Absent Fathers

Fittle · 19-01-2011 5:26pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

Except that original topic on "Absent fathers" was phrased around 25% of kids that do not see their father. No reason given for this not seeing them, so it could have been anything not just a father not caring

Yes, I read that. I'm outta here - these debates go nowhere IMO. We're all on the same side.

Fittle · 19-01-2011 5:28pm

ntlbell wrote: »

No it became a 100% of the 25% were not absent due to their own choice. But I'm sorry if mothers who don't let their fathers see their kids be mentioned to partly justify why the figure is incorrect. but all the issues have to be taken into consideration.

It's not about arguing who's right or wrong.

Those stats ont he BBC website do not = men who don't want to be fathers.

This is a fact.

You're looking for an argument where there is none.

Actually, I wasn't looking for an argument at all - I was trying to say that these 'fathers rights' threads end up with people arguing, when in fact, if they thought about it a bit more, they would realise that they all have the best interests of their children at heart.

The Corinthian · 19-01-2011 5:28pm

meganj wrote: »

My Mother would always say that the reason he left was because of their relationship, not because of me, and she always supported me in talking about finding him once I was 18.

Did she not support you in forming a relationship with him prior to you reaching 18? Especially in light of his "wandering back" into your life at 13?

It's been 19 months since I last saw him, his choice not mine.

Does he live in the same town or city as you? I say this because I see my own father only once or twice a year at most as we live in different countries. Indeed, for the same reason, I've not seen my mother since the Summer.

Otherwise is there a reason that his involvement was and is so lackluster? Where do you feel he failed particularly? Have you ever spoken to him about this?

At the end of the day I'm forced to echo the please of Helen Lovejoy... Won't someone please think of the children?

Ahh yes, but you also said, "it's my body" so it's never that simple and so the children are not always the focus, regardless of such moral cliches.

Bill2673 wrote: »

I think to be fair that in this situation she had only two over-riding responsibilities, firstly to herself (for her own safety) and secondly and equally for the safety and well being of her child.....

I do think this is a fair point. While the 'safety of the child' reasoning is often used as an unfounded justification, sometimes it is warranted.

Fittle wrote: »

Why can't they just accept the fact that some men choose to walk away?

I think the problem is that this thread began as a discussion on absent fathers and it was assumed by the first few posters that the only for this was that they walked away. The response to this has been that there are many reasons and scenarios, including that some men walk away.

So no one has denied that it happens, indeed the problem is that some have denied or greatly downplay that it does not.

1. The issue of the mother who won't allow the kids to see the father
2. The issue of the father who walks away.

There's also the third case where the father is not or cannot be contacted.

They are not connected. The father who walks away IS NOT the same as the fathers who want to see their children. And the mother who will not allow her children to see their father, IS NOT dealing with a father who walked away.

Well they are to a degree. For example, consider the scenario of a mother who continually obstructs a father, makes his life a misery and otherwise behaves in such a fashion. Eventually, many fathers, faced with an almost hopeless and often prohibitively expensive legal situation that even if they got a court order, it would be unenforceable, give up.

The mother would then classify them as men who walked. You could well classify them as such. That is the problem of parental alienation, it's like a form of constructive dismissal for parents - so that you push the blame on the other party.

Bill2673 · 19-01-2011 5:31pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

She ought to have gone to court. Had he been jailed for his offences, it is possible he may have been rehabilitated. He may have been forced to take a hard look at his life and turn it around.

Where you said nobody said that, please see above.

I agree with you on another point, that taking him to court would have (i) punished him and (ii) stopped him from doing it to anyone else.

Don't believe it would secure her safety as people do get out of jail.

Personally, I would not criticize her for not pursuing in courts.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 5:32pm

Fittle wrote: »

Yes, I read that. I'm outta here - these debates go nowhere IMO. We're all on the same side.

Do you support an overhaul of the Irish family law system to enact equitable parenting along the lines of the Scandinavian model?
Or are you happy with the current version?
Because if it's the latter, then we actually aren't all on the same side.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 5:37pm

Bill2673 wrote: »

Where you said nobody said that, please see above.

Yes, as you can see nowhere did I state that her mother was responsible for rehabilitating her father.

Bill2673 wrote: »

I agree with you on another point, that taking him to court would have (i) punished him and (ii) stopped him from doing it to anyone else.

Don't believe it would secure her safety as people do get out of jail.

Personally, I would not criticize her for not pursuing in courts.

Nor would I. My criticism was the suggestion that mothers have a divine right, beyond the rule of law, to unilaterally remove their children from fathers without recourse to the law or informing anyone that they are doing so.
Hard cases make bad law. I was asked what I thought about that individual case, and I consider it harrowing. But it is no justification for stripping fathers even of the meagre right to be heard in a court of law.

Reward · 19-01-2011 5:40pm

Fittle wrote: »

'Right, but not really related to the orignal topic.'

Actually it is. The original topic was just about Absent Fathers. But once again it becomes a Them VS Us.

You will not get a woman who will not allow her ex to see the children on a website debating fathers rights.
Nor will you get a man who chose to walk away from his child, on a website debating fathers rights.

So the people who almost always end up debating this issue in the Parenting forum, or the LL or the GC are actuall on the same side....the argument will never be won by either side because it is the same argument. Both want whats in the best interests of the child. End of.

People are tired of man bashing and the absent father and fathers in general have long been a paraiah in society, man bashing is increasingly unfashionable and rejected, in truth women mistreat and abuse children more than men, so if its really is about the children, why the focus on men? Answer, because its not really about the children, its really about the interests of the women that chose to give birth to them.
Its a complex issue especially in the UK where intergenerational fatherlessness and the idea that fathers arent necessary have been deliberatly socialised into the society and legal system.

Fittle · 19-01-2011 5:42pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Do you support an overhaul of the Irish family law system to enact equitable parenting along the lines of the Scandinavian model?
Or are you happy with the current version?
Because if it's the latter, then we actually aren't all on the same side.

Actually, neither I, nor anybody I know, supports what happens in the courts in relation to unmarried fathers.

When I say 'we', I am referring to those who debate this topic online on a regular basis.

meganj · 19-01-2011 5:49pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Did she not support you in forming a relationship with him prior to you reaching 18? Especially in light of his "wandering back" into your life at 13?

She encouraged my relationship with him when he did come back. The reason that she wanted me to wait until I was 18 was she was afraid that if I did turn up on his doorstep before that I wouldn't emotionally be ready for possible rejection.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Does he live in the same town or city as you? I say this because I see my own father only once or twice a year at most as we live in different countries. Indeed, for the same reason, I've not seen my mother since the Summer.

I live in Kildare (now) he lives in the Waterford/Wicklow/Wexford area. I'm afraid I won't be more specific just in case

The Corinthian wrote: »

Otherwise is there a reason that his involvement was and is so lackluster? Where do you feel he failed particularly? Have you ever spoken to him about this?

I presume that it has a lot to do with the fact he is living a secret. No body knows I exist except his new partner, and in a small town like the one he lives in with his other (grown-up) children and ex-wife I imagine it puts a lot of strain on when he can come and visit me. The more angry assumption would be that he doesn't care. Yes I have spoken to him about it, things unfortunately do not change.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh yes, but you also said, "it's my body" so it's never that simple and so the children are not always the focus, regardless of such moral cliches.

I also said that it wasn't as cut and dry as that. Having never been in that situation I cannot honestly say what I would do, nor will I condemn or congratulate anyone who does find them in that situation.

CDfm · 19-01-2011 5:54pm

liah wrote: »

Oh, and I'd like to say, when I became a bit older and wanted to find my father, my mother always encouraged me, and when I told her I was talking to him again she encouraged that too, even though it upset her greatly.

Even 20 years after she left him, she wrote in an email to me when I was speaking to him that I am not to tell him anything about her (location, number, address, facebook, etc) because she was terrified still.

hi Liah - its been a while.

I have often seen your posts and think your mother is very remarkable for making a conscious decision for keeping you in contact with your Dad and giving you a balanced view on life.

And her situation was probably the type of one the laws were intended to deal with.

I know that there are plenty of women out there who do the right thing under difficult circumstances too.

I always think it is great when you post because it is often hard for the protagonists to do whats right, but, because you have children you influence them with your value system.

Happy new year and all the best for 2011.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 5:54pm

Fittle wrote: »

Actually, neither I, nor anybody I know, supports what happens in the courts in relation to unmarried fathers.

When I say 'we', I am referring to those who debate this topic online on a regular basis.

Check this thread out. We have Metro peeing all over the fantastic and perfectly equal parenting legislation that exists in Scandinavia.

I tend to find that everyone agrees that 'we should think of the children' up until the point where the debate reaches discussion about changing the system to make it more equitable.

Then we get hand-wringing from mothers that the current system isn't perfect and so on, but no support whatsoever for actually changing it to something more equal, which really would be in the best interests (not to mention human rights) of children.

My personal situation is fine. For me the fight's long over. I'm that rare beast - the single father with full custody who fought and won. You wouldn't believe what it took me to do so - the years, the money, the lawyers, the missed career opportunities, the denials of access, the missed holidays and celebrations. Many sacrifices. I had to set a number of precedents in Irish law along the way.

I could rest on my laurels now and enjoy being a father. But that would be selfish, I feel. No one else should have to undergo the difficulties I did. No parent, father or mother, should have to experience that.

And for that reason alone, I am adamant that we must have equal parenting enshrined in Irish law as a core tenet to protect the human rights of children.

When I find that mothers are prepared to concede the heavy weighting in their favour that they currently enjoy to facilitate that, then you'll never hear from me on this topic again, and I'll be off enjoying parenting my child.

liah · 19-01-2011 6:00pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

Liah, what your father sounds like was terrible put it is the fact that she had the "right" (legally) to do what she did is the problem.

Any woman can cut the father's contact with kids, with very little he can do about it.
Imagine (big imagine here) that your father had been a complete tool to be married to but the best father possible to you.
Your mother could still have severed all ties between you two. If this had happened while you were young enough, she could easily have told you that he was a bad man etc and you would only have her side of the story.
I am not saying that this is what happened in your case but just pointing out that it CAN happen and, to be honest, that would scare the crap out of any father in a relationship that is breaking down

It isn't what happened in my case so I don't see how it's relevant. My point is, yes, fathers have a right to be scared but mothers damn well have a right to protect themselves from threats.

The generalizations about women taking away children on this thread are driving me batty.

@Cavehill Red, Sorry but why the hell is it my mother's job to pay (emotionally) for HIS mistakes? He's an adult. He has to take responsibility for himself. She should not be made to feel guilty because she protected herself and her child first and foremost.

I frankly don't give a flying crap what the law says, it is not her duty to think about making sure other women he may someday encounter are okay by making sure he's put in prison when she has that to deal with. Their life together ended the moment he made the decisions he did. It's her duty to make sure her immediate family are okay. That's all that matters. Other people simply don't come into it. Yes, it could have happened again, but that's not on her. She can't control anyone other than herself. That's on him, and that's on them, and it's a shame if it happens but that's the reality of it.

We can't save everyone, only ourselves, and he taught me that better than anyone.

Fistycuffs · 19-01-2011 6:14pm

donfers wrote: »

what is the point of this thread?

I think we all agree that it is an act of gross irresponsibility for a man to just walk away from his kids for the sake of convenience

the debate seems to centre around some posters who are trying to suggest this is happening quite often and another group who says that yes there are some irresponsible absentee dads who just walk coz they can't be arsed but usually there are a whole plethora of reasons why a dad might be absent.

Thus I must ask of the first group, why are they so eager and determined to paint men in a negative light? The absentee father issue is a handy tool for some generalised men-bashing (often from those with personal experience of same who should realise that just because their dad was a deadbeat doesn't mean all dads are), but the reality is like almost every societal issue it's far more complicated than "heh,who do those nasty evil men think they are" and frankly it disappoints me when somebody would so enthusiastically race to the bottom with regard to such a complex and emotive issue as this.

Where has anyone done this ? There has been no male bashing in this thread what so ever , quiet the opposite infact. Anyone who has mentioned personal experience,myself included, has qualified their input by adding that they are aware that their experience is one of a minority and acknowledging that the majority of men are loving fathers. No one has suggested that abandonment is the only reason a father might be absent.However children who are abandoned by a father are still a minority who are large enough to deserve a voice and deserve to have their experience at least acknowledged. Their experience will go on to have wider implications for society too. It benefits everyone to at least look honestly at the situation.

Abandonment is a complex issue. Honest discussion of it doesn't mean it has to be a ""heh,who do those nasty evil men think they are" conversation. You are being both naive and very demeaning of others to think that, particularly to those who have experienced it who are keenly aware of just how complex it is.

Personally I think a lot of factors might play into why some men willing abandon their children, from the way they have been parented themselves to how societal expectation might not as strongly encourage an emotional bond between father and child as they do between mother and child. I'm not talking about legal or human rights here. Just that basic emotion led desire to be with your child that's expected of a mother and has been throughout the ages.
And yes I know what sensitive types you are so just to underline again, I do not believe the above applies to all men. Lots of men have experienced parenting that has impressed the importance of fathering upon them and most men bond with their children.

Do you all believe that society places equal expectations upon a father in terms of caring or in terms of emotional bonding with a child as it does on a mother? In the last 100 years the role of a man , a father, has changed quite dramatically . The role has changed from one of seeing strength and manliness demonstrated through being stoic and unemotional , where the main value in the family was as head of a patriarchy and as a disciplinarian. Now many different demands are placed on a father. He is looked to to provide a lot of the same things that were once the sole preserve of a mother such as nurturing and gently counselling a child through troubles. Men are certainly capable of this but are the taught these skills or does societal expectation impress them upon boys throughout their lives in the same way the are impressed on girls ? The truth is most don't. I think that is why less social stigma is attached to being a father who abandons a child than there is to a mother who does so. I think it also might account to some degree to why SOME men don't sense that deep bond with a child. Their lives aren't seen from day to one to be leading up to that point of having their newborn baby placed in their arms where as for most women theirs have been whether they are conscious of it or not. They've been mimicing that very moment since they were able to hold a doll.
And again for all the pedants reading...I'm not saying all mothers are great or up to the task or that all fathers miss that connection between love and being parent.

To presume this is a men vs women issue is to be so sadly mired in female bashing that you can no longer see a frank conversation for what it is anymore. It is very sad to read so many posts who believe the majority of this issue comes down to apportioning blame to one sex or the other (almost 100% of that blame being attributed to women in this thread). It can be a bigger issue, one that perhaps there might be an answer to ,and that would serve all parties. Whether that is intervening in situations where a child is being poorly parented so he/she doesn't go on to be a poor parent or live with a sense of detachment from parental responsibilty as an adult or maybe greater social education in young boys about being a father in the future I don't know. But it could be an interesting valuable conversation.

ntlbell · 19-01-2011 6:18pm

I read as far as "And yes I know what sensitive types you are so just to underline again,".

Must be my "sensitivity" filter.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 6:19pm

Liah, I'm not going to respond to any more straw men questions about your personal life. You asked me for my opinion and I gave it to you honestly. I'm sorry it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

I don't know you, and while your story as you describe it is very heartbreaking, at this point perhaps we should move away from discussing the unique and particular details of your life.

You don't care what the law says. In this debate, ALL I care about is what the law says and how it can be changed in the interests of children and their fathers (and mothers too.)

There are many other parents, and there are many other children, and your particular experience isn't something that can usefully be used as a guide when considering the big picture of children and their relationships (or non-relationships) with their fathers.

Jesus Wept · 19-01-2011 6:25pm

Have we touched on the subset of children that are born to two people, one of whom planned it and the other did not? Be it within a relationship/fling/one night stand.
Can't help.

That and the stigma that still surrounds abortion.

A male contraceptive pill/injection would be quiet something.
Also better family planning rather than panic buying.

Reward · 19-01-2011 6:26pm

If out of the 25%, 4% are fathers that willfully and genuinely decide of their own accord not to see their children ... seems like that would be a reasonable number given that its unreasonable to expect 100% of parents not to walk out and unreasonable to expect women to parent against their will.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 19-01-2011 6:26pm

Blisterman wrote: »

I really regret posting the 25% statistic in my original post. Regardless of whether or not men are stopped at gaining access by the mothers, there are still a huge number of men who choose to abandon their kids. I personally know several people, including my current girlfriend whose father chose to abandon them as a child, and from speaking to some people who grew up in disadvantaged areas in England, it's very common.

So, again, lets try and stop the thread being sidelined into another debate.

I don't see any debate about your topic. child is born and he walks out out of selfishness. He is scum. Doubt many would disagree.

Personally I think they should be made pay maintenance. Only difficult situation I see is where a woman claims to be on contraceptive medicine but isnt. In that case forcing him to pay maintenance would be unfair

liah · 19-01-2011 6:31pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Liah, I'm not going to respond to any more straw men questions about your personal life. You asked me for my opinion and I gave it to you honestly. I'm sorry it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

I don't know you, and while your story as you describe it is very heartbreaking, at this point perhaps we should move away from discussing the unique and particular details of your life.

You don't care what the law says. In this debate, ALL I care about is what the law says and how it can be changed in the interests of children and their fathers (and mothers too.)

There are many other parents, and there are many other children, and your particular experience isn't something that can usefully be used as a guide when considering the big picture of children and their relationships (or non-relationships) with their fathers.

My point was largely that the generalizations flying around this thread about how women are horrible and keep running off with men's kids for no good reason are bs and are not adding at all to the debate. I figured that by illustrating a case that makes it obvious that yes, in fact, sometimes there IS a good reason to keep your child away from a man, without it having anything to do with the woman being a bitch.

The law would've impaired my own and my mother's life drastically. I said I don't care about it because it would have accomplished absolutely nothing for us. I said I don't care about it in this case, because I don't. It doesn't mean I don't care about it in general, but this is not what I'm arguing. I just want the bs generalizations to stop.

For the record, I believe that law should be gender-blind and put the child in the hands of the best, most adept parent, but currently the system it takes to get there is far too harrowing for most to even bother with.

Bill2673 · 19-01-2011 6:37pm

Seems that for every generalization their is a counter generalization;

lads, interesting debate, at times raucous, at times sad.

I think we should wrap it up.

Bill2673 · 19-01-2011 6:37pm

ps....where the heck is Flensburg?

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 6:38pm

liah wrote: »

My point was largely that the generalizations flying around this thread about how women are horrible and keep running off with men's kids for no good reason are bs and are not adding at all to the debate. I figured that by illustrating a case that makes it obvious that yes, in fact, sometimes there IS a good reason to keep your child away from a man, without it having anything to do with the woman being a bitch.

The law would've impaired my own and my mother's life drastically. I said I don't care about it because it would have accomplished absolutely nothing for us. I said I don't care about it in this case, because I don't. It doesn't mean I don't care about it in general, but this is not what I'm arguing. I just want the bs generalizations to stop.

Surely you can see my position, though? To legislate on the basis of that case would be to permit any mother to unilaterally remove all fathers' rights at any time of their choosing, without legal endorsement or notice.
There's no way I'd ever support anything like that, just as I don't support the opposite scenario as it plays out in Muslim countries, where women are routinely disenfranchised by fathers.

liah wrote: »

For the record, I believe that law should be gender-blind and put the child in the hands of the best, most adept parent, but currently the system it takes to get there is far too harrowing for most to even bother with.

For the record, I too believe the law should be gender blind, but I feel it should put the child in the hands of both parents except in the most exceptional circumstances, since in the vast majority of cases children benefit most from having regular secure access to both their father and their mother. And that's why I believe we should look to introduce a Scandinavian model of family law into Ireland.

norrie rugger · 19-01-2011 6:41pm

liah wrote: »

My point was largely that the generalizations flying around this thread about how women are horrible and keep running off with men's kids for no good reason are bs and are not adding at all to the debate. I figured that by illustrating a case that makes it obvious that yes, in fact, sometimes there IS a good reason to keep your child away from a man, without it having anything to do with the woman being a bitch.

The law would've impaired my own and my mother's life drastically. I said I don't care about it because it would have accomplished absolutely nothing for us. I said I don't care about it in this case, because I don't. It doesn't mean I don't care about it in general, but this is not what I'm arguing. I just want the bs generalizations to stop.

For the record, I believe that law should be gender-blind and put the child in the hands of the best, most adept parent, but currently the system it takes to get there is far too harrowing for most to even bother with.

So as long as you win, who cares abiut anyone else?
Right

metrovelvet · 19-01-2011 6:45pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Check this thread out. We have Metro peeing all over the fantastic and perfectly equal parenting legislation that exists in Scandinavia.

I tend to find that everyone agrees that 'we should think of the children' up until the point where the debate reaches discussion about changing the system to make it more equitable.

Then we get hand-wringing from mothers that the current system isn't perfect and so on, but no support whatsoever for actually changing it to something more equal, which really would be in the best interests (not to mention human rights) of children.

My personal situation is fine. For me the fight's long over. I'm that rare beast - the single father with full custody who fought and won. You wouldn't believe what it took me to do so - the years, the money, the lawyers, the missed career opportunities, the denials of access, the missed holidays and celebrations. Many sacrifices. I had to set a number of precedents in Irish law along the way.

I could rest on my laurels now and enjoy being a father. But that would be selfish, I feel. No one else should have to undergo the difficulties I did. No parent, father or mother, should have to experience that.

And for that reason alone, I am adamant that we must have equal parenting enshrined in Irish law as a core tenet to protect the human rights of children.

When I find that mothers are prepared to concede the heavy weighting in their favour that they currently enjoy to facilitate that, then you'll never hear from me on this topic again, and I'll be off enjoying parenting my child.

You totally dragged this thread off topic with your ideological agenda. This thread was about dads who choose to walk away from their kids and you turned it into a snide attacks on mothers, including the mother of one poster who was open and brave enough to talk about her own experience growing up without a father.

Stheno · 19-01-2011 6:50pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

This thread was about dads who choose to walk away from their kids

I read it as being a thread about fathers who are absent.

Imo there are many reasons other than a father walking away as to why a father might be absent.

liah · 19-01-2011 6:52pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

So as long as you win, who cares abiut anyone else?
Right

What? Who said anything about 'winning'? What is that supposed to be in reference to?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Surely you can see my position, though? To legislate on the basis of that case would be to permit any mother to unilaterally remove all fathers' rights at any time of their choosing, without legal endorsement or notice.
There's no way I'd ever support anything like that, just as I don't support the opposite scenario as it plays out in Muslim countries, where women are routinely disenfranchised by fathers.

When did I mention legislation? I told an anecdotal story about my own experience. I stated that the current system in most countries is too harrowing for a lot of people to go through leading to seriously messy situations like what happened with me. I didn't say it's right for everyone. I said she did what was right by us.

I have also explained my point was to give an example in an effort to make the generalizations about the reasons why women may take off with the kid stop.

CDfm · 19-01-2011 6:53pm

liah wrote: »

It isn't what happened in my case so I don't see how it's relevant. My point is, yes, fathers have a right to be scared but mothers damn well have a right to protect themselves from threats..

Gender is sort of irellevant in a lot of this and nobody wants to live a Jerry Springer lifestyle.

The generalizations about women taking away children on this thread are driving me batty.

The legal system is adversorial and this brings the worst out in people. If one partner does not want to be with the other or want different things in life you are going to have problems if you introduce them into the "Family Law Fight Club".

It always strikes me that women , such as your Mum, who the resourses should be there for are almost crowded out of the system by others and that is a travesty.

Reward · 19-01-2011 6:55pm

Mental illness and addiction are bound to be significant when it comes to men walking out of a child's life too. Really, I don't think that the claim that men are walking out on children of their own selfishness in great numbers holds much water at all.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 6:56pm

liah wrote: »

I have also explained my point was to give an example in an effort to make the generalizations about the reasons why women may take off with the kid stop.

What generalisations?
I cited an example of a father who has been searching for his kid in Central America for the guts of a decade after the mother absconded. You raised your own background. Now, your anecdotal evidence is no better or worse than mine. Neither of us were generalising on that topic. If anything, we were both dealing in the particulars of single cases.

Stheno · 19-01-2011 7:00pm

Reward wrote: »

in truth women mistreat and abuse children more than men, so if its really is about the children, why the focus on men? Answer, because its not really about the children, its really about the interests of the women that chose to give birth to them.

Reward wrote: »

B

A study in the UK showed that 70% of women admitted to interfering with the fathers custody rights in order to punish him, many fathers are excluded against their will.

Reward wrote: »

And lets not for get that women are initiating approaching 80% of dicorces and that the UK is very feminist and so fathers as not seen as necessary in the first place.

Can you provide links to the studies/figures you posted? I don't believe that the 80% figure in quote three is correct.

liah · 19-01-2011 7:02pm

Reward wrote: »

Mental illness and addiction are bound to be significant when it comes to men walking out of a child's life too. Really, I don't think that the claim that men are walking out on children of their own selfishness in great numbers holds much water at all.

Neither does the reverse.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

What generalisations?
I cited an example of a father who has been searching for his kid in Central America for the guts of a decade after the mother absconded. You raised your own background. Now, your anecdotal evidence is no better or worse than mine. Neither of us were generalising on that topic. If anything, we were both dealing in the particulars of single cases.

I wasn't referring to you, you started responding to me, not vice versa afaik. But there are quite a few generalizations scattered around the thread from various posters, it's really disheartening seeing this turned into an "us vs. them" thing.

Stheno · 19-01-2011 7:03pm

Reward wrote: »

Mental illness and addiction are bound to be significant when it comes to men walking out of a child's life too. Really, I don't think that the claim that men are walking out on children of their own selfishness in great numbers holds much water at all.

You've also got death, lack of awareness of being a parent as factors. If the report the OP took their figure from actually gave any sort of survey details and how the figure was arrived at it would be more helpful

metrovelvet · 19-01-2011 7:14pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

What generalisations?
I cited an example of a father who has been searching for his kid in Central America for the guts of a decade after the mother absconded. You raised your own background. Now, your anecdotal evidence is no better or worse than mine. Neither of us were generalising on that topic. If anything, we were both dealing in the particulars of single cases.

Why are you bringing that up? There are plenty of examples of fathers abducting their children too. Why is that relevent to a discussion around abandonment?

CDfm · 19-01-2011 7:16pm

liah wrote: »

, it's really disheartening seeing this turned into an "us vs. them" thing.

+1

metrovelvet · 19-01-2011 7:19pm

liah wrote: »

it's really disheartening seeing this turned into an "us vs. them" thing.

...any excuse really.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 7:25pm

liah wrote: »

I wasn't referring to you, you started responding to me, not vice versa afaik. But there are quite a few generalizations scattered around the thread from various posters, it's really disheartening seeing this turned into an "us vs. them" thing.

Again, what generalisations about women abducting children are you referring to?
And I don't see how it has turned into an adversarial discussion. The OP suggested a quarter of British dads had abandoned their kids. There's no evidence whatsoever for that, and I think we've all accepted that now.
Now, I've proposed we should introduce a Scandinavian-style equal parenting system into Ireland (and Britain for that matter.) Perhaps some people are "vs me" on that proposal, but it they are it is equality that they are opposing, not me.

Reward · 19-01-2011 7:28pm

Stheno wrote: »

You've also got death, lack of awareness of being a parent as factors. If the report the OP took their figure from actually gave any sort of survey details and how the figure was arrived at it would be more helpful

Right, so on this thread between us we have come up with what 8 or 9 different situations outside of his selfishly walking away from his children that contribute to that 25% but aren't controlled for. And 25% is a figure in the extreme because its UK figures.

Men have been unjustly maligned on this for decades now.

AnnyHallsal · 19-01-2011 7:29pm

Reward wrote: »

Men have been unjustly maligned on this for decades now.

As a solution for which you choose to malign women with your own spurious statistics?

metrovelvet · 19-01-2011 7:32pm

The responses to the OP have been so inappropriate and typical of what happens on boards.

Its the equivalent of someone saying 'oh gosh all the poor kids in the UK who get eyelid cancer' followed by a tirade of responses containing how there are not that many and its the mother's fault anyway.

TeddyTedson · 19-01-2011 7:36pm

Fittle wrote: »

My question is why can't the fathers rights people just ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that there are men out there who abandon their children, without finishing every one of their sentences with 'but...(irish law/mothers who won't let their kids see their fathers/women are mad etc)...

Why can't they just accept the fact that some men choose to walk away?

And why does even the mention of this issue, on this and other sites bring them to the fore and then go on to drag every single conversation into a 'The father who wants to see his children VERSUS The woman who won't let him see his children' even when it's off-topic

I can acknowledge the fact that some women will not allow their children to see their fathers, and while in some instances, this is in the best interests of the children, in some it's not, and that is inherently WRONG.

And I can also acknowledge the fact that there are also men who choose to walk away and abandon their children. And that too, is inherently WRONG.

This debate goes round and round and round and neither side will agree because they are both discussing different issues;

1. The issue of the mother who won't allow the kids to see the father
2. The issue of the father who walks away.

They are not connected. The father who walks away IS NOT the same as the fathers who want to see their children. And the mother who will not allow her children to see their father, IS NOT dealing with a father who walked away.

You forgot to do a special 1000th post!:(

liah · 19-01-2011 7:38pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Again, what generalisations about women abducting children are you referring to?
And I don't see how it has turned into an adversarial discussion. The OP suggested a quarter of British dads had abandoned their kids. There's no evidence whatsoever for that, and I think we've all accepted that now.
Now, I've proposed we should introduce a Scandinavian-style equal parenting system into Ireland (and Britain for that matter.) Perhaps some people are "vs me" on that proposal, but it they are it is equality that they are opposing, not me.

The ones Reward has been making pretty consistently throughout the thread, throwing around figures like 70% of women do this and 80% of women do that with nothing to back up what he's saying.

e.g.

in truth women mistreat and abuse children more than men, so if its really is about the children, why the focus on men? Answer, because its not really about the children, its really about the interests of the women that chose to give birth to them

A study in the UK showed that 70% of women admitted to interfering with the fathers custody rights in order to punish him, many fathers are excluded against their will.

And lets not for get that women are initiating approaching 80% of dicorces and that the UK is very feminist and so fathers as not seen as necessary in the first place.

Plus this is feminist UK we are talking about, they have been engineering fathers out of the equasion for decades.

UK has an established single mother on the dole as a career culture and these people often lie about the whereabouts of the father.

...

Whats more the UK is a very feminist country, fathers are viewed as disposable and generally not needed in the first place.

I'd imagine that the number of women that abort, abandon, walk out on and force or abuse fathers out against their will is beyond the number of fathers that willfully walk out on their children.

etc

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 7:40pm

Er, not a single mention of women abducting children in any of those, Liah.

liah · 19-01-2011 7:43pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Er, not a single mention of women abducting children in any of those, Liah.

When did I say "abducting"?

"I'd imagine that the number of women that abort, abandon, walk out on and force or abuse fathers out against their will is beyond the number of fathers that willfully walk out on their children."

This is what I initially took offense to, or rather at least would like a source for.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 7:51pm

liah wrote: »

When did I say "abducting"?

When you said -

liah wrote:

I have also explained my point was to give an example in an effort to make the generalizations about the reasons why women may take off with the kid stop.

I'd have thought that 'take off with the kid' and 'abducting' the kid were synonymous. They are in the eyes of the law anyway.

liah wrote: »

"I'd imagine that the number of women that abort, abandon, walk out on and force or abuse fathers out against their will is beyond the number of fathers that willfully walk out on their children."

This is what I initially took offense to, or rather at least would like a source for.

That's the one statement he did provide supporting evidence for. Over 180,000 abortions in the UK per annum. There's no way there's even a fraction of that amount of fathers willfully abandoning their kids.

I just had a quick look online and it appears that women are the appellants in UK divorces in approximately 2/3 of cases (figures up to 2005).

Reward · 19-01-2011 7:52pm

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

As a solution for which you choose to malign women with your own spurious statistics?

Pointing out the other contributing factors is not maligning women, women are not beyond reproach, they are adults not children or sacred cows and are just as capable of taking responsibility as men are, despite popular beliefs.

Stigmatizing fathers and absent fathers for decades and holding them responsible for all that has gone wrong is maligning men, maligning men is so normal to many people, including the OP they do it without noticing.

AnnyHallsal · 19-01-2011 7:57pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Over 180,000 abortions in the UK per annum. There's no way there's even a fraction of that amount of fathers willfully abandoning their kids.

What a truly bizarre correlation. What point are we to take from this?

Reward wrote: »

women are not beyond reproach, they are adults not children or sacred cows and just as capable of taking responsibility as men are, despite popular beliefs.

Whoever suggested otherwise.

metrovelvet · 19-01-2011 7:58pm

He is trying to equate abortion with abandonment. Its the usual off topic tactic. We are not talking about women who had abortions. We are talking about living children who do not know who their fathers are to take the spotlight of the fathers. Denial denial denial. Sink in a river of it.

Otis Driftwood · 19-01-2011 8:00pm

Ok folks,Im locking this thread for a little bit as Im up to my eyes with RL stuff so dont just have the time for now to address what needs addressing.What I will say is everyone should by now be aware of our charter amendment,ignorance will not be accepted as an excuse for not following rules,I will be back ASAP,please bear with me,cheers.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 8:00pm

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

What a truly bizarre correlation. What point are we to take from this?

Reward suggested that the total "number of women that abort, abandon, walk out on and force or abuse fathers out against their will is beyond the number of fathers that willfully walk out on their children."
That's 180,000 + the number of women who abandon their children or force fathers out against their will each year > the number of men who abandon their kids each year.
Self-evidently, he's right. Though I concur, I'm not sure what he was exactly driving at with that particular bit of maths.

AnnyHallsal · 19-01-2011 8:02pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Reward suggested that the total "number of women that abort, abandon, walk out on and force or abuse fathers out against their will is beyond the number of fathers that willfully walk out on their children."
That's 180,000 + the number of women who abandon their children or force fathers out against their will each year > the number of men who abandon their kids each year.
Self-evidently, he's right. Though I concur, I'm not sure what he was exactly driving at with that particular bit of maths.

Exactly the us versus them mentality I refuse to condone.

Absent Fathers

Comments