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?

I read the posts that were deleted above and struggle to understand why they broke Talk Guidelines.

The posts that were deleted referred to that organisation, not any individual.

I can understand why, given recent events, Sophie's was deleted, but not the one before it.

I agree with sunshine on 50/50. It is not ideal in many circumstances, and to have any arrangement as "default" is unhelpful. 50/50 (or any similar large split) relies on both parents not being, as SGB puts it, arseholes. In a lot of situations at least one person is. Large splits of time rely on good communication between the two parents - if they're in court they clearly can't communicate with each other and 50/50 stands very little chance if working particularly smoothly.

I would add that had my parents split up, I would have hated 50/50 as a child, and that is with two excellent and equal parents who are able to communicate with each other very well (probably why they haven't split up!) I really don't understand why some people can't recognise that some children would not cope well with such an arrangement. Even as an adult I would hate to have "two homes" and to have to constantly move between them - so why would I expect my children to do it?

apart from which the courts can't force contact.

they never say a father 'must' see his children for those weekends and nightlies. it's a right that they can exercise IF they wish. many men don't want to see their children at all, many more are perfectly happy with the 2 wkds a month because they are free to do whatever they like the rest of the time and not have their lives inconvenienced by actually being a parent.

you couldn't have 50/50 as a standard when we don't even have ANY contact from the nrp as obligatory.

there is a long way to go before that would be viable and i too am prone to agree that it isn't in the interests of the children - i actually don't think it's in the interest of parents either who would have no freedom to move and be forced to live very locally to each other forevermore regardless of whether they could afford or in fact one could afford to move to a better area where their child could go to a good school but the other can't/won't. etc.

i think if we got to a stage like this where having a child with a man meant that if you broke up you'd be forced to have a 50/50 residency arrangement and forced to live in the same town as him regardless of life changes, career needs, needing your families support (re: you live on the other side of the country with the love of your life and have a child with him and then he fucks off and leaves you for another woman and you're not allowed to move home to have the support of your family of origin and old friends and where there are better career options for you etc but have to stay living round the corner from him and his new girlfriend for the next 18yrs) then women would wake up and start having their children differently eg. as single women rather than the old nuclear family model.

it would simply be too dangerous and risky a business for them to have a child in a relationship. by a different route of alleged equality we'd end up back 50 years in a scenario where having a man's child meant him controlling the rest of your life.

intelligent women who valued their ability to have some control over their lives would have their children on their own in their early 30's when they had financial security and seek romantic fulfillment and sexuality etc as a thing separate from parenting. is that really what men would want?

Exactly SaF, and they can exercise that contact as frequently or infrequently as they choose, but heaven forbid the mother say "enough" because she'll find herself in breach of a court order that lasts until the children are teenagers mothers need the option to take court orders back to court and have them overturned if the father isn't taking up his contact.

And on top of that, any tiny thing done by the father is seen as "better than nothing", "a start", "better than some fathers". Someone said this to me on a thread about my XP who moved 400 miles away and speaks to the children once a week on the phone, he hasn't seen them now for 11 months. I am "bitter" but the level of contact he has is "a start". He was a major part of their lives until I had the temerity to end our relationship, it is NOT a start to phone them once a week FFS, it is shameful.

How are women to have dc without men? Everyone use anonymous donors? Artificial sperm?

sperm donors, one night stands/short-term relationships, or even parent contracts where you find a father in much the same way you'd interview for a job vacancy and come to an agreement about the amount of time involved/maintenance payable (if any)/rules for future moves, etc. TBH given that nearly half of all children end up with their parents separating, the last option might actually provide a more consistent level of involvement and can be just as beneficial if both parents are enthusiastic about it.

OK, I like the sound of a parent contract. How do we suddenly prevent all the unplanned pregnancies?

(My own favoured method, when in a fascistic mood because of some horrible child abuse case, is to put "somethong in the water" and only provide the antidote when a couple can "prove" they'd be fit parents, not sure how we achieve that though! )

My own favoured method, when in a fascistic mood because of some horrible child abuse case, is to put "somethong in the water" and only provide the antidote when a couple can "prove" they'd be fit parents

There's a great feminist science fiction book called 'Benefits' which takes exactly that idea and runs with it.

Can I not type F4J, then? Is it taboo or summat?

I feel really sickened that the contact order that my ExH obtained, which he had intention ever of sticking to, has caused huge emotional harm to my DCs. My DD especially is very upset that he has done this, and that he chooses to prove an entitlement over me whilst choosing not to see her when he should/could.

In that sense, the family courts need an upgrade...

there are fab websites out there for getting pregnant - men who are happy to just be donors and have no contact, people who want to find a co parent, couples and single women looking for donors (because they want to avoid the expense of clinics or because they'd rather use someone who will remain anonymous or because they want to use someone who'll be willing to meet the resulting child and have some degree of contact with them so that they know all of their family history etc), lesbian couples looking for sperm donors etc etc etc.

it is really surprising what kind of people are on these sites offering to donate sperm. i know of one guy who is a very successful scientist who has fathered 5 children by donating to lesbian and single women trying to conceive and he is of the kind who doesn't want to play a role of father in the child's life but is happy to be contacted by them at any point to answer questions, satisfy curiosity etc.

it is in law now that a clinic does not have to take into account whether there will be a father in the picture when providing a woman with fertility treatment.

loads of options if it came to it. and if they push so far down this father's rights road that a woman loses any control over a life after having a child those options will be taken up more and more imo because it will cease to be worth risking one's entire future on having a child with a man. much safer to have your children independently and foster romantic relationships aside from that arrangement if you are heterosexual.

Most definitely sAf.

as for unplanned pregnancies a woman would have to choose what to do re: abort or keep but also choose whether she wanted to tell the man she was pregnant and put him on the birth certificate or move away and have the child on her own.

i'm not saying this is ideal but that if it came to the extreme of having a man's child meaning loss of right to choose where you live and automatic 50/50 division of residency then logically more women would avoid getting themselves into that situation.

But sAf, 50/50 parenting would tie the father just as much as the mother. My ds can't leave this area because he has a ds with a local girl. He would love 50/50 but she won't agree. It may end up in court because she's not being reliable re contact.

Perhaps we need to develop foolproof contraception, or that 'something in the water'

OLKN, your DS might not want to leave the area, but there is nothing legally stopping him from doing so. It is becoming more common (from what I've read) for fathers to take out Prohibited Steps Orders against their ex partners meaning that they can only leave the area if they leave their children behind. There is a very big difference between choosing to stay in an area to be near your child/their other parent and being legally forbidden from moving beyond a certain distance.

Presumably, if it were 50/50 she could take a PSO out on him, too? I think they're still fairly rare.

PLKN, my ExH can do what he wants, when he wants, and live where he wants.

I can't.

Sorry that should be OLKN. Duh.

Only if he was intending on taking the children with him. If he wanted to move away and leave her with 100% residency then there would be nothing she could do about it (hypothetically I mean, I appreciate that in your son's situation his ex might prefer him to have no contact).

I can't understand how if women love a child and know how that love feels they cannot put themselves in the shoes of a father and want him to have similar contact to that which they have. So those who think one parent can move away do you also think if that parent happens to male and wants to move with the children ton New Zealand near his mother he shoudl be allowed to take them away from you? If not how do you justify the sexism in your answers? No wonder we need F4J.

I did have a sort of 50/50 in place with my ex (although technically they were 100% resident with me because he didn't have anywhere suitable to take them but he did look after them half of the week iyswim) and there was nothing I could to a) enforce that arrangement, meaning if I didn't behave as he wanted he would threaten to stop "looking after them for me" meaning I couldn't go to work and would fall over myself to appease him and b) when he did eventually stop seeing them and move 400 miles away there was nothing I could do. They haven't seen him for 11 months and while there are no legal sanctions I can take out on him, yet if and when he decides he wants to see them I will be classed as obstructive to contact if I say no or insist on limited or gradual contact. There are no consequences for fathers like him.

My ExH refuses to see his DCs even when he could and should.

I think I've seen your situation expressed before, LineRunner; your ex isn't actually interested in your dc and used the PSO to further abuse you? It's a horrible thing to happen, but at least you have regular contact with your dc. If my son moved away he wouldn't, so he won't move because he adores his ds and is an excellent father. He's just as trapped as you. :(