrong.

it does seem to be that basil.

because why else would it bother them that we are campaigning for women's issues? we're not doing anything against men, the only thing we're 'guilty' of is not focussing on them and their needs and the mra voice tends to sound like a toddler having a tantrum and whining 'what about meeeeeeeee!'

but there must be some genuine fear behind it to generate such hate and vitriol towards feminists. are they afraid we will make them redundant? that in a world of true equality they won't have what it takes to be an important part of society, families, etc?

The MRA's voices are starting to sound strangely like RadFeminists in reverse. Far from alerting men to the injustices women face, all you're doing is alienating men who are sick and tired of being blamed for all the wrongs in society.

I can see their point, although I'm not particularly pro MRA. I think your approach, whilst you are correct that women suffer more injustices than men, only serves to create a gender divide. You may of course, gain the support of some men, but they're in the minority.

Feminism may claim not to be anti-male, but it certainly comes across as just that. This isn't helpful on any level.

Men will probably never form a cohesive group in the same way that women do, they just don't seem to think that way. So they will continue to 'whine' but never get anywhere.

What they ARE adept at, is reaching out to each other via the internet, which they seem to be doing in very large numbers. MRA's are growing, and while they're not forming visible groups, they are waging their own private wars against feminism.

This means that visibly, feminists will be winning the war, and governments will continue to see women issues as more important. Behind the scenes though there will be a large group of primarily voiceless men, who are refusing to get married and have children.

Which has massive implications for society, when our daughters struggle to find a man who will be prepared to father their children, and society is filled with large numbers of angry men, who have decided to approach men's rights with the same zeal as feminists

It's never a good idea to have a movement that excludes half of society, and I don't see how equality will ever be achieved that way.

For me personally, men of my generation and older still hold 'chivalrous' values and treat women respectfully (which is being eroded by such fucked up terms as 'benevolent sexism'), so the march of feminism isn't really going to affect me personally. It's our daughters who are going to be up against it.

I agree that DV/rape and other issues that affect women today matter. The way in which these issues are delivered is key.

Are you serious?

As single status has become more acceptable, more and more women are rejecting marriage and women are the primary instigators of divorce.

Men (as a group) have always protected their interests with a greater zeal than feminists have ever been able to muster because men have the sanction of the state behind them. Men have been able to rape and abuse with impunity up until very recently. They fought hard against giving women the vote and property rights. To compare the protests made by feminists to that is breathtakingly ridiculous.

I like men. I just don't like fuckwits. Funnily enough, I know lots of men who think rape is wrong, abuse is wrong, non-payment of maintenance is wrong, etc and they would all be appalled to be associated with the MRA movement.

Like I said much earlier in this discussion, I have a lot of sympathy with the men who want to play a more active role in their children's lives and are prevented from doing so. I would not deny that they exist and I can see why they would want to do something about it. I really can. But the way to do that is to campaign for greater involvement of men in family life before separation is even considered, because the more men who are primary or equal carers before separation, the more men will have this status after separation.

Men need to campaign for more paternity rights, more flexible working patterns, more DV shelters for men, etc. They do not need to do this by fighting back against hard-won female rights; they simply need to advance their own cause.

i must be living in an alternate universe - i'm not aware of a time or a country where the government has seen women as more important than men.

and feminism doesn't alienate 50% of the population - it only alienates those who'd like to see the power imbalance continue in their favour. which is kind of handy for sorting the wheat from the chaff.

'As single status has become more acceptable, more and more women are rejecting marriage and women are the primary instigators of divorce.'

All these women making their own choices, who'd have thought it? With the patriarchy being so pervasive and all. Maybe we ought to have a quick word with the patriarchy because it's failing in it's mission to keep all women oppressed.

You really are missing my point, but then I knew you would.

and yy to why would they need to be fighting feminism??? fight for what it is they think they are missing - shelters apparently are needed, paternity leave, flexible working hours, etc.

feminists aren't fighting men they're fighting misogyny and discrimination against women.

yet you acknowledge the mra movement is just about men getting together on the internet to fight with feminists? and that's a good thing?

sigmund they do against the odds and they are punished for doing so by greater economic hardship for example. and they're constantly having their ability to make those choices challenged and eroded.

take abortion - a battle won right? no. constantly under attack by those who'd like to take back those rights of a woman to make choices about her own body.

and funnily enough i don't think women see the pinnacle of freedom as being able to escape domestic violence and abuse ffs. we'd like to see a world where dv didn't happen and a woman could be safe in her own home and relationships between men and women were equally fulfilling and beneficial so that we didn't need to be getting divorced on masse and then overcoming all the obstacles put in the way of single mothers trying to get on with life.

Can you point to where I said the MRA's were a good thing?

Yes look at how punished women are by becoming single parents - the stigma, the poverty, the implications that we're unfit partners and parents.

And yet still women prefer to do that, than carry on living with bad men.

It's not men who are opting out of marriage. It's women, once they realise what it offers them versus what it offers men.

And speaking as someone whose life was utterly destroyed by divorce (at my mothers instigation), I wouldn't be doing high fives at the news that women instigate most divorces, either.

no one is doing high fives - it's really fucking sad that men are still being such shit husbands that women would prefer to be a skint, stigmatised single mother than carry on being married to them.

not much to celebrate for anyone there.

Women aren't only leaving their marriages because they are with 'bad men'. My mother was bored and had an affair.

i'm sure some women and some men leave their marriages because they are bored. not sure what the relevance here is though. sorry you were hurt by your parents marriage breakdown SF.

'But the way to do that is to campaign for greater involvement of men in family life before separation is even considered, because the more men who are primary or equal carers before separation, the more men will have this status after separation.'

Fathers already have much greater involvement in childcare than they ever have before. Neither the courts, nor government, have substantially changed their behaviour as a result. I can see where you're coming from but I just do not think it's going to happen that way.

All court judgements should already be consistent with ECHR, but when it comes to parenting this duty is consistently ignored.

I have been told by a variety of solicitors that despite having more care of my children than my ex pre-separation I would probably only have seen them every other weekend if I had gone to court. Even then if she had chosen to ignore a court judgement there would essentially be nothing they could do about it; and that's despite the unilateral abuse and adultery.

Wasn't there something published a year or so ago, a study on attitudes to marriage and it showed that men, more then women, want to settle down and get married. I'll try and dig out a link later. Funny to see ye olde chestnut WOMEN - if you go to far in your push for equality, then men won't want to marry you.

Also, re. 'the end of chivalry', I hear that a lot but then I think that these older men are no less guilty then younger men in staring at my tits rather then looking at my face, invading my personal space, not actually listening to me, interrupting me because what they have to say is oh so more important. I don't think that holding open doors or giving up a chair is a sign of respect tbh, I don't really want to be treated like a fragile vessel, I'd settle for being treated like a human being.

I've encountered lots of these chivalrous men who treat women 'respectfully', so long as we know our place of course.

''I have been told by a variety of solicitors that despite having more care of my children than my ex pre-separation I would probably only have seen them every other weekend if I had gone to court. Even then if she had chosen to ignore a court judgement there would essentially be nothing they could do about it; and that's despite the unilateral abuse and adultery.''

Well, if we're going with anecdata, a friends husband has primary custody of his 2 DCs from his first marriage. He was the primary carer during his marriage and the courts awarded custody in his favour because of that fact.

Johnde - in that case you had a crap solicitor and were given bad advice.

I know several men who achieved primary residency because they were the primary carers before the split, and there are also several men who have residency who post on this board.

If OTOH, your variety of solicitors were giving you advice based on your argument that you had the DC 50% of the time because the time they were at school should be deducted from your XW's time, I can see why you were given that advice.

Given your tenacity on this thread, I'm surprised you didn't push it further and find a solicitor who was prepared to fight for you. Based on the facts as you've presented them here, I would be pretty positive that you'd actually have got shared residency.

I sympathise about the DV thing. For some reason it isn't counted as remotely relevant in residency hearings, although in my opinion it should result in automatic suspension of residency and trigger mandatory supervision during contact.