Absent Fathers

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course there are consequences, just as there were social consequences to women's liberation. Or would you like us to reverse the clock on those?

Well I wouldn't equate the fight for a right for a paternal right of abdication of parental rights with the Suffragete movement myself, if we are going down the road of comparisons!

The Corinthian wrote:

If it swaps one set of problems with another for the sake of equality, then that is probably a better situation overall (maybe not for the gender who has to sacrifice some of their rights in the name of equality).

It depends on the different set of circumstances I would have thought. We do to all intents and purposes have the likes of LC4M for a significant number of men, we just don't know the percentages. That causes problems as it is so I suppose the question is, how would legalising LC4M affect that situation and problems? In a way I'm wrong in saying a different set of circumstances would arise, we already have the problems, just LC4M isn't a legally recognised avenue for men.

The Corinthian wrote:

As for bringing up the sake of the child, I just don't buy that line. The current system has practically nothing to do with protecting the rights of the child, only the rights of the woman. Even when the rights of the child are considered, it is the mother who gets to speak for it.

If the rights of the child were really considered, the choice to keep a child would not be made by the mother, but judged separately in the interests of that child - if it is better off with the mother, father or adopted.

Yes, that is a problem with the current system. As for the decision to keep the child, ideally there would be an independent arbitrator in cases like that, somebody with the wisdom of Solomon! The current system needs reform in that respect to include the social services and family courts.

The Corinthian wrote:

A man may only walk away and back again only because there is no legal provision to do otherwise. Women may choose abortion and adoption, that are both final, men can choose avoidance at best. A LC4M option, if introduce would be as final as adoption, is my understanding.

Which to my understanding conflicts with the UN declaration of childrens rights.

The Corinthian wrote:

Not at all. You're using the good of society as logic to deny rights. When you open the door on such logic, then you should be aware that it can easily turn round and bite you.

It isn't biting me at all. I find it a very contrived and appeal to emotion comparison.

The Corinthian wrote:

So if it was introduced legally in the UK, can men get a constitutional right to have it recognized in Ireland then if they fly over there?

Well many men choose to fly to England and other countries and exercise LC4M there, having no contact or financial input to a child's life, if we want to be facetious about it.

The Corinthian wrote:

I really don't accept this abortion is illegal in Ireland stuff either. Women have a constitutional right to both information on abortion at to travel for it. Even if it was legal in Ireland I can guarantee that most would still travel for it - and with the state of the health system in Ireland, who could blame them?

It is illegal but it still happens. Same as LC4M is illegal but still happens. There is a certain equality in that respect.

Iago wrote: »

Well that depends on what point you believe a child exists I guess, I'm sure I could line up a couple of hundred people who would argue that the child exists before the mother even knows she's pregnant if I tried. However I get your point, so lets look at the three scenarios

1. Abortion

A woman can decide to have or not to have an abortion

A man cannot and cannot prevent her from doing so.

There is inequality in this scenario even if it's a nightmare scenario to try and resolve and equalise.

2. Adoption

A woman can decide to put her child up for adoption or not

A man cannot make this decision, and while he can perhaps prevent the adoption through legal means, I would guess (having never done it) that it would be a long, drawn out, expensive and possibly fruitless exercise. If you managed to get that far in the first place! Which given the fact that men can't really dictate that their name goes on the birth cert would be a mountain in and of itself.

Then you have to take into consideration that the vast majority of men wouldn't want their child to suffer in any way. If you think about what kind of beginning that child would have if the mother is forced to bring her/him up while waiting for this legal challenge to play itself out then I think a lot of men would simply stand aside rather than put their child through that.

So in my view, there is also clear inequality in this situation which also needs to be resolved.

3. Raising a child

Ultimately if the woman has not made one of the choices above this is what remains, and again is fully her choice.

If however the man has made one of the choices above, this is still what remains, and has nothing to do with his choice.

There is inequality in this situation, and this is also something that needs to be resolved.

~~~~~~~~

It's not as simple as saying "think of the children" because there are (at least) three distinct people who are impacted by these choices and decisions, and they are lifelong impacts, not something that will wear off after a month or two. Yet despite the fact that these decisions impact on three separate lives, only one person actually gets to make any of the decisions around them. Those decisions will always be made with an element of personal bias (as we are all only human) and may not be in the best interests of either of the other two parties.

To align this back to the voting piece if only men could vote, then that voting system/structure would have an inherent bias to the male point of view regardless of the impact that it would have on women, many of which would also be lifelong impacts.

There would be inequality in that, and that is something that has been resolved.

I can't take issue with that post at all. I understand all those concerns but again as I've repeatedly stated, my concern comes from a childrens rights point of view. Some may facetiously scoff at that as "somebody think of the children" but children are the third party here, as you say yourself.

The problem is the practical ways of addressing the issues. I can't see how men can get an equivalent to Abortion rights without it affecting childrens rights. That's a whole other debate but practically the final decision on abortion is always going to be the mothers, down to biological reasons! To me it is ridiculous to look for the same rights of women who only really have those rights due to their sex and reproductive abilities. As you say yourself, many don't even agree that women should have them rights so I can't see it ever being accepted by the majority of society that men have a right to abort their child legally and constitutionally.

On Adoption, that could be solved if the authorities would consider giving custody of the child to the father, if he so wishes. I can't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case at all, other than societal prejudice and old fashioned attitudes.

Just a minor point but yes, a man can insist on his name on the birth cert, despite a mothers protests. Once he gets a guardianship or maintenance order, which is in effect a statement of paternity, there are provision with the birth registration office for him to get his details added. It isn't well known about, but it is there.

Fittle wrote: »

Can I throw this in the mix, or is it off-topic?

Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states;

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from
birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to
know and be cared for by his or her parents.

'...The right to know...his or her parents'.

There are many children who don't know their fathers. Apart from the problems that in itself could cause for the child (self-esteem issues, depression following the rejection from a parent etc), it can cause untold problems for half-siblings in the future etc. So what about my boys human right to know both his parents? (Not that I would want the man in his life after this length of time of course - but that's really not the point).

What about the children of these absent fathers and THEIR human rights?
Nobody really ever discusses that

Funny enough I was thinking about this today. There is also supposed to be a new childrens rights bill coming up though that will be delayed with the current political circumstances. I can't see how LC4M can sit aside that declaration.

Fittle

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet you posted an article from a UN declaration that specifies parents and not simply fathers and so really you do have to examine the entire question of a parent not being involved in a child's life, be that parent male or female, be that lack of involvement involuntary or not, be the manner in which they are missing state sanctioned or not.

You also made the off topic contribution (by your own admission), so accusing others of being off topic when responding to it is a bit odd, TBH.

If all you want to do is focus on your own agenda (or life experience, as you called it), then fine - but not everyone has your experience and many have very different stories to you. This is why you cannot simply look at the issue in a black and white fashion, tar everyone - be they mothers or fathers - with the same brush, and consider that why children end up like this is not down to any one single reason but to a plethora of them.

I note you did not comment on the second part of my last post. I take it that you do not support a shift to decisions being made in the best interest of the child then?

I wasn't aware that I had tarred anyone with the same brush, and because I did not comment on the second part of your post, you assume I don't support a shift in decisions? How did you come to that conclusion

'Taking all that aside, if you want to talk about dads who don't give a crap which subset would you like to talk about?

The problem with doing any of the above is that regardless of which we choose we move away from the point of the thread which was a general discussion as to why it would happen as opposed to a specific instance.'

Firstly, not all of the catergories you refer to are relevant - those that don't know they have children for example because how can they give a crap, when they don't even know?

A 'general discussion' covers all of the examples you refer to - you cannot have a general discussion about absent fathers, without referring to specific instances (mine, in this case).

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

Firstly, not all of the catergories you refer to are relevant - those that don't know they have children for example because how can they give a crap, when they don't even know?

A 'general discussion' covers all of the examples you refer to - you cannot have a general discussion about absent fathers, without referring to specific instances (mine, in this case).

Well they are relevant in the sense that they too form a part of the original 25% figure in the OP.

I agree that a "general discussion" covers all the examples, but you seem to want to bring it back to a specific instance. I can't tell you the thinking behind your ex-partners decision, and I can't comment on whether or not your child in particular deserves to have a father in his life.

I can say that in general terms I think it's important that a child has a father in their lives and that in general terms I would expect that a child that has both parents playing an active role in their life will be generally more rounded, balanced and better able to deal with being a child and growing up.

After we go through that paragraph though, what else is there to say?

When we speak about absent fathers (parents) there are many reasons, circumstances, excuses, explanations etc. Sometimes the child will be better off for it, but without knowing the exact background from all sides for any of those reasons then we're back to what we think we would do in that situation.

Fittle

So I will refrain from referring to my own situation again, but I will say that the INSTANT situations like mine are referred to, whether it's mine or others, the tone is consistently 'Ahhhhhh but see, we don't REALLY want to talk about situations like yours...ones where dads just walk away....' which is very frustrating.

I thought by giving my own situation as an example, it would add to the OP (which is about Absent Fathers who don't give a crap), but in hindsight I was wrong.

I will say that I completely agree with your comment 'I think it's important that a child has a father in their lives and that in general terms I would expect that a child that has both parents playing an active role in their life will be generally more rounded, balanced and better able to deal with being a child and growing up.'

Completely.

Over & Out.

K-9

Fittle wrote: »

So I will refrain from referring to my own situation again, but I will say that the INSTANT situations like mine are referred to, whether it's mine or others, the tone is consistently 'Ahhhhhh but see, we don't REALLY want to talk about situations like yours...ones where dads just walk away....' which is very frustrating.

I thought by giving my own situation as an example, it would add to the OP (which is about Absent Fathers who don't give a crap), but in hindsight I was wrong.

I will say that I completely agree with your comment 'I think it's important that a child has a father in their lives and that in general terms I would expect that a child that has both parents playing an active role in their life will be generally more rounded, balanced and better able to deal with being a child and growing up.'

Completely.

Over & Out.

Yes, but there is a tendency to just write off all absent Dads as deadbeat, you get in the tabloids and other media.

I have no problem acknowledging they do exist and did so in my first post on here. To me they just are selfish individuals and there are female equivalents with similar character traits, unluckily for some children they still have that parent around. In some cases it maybe better that the parent, whether that be a Dad or Mum, isn't around.

There are other reasons though and it mightn't be popular or too nuanced for some who just want easy answers to the problem.

There are more of them I'd say than 30/40 years ago obviously due to societal changes like the sexual revolution and divorce but they existed in the 50's and 60's, you can be sure of that. It was just hushed up then and the child sent to the Magdalene laundries or some such institution.

A big part of it for me is too many One night stands which combined with drink and bad judgement often doesn't end well but hey, it's our right to sleep around and have them and more deadbeat Dads are a consequence of those choices.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'll note that it says "as far as possible" - without this adoption, sperm or egg donation, and a raft of other scenarios would not be possible. Many mothers who put their children up for adoption specifically do not want to be traced (I knew a girl who was rebuffed by her biological mother when she contacted her, for example) and ever since legislation was brought into the UK allowing children born from sperm donations to trace their biological fathers, the well has run dry (if you'll excuse the expression) on such donations.

Indeed, the entire article is in reality vague and open to interpretation, for example, on the question of nationality, the second part of the article goes on to specify that this would be an issue principally "where the child would otherwise be stateless."

In short, the article aspires to a child knowing its parents - as long as an exception is not made. And lots of governments make lots of exceptions. Like many things the UN comes out with, it actually is very non-committal when you look at it carefully.

If we want to discuss the rights of children, perhaps we should question how these are presently administered. In most cases they are represented by the mother, who does not necessarily represent the best interests of the child.

For example, given the choice to keep or put a child up for adoption, it is her wishes that are presently paramount, not the child's interests. Should we change the law so that this decision is taken out of her hands and decided upon by weighing up what is actually in the child's best interests?

Would you support that?

Fittle wrote: »

Why the constant referring back to adoption?

The children I am talking about are not adopted - it is not comparable.

The children I was referring to are those whose biological fathers have abandoned them and whose biological mothers are raising them and are the children of the 'Absent fathers' referred to in the OP.

Do they not have a right to know their biological fathers on any level?

I don't think adoption or abortion have much to do with this because we are talking about children that are born and with the mother.

One issue is reluctant Dad's who are not given a choice some guys become dads and want to be dads, others have being a dad forced upon them.

A guy like me would want to be there for my child anyway.That does not nesscessarily mean I want to be with the mother.

So when you have a situation of rejection on either side or, an unwanted pregnancy (by the Dad) -thats a real kick in the teeth. Emotions get high & feelings are hurt.

The way I see it is you need the will of the mother and the goodwill of the state agencies to make it work.

Solutions are what is needed ,but, these need to be solutions that also work for Dad's -otherwise it is just sociological theory.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Well I wouldn't equate the fight for a right for a paternal right of abdication of parental rights with the Suffragete movement myself, if we are going down the road of comparisons!

Why not?

We do to all intents and purposes have the likes of LC4M for a significant number of men, we just don't know the percentages.

Isn't that like saying that having back street abortions is the same as having abortion legalized in all intents and purposes? If not, please explain.

That causes problems as it is so I suppose the question is, how would legalising LC4M affect that situation and problems? In a way I'm wrong in saying a different set of circumstances would arise, we already have the problems, just LC4M isn't a legally recognised avenue for men.

Perhaps if we legalized abortion in Ireland the same set of circumstances would arise as we already have in countries where it is illegal and where no legal alternative is available, by the same logic.

Yes, that is a problem with the current system. As for the decision to keep the child, ideally there would be an independent arbitrator in cases like that, somebody with the wisdom of Solomon! The current system needs reform in that respect to include the social services and family courts.

As I suggested in an earlier post that would be a possible solution, yes.

Which to my understanding conflicts with the UN declaration of childrens rights.

I addressed it earlier - it would conflict with said document just the same as adoption would. You have actually read what it says?

It isn't biting me at all. I find it a very contrived and appeal to emotion comparison.

How is it an appeal to emotion? That makes no sense.

Well many men choose to fly to England and other countries and exercise LC4M there, having no contact or financial input to a child's life, if we want to be facetious about it.

Without a constitutional right to do so, unlike women and abortion in Ireland.

It is illegal but it still happens. Same as LC4M is illegal but still happens. There is a certain equality in that respect.

Not in the slightest. Please tell me the last time a woman was prosecuted for getting an abortion outside of the state?

Fittle wrote: »

I wasn't aware that I had tarred anyone with the same brush, and because I did not comment on the second part of your post, you assume I don't support a shift in decisions? How did you come to that conclusion

Because you avoided the question. Still are.

'Taking all that aside, if you want to talk about dads who don't give a crap which subset would you like to talk about?

Actually it would be a good thing to examine all the different causes for the problem and see which ones can be addressed, how and if there are common problems between them - especially the last bit.

Otherwise we just end up in a father bashing debate, which hardly solves the problem, but might make some posters feel more validated.

A 'general discussion' covers all of the examples you refer to - you cannot have a general discussion about absent fathers, without referring to specific instances (mine, in this case).

I think in such discussions all anecdotal arguments are a bad idea as they inevitably create a bias. There are posters here who categorically do not want to discuss any case other than one similar to your own and others that will not discuss any case other than ones of parental alienation by the mother.

Both are bad directions to go into, IMHO.

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

I thought by giving my own situation as an example, it would add to the OP (which is about Absent Fathers who don't give a crap), but in hindsight I was wrong.

Let's look at the OP:

Blisterman wrote: »

Heard a shocking statistic today, that in the UK, over a quarter of kids have no contact with their father.

Don't think the statistics are that high in Ireland, but there's definitely a growing number of dads who don't seem to give a crap about their offspring.

I think most people can agree that it can't be very good for kids growing up without a dad. So why do so many guys run away from their responsibilities?

Should something be done? What could be done? How come it's happening so much nowadays, when it didn't before?

First he quotes a statistic from a study. Then he makes, twice, the assumption that this is down to fathers not caring.

It would be like starting a thread quoting a statistic citing lower grades for black students in the US and then presuming the reason is because they are genetically more stupid.

Should we then stick to such an original topic and accept the presumption or seek to correct it? You tell me.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

I don't think adoption or abortion have much to do with this because we are talking about children that are born and with the mother.

My mistake then. Only fathers can abdicate their parental responsibility then. Mothers obviously never do. Adoption and abortion are obviously just special ways of embracing it.

liah

The Corinthian wrote: »

My mistake then. Only fathers can abdicate their parental responsibility then. Mothers obviously never do. Adoption and abortion are obviously just special ways of embracing it.

That's a bit disingenuous considering CDfm is a father who's been through hell on this very topic, he's clearly not saying that at all.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

My mistake then. Only fathers can abdicate their parental responsibility then. Mothers obviously never do. Adoption and abortion are obviously just special ways of embracing it.

Some mothers do but this isn't about mothers. You keep harping on about mothers. This thread is about absent fathers.

Incidentally, the only way we can examine why fathers abandon their children is by examining individual cases, like fittle's. We can't simply look at entire categories of absent fathers and damn them all with the same set of circumstances.

K-9 wrote: »

Well I wouldn't equate the fight for a right for a paternal right of abdication of parental rights with the Suffragete movement myself, if we are going down the road of comparisons!

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why not?

Because one is a fight for a right; the other is a fight to abdicate a responsibility.

Stheno

Bill2673 wrote: »

Just on these two points:

On 3. Am I right in saying free legal aid is available to women and not to men where a couple is seperated?

No, legal aid is based on means, there is no such thing as free legal aid here, you still have to contribute something, the minimum being €10

I know of one couple that has seperated, and the mum uses her full allotment of legal aid each year, taking the father to court over and over and over under her legal aid allotment, accusing him of hitting the kids, not minding the kids when he has custody, not feeding the properly, none of which has stood up in court. But its a huge strain for him, and to my knowledge he has to pay all his court costs, and take off work to attend. This sounds like discrimination; which I suppose is discouragement at a societal level. i know its just one example, rather than a general situation.

As the Father works, it's possible he does not satisfy the criteria for legal aid. If the mother does not work then she would possibly satisfy the criteria in terms of income.

Iago

Pherekydes wrote: »

Incidentally, the only way we can examine why fathers abandon their children is by examining individual cases, like fittle's. We can't simply look at entire categories of absent fathers and damn them all with the same set of circumstances.

This is exactly correct.

So all we need now is for Fittle's ex to come on and post his side of the situation and then once we have both we can examine it and come to a conclusion as to what caused it.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss and dissect individual cases, but without hearing from both parties it's impossible to do.

Fittle

Iago wrote: »

This is exactly correct.

So all we need now is for Fittle's ex to come on and post his side of the situation and then once we have both we can examine it and come to a conclusion as to what caused it.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss and dissect individual cases, but without hearing from both parties it's impossible to do.

Would you like his phone number:rolleyes:

I said it before....

People like my ex are not on websites debating issues about Absent Fathers.
No more than women who will not allow their ex's to see their children are.

Pherekydes

Iago wrote: »

This is exactly correct.

So all we need now is for Fittle's ex to come on and post his side of the situation and then once we have both we can examine it and come to a conclusion as to what caused it.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss and dissect individual cases, but without hearing from both parties it's impossible to do.

It's not going to happen, though is it? Who's going to come on and defend their behaviour?

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

Would you like his phone number:rolleyes:

I said it before....

People like my ex are not on websites debating issues about Absent Fathers.
No more than women who will not allow their ex's to see their children are.

I'm not trying to attack you here. Your situation just happens to be one that's come to the fore due to your specific experience and the fact that you are a member of this community, but how exactly do we debate specific instances if we don't know the circumstances behind them?

We don't know the state of mind, the thought process behind the decision, or the internal regret or justification of the other person in any given situation.

On the face of it, it looks very bad on the part of your ex, and on balance of probabilities it most likely is. So we can discuss on that basis, but it's not based on fact, just supposition and perception. Without any more information though who can say more than "that was a childish and selfish thing to do with no consideration for others"

where does the debate/discussion go from there without knowing the individual?

Iago

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not going to happen, though is it? Who's going to come on and defend their behaviour?

That depends on whether or not the person in questions feels their behaviour was bad. If they don't think it was then why wouldn't they come on and defend it?

Again these are not small decisions that are made lightly, these are huge decisions on both sides that will dictate to you for the rest of your life.

Fittle

Iago wrote: »

That depends on whether or not the person in questions feels their behaviour was bad. If they don't think it was then why wouldn't they come on and defend it?

Again these are not small decisions that are made lightly, these are huge decisions on both sides that will dictate to you for the rest of your life.

I don't really believe it's a conscious huge 'decision' on mens parts though.

I think alot of them just want to run away from the responsibility of a child (if I'm honest here, there are days when I too would have loved to run away from that responsibility in those first few weeks after he was born), don't see the child from birth, therefore don't bond with the child and somehow, find it easy to live their lives pretending the child doesn't exist.

I imagine (although I am not speaking with any expert knowledge here) that alot of them regret it, but as time passes, it gets harder to make amends - which is similar to what happens in many situations in life. And so, they continue to ignore the fact that they have children 'out there', who might one day knock on their door. I doubt when they see the blue line on that test, they are thinking 'If I run now, it will affect me for the rest of my life'. I imagine they just want to run, with very little forward-thinking.

Biology obviously comes into the equation also - the man is both physically and emotionally in a much easier position to actually 'run' away. The womans hormones change from the moment of conception, and therefore, she is somewhat more emotionally affected by her choice to give birth/have an abortion or give the child up for adoption.

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

I don't really believe it's a conscious huge 'decision' on mens parts though.

I think alot of them just want to run away from the responsibility of a child (if I'm honest here, there are days when I too would have loved to run away from that responsibility in those first few weeks after he was born), don't see the child from birth, therefore don't bond with the child and somehow, find it easy to live their lives pretending the child doesn't exist.

I imagine (although I am not speaking with any expert knowledge here) that alot of them regret it, but as time passes, it gets harder to make amends - which is similar to what happens in many situations in life. And so, they continue to ignore the fact that they have children 'out there', who might one day knock on their door. I doubt when they see the blue line on that test, they are thinking 'If I run now, it will affect me for the rest of my life'. I imagine they just want to run, with very little forward-thinking.

Biology obviously comes into the equation also - the man is both physically and emotionally in a much easier position to actually 'run' away. The womans hormones change from the moment of conception, and therefore, she is somewhat more emotionally affected by her choice to give birth/have an abortion or give the child up for adoption.

If that was the case do you not think there would be a much bigger number of men who abandoned their partners as soon as they fell pregnant?

or to put it another way, instead of it being seen as "abnormal" for a man to run away from a child/pregnancy, it would be "abnormal" for him to stick around.

Fittle

Iago wrote: »

If that was the case do you not think there would be a much bigger number of men who abandoned their partners as soon as they fell pregnant?

I don't know the stats for the number of men who abandon during pregnancy, but yes, I believe men run because they just don't want the responsibility.

It's never about the ACTUAL child. Yes, they can blame their partners, citing her 'psycho' behaviour etc and them just not being able to deal with her - but ultimately, they just don't want the responsibility that comes with being a parent.

The relationship between a man and his child (and I am speaking about men here purely as it relates to this thread) is HIS responsibility. He can blame whomever and whatever situation he likes - but only he can develop that relationship, or decide not to have it in the first instance.

The Corinthian

liah wrote: »

That's a bit disingenuous considering CDfm is a father who's been through hell on this very topic, he's clearly not saying that at all.

He's not clearly saying that. And I'm sorry, but his experiences do not mean that he is beyond challenge.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Some mothers do but this isn't about mothers. You keep harping on about mothers. This thread is about absent fathers.

How can you examine the problem unless you look at the issue in all it's forms?

Incidentally, the only way we can examine why fathers abandon their children is by examining individual cases, like fittle's. We can't simply look at entire categories of absent fathers and damn them all with the same set of circumstances.

I disagree, because with cases, such as fiddles we will end up only looking at one category, never leave it and by inference it becomes assumed that it is the only category, just as the OP did.

Because one is a fight for a right; the other is a fight to abdicate a responsibility.

So the right to choose isn't really a right by that logic from what I can see. Neither is the right to choose to put a child up for adoption a right. Glad that's cleared up.

Or are you just playing with semantics on what constitutes a right and what can be brushed under the carpet?

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not going to happen, though is it? Who's going to come on and defend their behaviour?

Fiddle did.

Now I am not suggesting that she had given an untrue account by any means, but people sometimes do. Often in these situations you will get facts omitted, distorted or even invented - his side of the story could be very different indeed. We just don't know.

Imagine a father comes on line and gives a sob story about how his ex has effectively cut him out of his childrens' lives. Lots of sympathy follows.

Without his ex's side of the story, which might include details of addition, abuse or simple apathy punctuated by inconsistent involvement, we might say the same of her - how could she come on and defend her behaviour?

This one of the many reasons that I hate such accounts being injected into the discussion - by anyone. They become Appeals to Emotion and end up corrupting whatever rational discourse is taking place.

Fittle wrote: »

I wasn't aware that I had tarred anyone with the same brush, and because I did not comment on the second part of your post, you assume I don't support a shift in decisions? How did you come to that conclusion

I'm still waiting for you to actually deny that you oppose such a policy. Or can we simply take it that you do at this stage?

Fittle

'or to put it another way, instead of it being seen as "abnormal" for a man to run away from a child/pregnancy, it would be "abnormal" for him to stick around.


Now I'm confused.

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

I don't know the stats for the number of men who abandon during pregnancy, but yes, I believe men run because they just don't want the responsibility.

It's never about the ACTUAL child. Yes, they can blame their partners, citing her 'psycho' behaviour etc and them just not being able to deal with her - but ultimately, they just don't want the responsibility that comes with being a parent.

The relationship between a man and his child (and I am speaking about men here purely as it relates to this thread) is HIS responsibility. He can blame whomever and whatever situation he likes - but only he can develop that relationship, or decide not to have it in the first instance.

That's a massive leap and is packed with the inherent bias that I mentioned in an earlier post. It's also a gross generalisation that attempts to put an entire set of people into one very convieniant box, which just doesn't work.

I could argue that every woman who doesn't let the father see his child is a manipulative and selfish money grabbing good for nothing. She can say that he is an alcohol abuser, or lets the child down by not turning up, or whatever she likes but really it's just because she's manipulative and selfish.

Fittle

You can come to whatever conclusion you like, but you have now accused me of committing an 'Appeal for Emotion' and you even have a hyperlink to whatever that may be.

You just don't want to hear about dads who run, and I have no clue why.

I foolishly mentioned my own case here to try to broaden posters thinking on the issue of Absent Dads and to demonstrate that this is ultimately about children who grow up without male role models. I failed, miserably obviously.

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

I don't know the stats for the number of men who abandon during pregnancy, but yes, I believe men run because they just don't want the responsibility.

It's never about the ACTUAL child. Yes, they can blame their partners, citing her 'psycho' behaviour etc and them just not being able to deal with her - but ultimately, they just don't want the responsibility that comes with being a parent.

This is one of the most offensive posts I've read in quite a while.

So if the mother is indeed a 'psycho' and makes it impossible for him to get near his children, drags him endlessly through the courts, subjects him to abuse and exploitation and eventually he gives up it's because "they just don't want the responsibility"? You're kidding, right?

So the only reason that men would not want to be father's is because they can't deal with the responsibility? And what of women who don't want to be mothers? Are they the same, or is that 'different'?

I see some abdication of responsibility in your argument, but it's not from the father's side TBH.

Unbelievable misandry.

Fittle

Iago wrote: »

That's a massive leap and is packed with the inherent bias that I mentioned in an earlier post. It's also a gross generalisation that attempts to put an entire set of people into one very convieniant box, which just doesn't work.

I could argue that every woman who doesn't let the father see his child is a manipulative and selfish money grabbing good for nothing. She can say that he is an alcohol abuser, or lets the child down by not turning up, or whatever she likes but really it's just because she's manipulative and selfish.

But I'm not generalising. Why is it a massive leap to state that men who run don't want to take on the responsibility that comes with being a parent? Surely that's a given?

Fittle

'So the only reason that men would not want to be father's is because they can't deal with the responsibility'

Not 'can't deal' with the responsibility.

Don't want the responsibility.

Why else would they run?

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

You just don't want to hear about dads who run, and I have no clue why.

Not at all, I have repeatedly pointed out that irresponsibility and fecklessness is one of the reasons - only that it is not the only reason, which given your previous post on the subject is for you the only reason.

So I would have to ask why you just don't want to hear about those other reasons, and I have no clue why.

I foolishly mentioned my own case here to try to broaden posters thinking on the issue of Absent Dads and to demonstrate that this is ultimately about children who grow up without male role models. I failed, miserably obviously.

No you mentioned your own case to direct all discussion towards the only reason you believe that fathers are not in their children's lives.

Fittle

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not at all, I have repeatedly pointed out that irresponsibility and fecklessness is one of the reasons - only that it is not the only reason, which given your previous post on the subject is for you the only reason.

So I would have to ask why you just don't want to hear about those other reasons, and I have no clue why.

No you mentioned your own case to direct all discussion towards the only reason you believe that fathers are not in their children's lives.

I didn't.

But I don't have the energy for this anymore.

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

'So the only reason that men would not want to be father's is because they can't deal with the responsibility'

Not 'can't deal' with the responsibility.

Don't want the responsibility.

Why else would they run?

Have you not been reading what others have said? Even in my last post? Even the accounts of fathers who have gone through the process and who have sympathy for those who would not go through the same sheer Hell? And that is only one of numerous scenarios.