Absent Fathers

Maguined

metrovelvet wrote: »

First of all no one said that. So let's stick to what people said rather than your fantasies of what people said or what you choose to infer from them before we get into a Lacanian debate around signs where no one is actually communicated anything. Or is that too misandrist for you?

As I said, it is not what was actually written but what was implied.

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?

The only reason men would not be involved in their childs life is because they are selfish and don't want the responsibility, despite all the other possibilities offered up in this thread it comes down to men being selfish.

That is an overgeneralised statement so just because it was labelled misandrist does not mean it is not being considered, at what point would you accept an opinion to be considered? if you do not agree with an opinion how can you consider it while still disagreeing with it?

metrovelvet

Maguined wrote: »

As I said, it is not what was actually written but what was implied.

What you inferred.

Nozebleed

is there an unfit mothers thread by any chance? just curious..

Fittle

Maguined wrote: »

As I said, it is not what was actually written but what was implied.



The only reason men would not be involved in their childs life is because they are selfish and don't want the responsibility, despite all the other possibilities offered up in this thread it comes down to men being selfish.

That is an overgeneralised statement so just because it was labelled misandrist does not mean it is not being considered, at what point would you accept an opinion to be considered? if you do not agree with an opinion how can you consider it while still disagreeing with it?

I was specifically referring to men who run. Who renege on their responsibilities because they do not want to take on the responsibility of being a parent.

I was not referring to the men who are forced to walk away due to court cases and the constant battle with their ex's (although those men are in the minority). I never said men were selfish. I was specifically referring to the men who walk away..not those who are forced to walk away. But a couple of hundred odd posts later, and my words are still being twisted.

Fittle

Nozebleed wrote: »

is there an unfit mothers thread by any chance? just curious..

I haven't seen one. You should start one here.

metrovelvet

Fittle wrote: »

I was specifically referring to men who run. Who renege on their responsibilities because they do not want to take on the responsibility of being a parent.

I was not referring to the men who are forced to walk away due to court cases and the constant battle with their ex's (although those men are in the minority). I never said men were selfish. I was specifically referring to the men who walk away..not those who are forced to walk away. But a couple of hundred odd posts later, and my words are still being twisted.

I did not think you were talking about cases of parental alienation or abuse of the court systems [which cuts both ways]. I took you to mean the guys who walk.

Iago

There are some in this thread who are clearly too close to the situation to be able to think without the bonds of their emotional and subconscious bias. That is completely understandable by the way.

I agree broadly with the vast bulk of what The Corinthian has had to say in this thread. I do think that there are "anti-men" elements to some of the posts/posters in the thread, but I don't think it's intentional misandry more so a (on the face of it entirely reasonable) hatred and bias towards one man who happens to represent their view of the people captured by the title of the thread.

As I, and others, have mentioned on this thread a number of times each situation is completely different and can't be bundled up into a nice tidy explanation of why. Circumstances, personalities, responsibilities, fundamentals are all very different in each case and only a combination of all of them can dictate where things end up.

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

I was specifically referring to men who run. Who renege on their responsibilities because they do not want to take on the responsibility of being a parent.

I'm going to speak specifically to this point.

Your statement in and of itself was probably true (I'm probably paraphrasing a little here) "men that decide to walk away just don't want the responsibility"

In terms of language and sentence structure this is correct (unlike most of mine ) The important question for me from this is "What are the various reasons where this might be the case?" and following on from that "Do you think that all men who walk away are fully at fault and equally responsible for the child in question?"

I don't have an issue with your statement per se, but I felt the intention and thought process behind it was that "All men who decide to walk away just don't want the responsibility and are therefore worth less as a result" I don't agree with that sentiment, but perhaps that wasn't your thought process at all.

metrovelvet

Iago wrote: »

I'm going to speak specifically to this point.

Your statement in and of itself was probably true (I'm probably paraphrasing a little here) "men that decide to walk away just don't want the responsibility"

In terms of language and sentence structure this is correct (unlike most of mine ) The important question for me from this is "What are the various reasons where this might be the case?" and following on from that "Do you think that all men who walk away are fully at fault and equally responsible for the child in question?"

I don't have an issue with your statement per se, but I felt the intention and thought process behind it was that "All men who decide to walk away just don't want the responsibility and are therefore worth less as a result" I don't agree with that sentiment, but perhaps that wasn't your thought process at all.

This is exactly how I looked at it and tried to explain it earlier but was shot down by it being called self indulgent misandry. I think they do not want or cant cope with the responsibility but there could be any number of reasons for that - mental illness, imprisonment, poverty, low self esteem, addiction problems, feelings of ineptitude, feelings of powerlessness, strife with the mother, etc etc, or plain old cant be arsed.

Maguined

Fittle wrote: »

I was specifically referring to men who run. Who renege on their responsibilities because they do not want to take on the responsibility of being a parent.

I was not referring to the men who are forced to walk away due to court cases and the constant battle with their ex's (although those men are in the minority). I never said men were selfish. I was specifically referring to the men who walk away..not those who are forced to walk away. But a couple of hundred odd posts later, and my words are still being twisted.

This thread was started on an article that said children who do not have involvement with their fathers are due to the fathers walking and while that was refuted and debated at the start it is still the basis of this thread, that those that do not see their kids do so out of their own choice.

I do not intend to twist your words but when you write in generalised language as "men don't want the responsibility" it is going to be read in a generalised way rather than "those individuals who don't want the responsibility".

Fittle

Iago wrote: »

I'm going to speak specifically to this point.

Your statement in and of itself was probably true (I'm probably paraphrasing a little here) "men that decide to walk away just don't want the responsibility"

In terms of language and sentence structure this is correct (unlike most of mine ) The important question for me from this is "What are the various reasons where this might be the case?" and following on from that "Do you think that all men who walk away are fully at fault and equally responsible for the child in question?"

I don't have an issue with your statement per se, but I felt the intention and thought process behind it was that "All men who decide to walk away just don't want the responsibility and are therefore worth less as a result" I don't agree with that sentiment, but perhaps that wasn't your thought process at all.

Thank you Iago! Finally, a well written intelligent post that I can read without having to use Wikpedia;)
I'll be back.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

As I said earlier this morning, I went back and looked at some of the other possibilities mentioned in this thread and I addressed them. But apparantly not to your satisfaction as you persisted in calling me misandrist and self indulgent, I think the word insane was thrown in there too, and it was at that point that I disengaged.

Where did you do this?

Fittle wrote: »

I was specifically referring to men who run. Who renege on their responsibilities because they do not want to take on the responsibility of being a parent.

How do you define that? At what point is it simply that they do not want to want to take on the responsibility of being a parent and at what point are they driven away? You never addressed that, indeed you simply made a blanket pronouncement about any man who walks or is driven away:

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?

You made a huge generalization and made absolutely no attempt to qualify it. Men who are driven away, also technically walk, after all - at least depending upon whom you're asking.

I was not referring to the men who are forced to walk away due to court cases and the constant battle with their ex's (although those men are in the minority).

How do you know they are in a minority? How do you define an 'acceptable' level of "constant battle" before it falls into the category you have chosen to ignore? Why are you so Hell bent on focusing on only one scenario and upset whenever others are even mentioned?

But a couple of hundred odd posts later, and my words are still being twisted.

They're not and I've just quoted them without edit. Indeed, this is the first time you have even mentioned that men may be forced away, so how can you genuinely claim that you have been misinterpreted?

Now, perhaps you did not intend to do this, but if so why did you not correct yourself earlier? Why did you only accept that men can be driven away now?

metrovelvet

Iago wrote: »

There are some in this thread who are clearly too close to the situation to be able to think without the bonds of their emotional and subconscious bias. That is completely understandable by the way.

I agree broadly with the vast bulk of what The Corinthian has had to say in this thread. I do think that there are "anti-men" elements to some of the posts/posters in the thread, but I don't think it's intentional misandry more so a (on the face of it entirely reasonable) hatred and bias towards one man who happens to represent their view of the people captured by the title of the thread.

As I, and others, have mentioned on this thread a number of times each situation is completely different and can't be bundled up into a nice tidy explanation of why. Circumstances, personalities, responsibilities, fundamentals are all very different in each case and only a combination of all of them can dictate where things end up.

I think that is unfair to say 'hatred and bias towards one man who happens to represent their view of....'

I find that incredibly offensive to say that someone hatred and bias of one man is reason not to take their opinions all that seriously or not give any credence to them. I know of plenty more than one man who abandoned their kids. According to one particular father I know, 'it happens all the time' and paying maintenance is 'more than most men would do.' Is HIS view also teh product of the hatred and bias of one particular man?

Iago

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think that is unfair to say 'hatred and bias towards one man who happens to represent their view of....'

I find that incredibly offensive to say that someone hatred and bias of one man is reason not to take their opinions all that seriously or not give any credence to them. I know of plenty more than one man who abandoned their kids. According to one particular father I know, 'it happens all the time' and paying maintenance is 'more than most men would do.' Is HIS view also teh product of the hatred and bias of one particular man?

Where did I say that?

I said that there was natural bias, which there is. That doesn't mean I don't take an opinion seriously or give it credence.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

I re skimmed the thread and I found a couple of other plausible reasons, addiction [including alcoholism] and depression, both of which are forms of escape, of running away, sometimes responsibility, sometimes pain, sometimes families, sometimes memory, sometimes undigestable anger, any number of things. But.... that doesnt pay the bills, that doesnt console the angry or bereaved child... and depression or addictions -responsibilities are responsibilities, so yeah I would tend to agree with Fittle, they dont want or cant cope with the responsibility. Call it misandrist if you like, the label wont stop me from agreeing with that perception.

There are mothers with many of the above characteristics, severely alcoholic, chronically depressed, angry, abusive etc. that should be nowhere near a child, would be far better for the good of the child if they did just walk away.

As for alcohol and depression, it depends, I think they are both wider topics and just labelling it them as "unresponsible" is a tad simplistic.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

What was the point of those two questions?

Well, you answered this...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why not?

...to this question:

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!

You decided to ignore my last post to you, any points made (seeing as you couldn't get me to go off them with your irrelevant questions) and you did skulk off. That's what it was, plain and simple.

Seriously, you're doing yourself a disservice with the continued use of insulting language. Give it a rest.

It is ironic that you are now attempting to belittle my arguments in exactly the same way as you have accused me of doing to others. Yet, when it actually comes to making an argument, you've not really done a lot here, from what I can see.

In your opinion. You've yet to answer the question regarding when it might be a good idea, if at all, for men to abdicate their parental responsibilities.

Nozebleed wrote: »

is there an unfit mothers thread by any chance? just curious..

I'm sure they'd love to discuss it in tLL. Not.

Humanities would probably be a better place.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

As for alcohol and depression, it depends, I think they are both wider topics and just labelling it them as "unresponsible" is a tad simplistic.

Irresponsible surely? Unresponsible just conjures up images of a comatose man with his kids using him as a climbing frame...

The Corinthian

Pherekydes wrote: »

In your opinion. You've yet to answer the question regarding when it might be a good idea, if at all, for men to abdicate their parental responsibilities.

I did answer your original question of "are men entitled to abdicate their responsibilities as parents?" Maybe is the answer, because I am not entirely convinced either way and have repeatedly said that in this thread.

As for when, that's a new question (and a moot one given my previous answer) and I'd prefer if you addressed what I said before I allow you to drag the argument further away from the point I was making, which appears to be your tactic here.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Irresponsible surely? Unresponsible just conjures up images of a comatose man with his kids using him as a climbing frame...

Thanks.

Anyway, always find it strange how you will not answer if you are a father yourself in these type of threads. Anyway, it is your right to answer. I suppose it means you can remain aloof and detached.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

There are mothers with many of the above characteristics, severely alcoholic, chronically depressed, angry, abusive etc. that should be nowhere near a child, would be far better for the good of the child if they did just walk away.
.

And they often do. But this thread isnt about mothers. But it does raise an interesting question about the father's who do walk away and that is maybe they did do what is better for the child even if that wasnt their primary motivation.

K-9 wrote: »

As for alcohol and depression, it depends, I think they are both wider topics and just labelling it them as "unresponsible" is a tad simplistic.

I agree that labelling them irresponsible is simplistic, but irresponsibility can [not always by any means] be a common bi product of both simply because you cant face them or your not with it enough to manage them.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Anyway, always find it strange how you will not answer if you are a father yourself in these type of threads. Anyway, it is your right to answer. I suppose it means you can remain aloof and detached.

Because it is irrelevant to the arguments I make - they can stand on their own or not, as the case may be.

Additionally, someone having a personal stake one way or another distracts from the arguments and immediately colours people's views. For example, Fittle has given her story and that has already been cited as a reason for her views (not the arguments or lack thereof that she's presented).

If I am not a father, then one dismiss my arguments. Or if I am they may accuse me of having a similarly emotive position and again dismiss them.

Worse still, people's experiences are completely unreliable. I could be a father claiming to be driven away, but can you take my word for that really? Or who is to say that what Fittle told us of her story is accurate or true? Did her child's father walk or did she drive him away? Her inability to see any other view than her own might well be cited to point to the latter and explain why it is so important that she emphasize the former.

And even if any account is true it is only one account of one case and the appeal to emotion that comes with that might lead us down a biased path that paints all other cases with the same colour.

Arguments should be allowed to stand for themselves without resorting to such appeals.

And I'll admit I prefer to remain aloof and detached.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

And they often do. But this thread isnt about mothers. But it does raise an interesting question about the father's who do walk away and that is maybe they did do what is better for the child even if that wasnt their primary motivation.



I agree that labelling them irresponsible is simplistic, but irresponsibility can [not always by any means] be a common bi product of both simply because you cant face them or your not with it enough to manage them.

It's obviously not about mothers, but comparisons give the subject context.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

It's obviously not about mothers, but comparisons give the subject context.

Ok but a lot of alcoholic, chronically depressed, angry fathers also dont walk away from thei kids when the kids might be better off if they did, but we are talking about dads who do walk away from their kids.

Fittle

'Or who is to say that what Fittle told us of her story is accurate or true? Did her child's father walk or did she drive him away? Her inability to see any other view than her own might well be cited to point to the latter and explain why it is so important that she emphasize the former.'

I'm not biting.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok but a lot of alcoholic, chronically depressed, angry fathers also dont walk away from their kids when they might be better off doing so, but we are talking about dads who do walk away from their kids.

Exactly. Walking away maybe the best option for the child and unfortunately, probably not chosen by enough parents, both male and female.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because it is irrelevant to the arguments I make - they can stand on their own or not, as the case may be.

Additionally, someone having a personal stake one way or another distracts from the arguments and immediately colours people's views. For example, Fittle has given her story and that has already been cited as a reason for her views (not the arguments or lack thereof that she's presented).

If I am not a father, then one dismiss my arguments. Or if I am they may accuse me of having a similarly emotive position and again dismiss them.

Worse still, people's experiences are completely unreliable. I could be a father claiming to be driven away, but can you take my word for that really? Or who is to say that what Fittle told us of her story is accurate or true? Did her child's father walk or did she drive him away? Her inability to see any other view than her own might well be cited to point to the latter and explain why it is so important that she emphasize the former.

And even if any account is true it is only one account of one case and the appeal to emotion that comes with that might lead us down a biased path that paints all other cases with the same colour.

Arguments should be allowed to stand for themselves without resorting to such appeals.

And I'll admit I prefer to remain aloof and detached.

I'm not one for the "what would you know?" you aren't a parent! line nor that having a child may signify some type of emotional attachment one either, but fair enough.

Anecdotes aren't great either, but most people use them, including yourself.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly. Walking away maybe the best option for the child and unfortunately, probably not chosen by enough parents, both male and female.

See, I dunno about that. A bit of a rock and a hard place. Foster care is no disney land either, and tehre are no guarantees with adoption either. Your child could be landed in god knows where.

There is always the option of getting your **** together, going to rehab or AA, or a shrink.

metrovelvet

Fittle wrote: »

'Or who is to say that what Fittle told us of her story is accurate or true? Did her child's father walk or did she drive him away? Her inability to see any other view than her own might well be cited to point to the latter and explain why it is so important that she emphasize the former.'

I'm not biting.

You know the many reasons women might deny access? An irritating ex, constant bickering, breaking of access orders, abuse, yadda yadda, and while many women put up with it for the sake of their kids, others mightn't and just slam the door? Or lets say, you refuse to put the fathers name on the birth cert and a year goes by with no movement on that, and he takes you to court and you don't want to go to court so you take the child and run away to a place where he cant take you to court. And as a result he doesn't see the child. I think TC is trying to say [and Im aware he can speak for himself] that there are similar reasons for a man walking away. While some put up with it, others won't. So they sacrifice their children in a bid for self preservation.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

See, I dunno about that. A bit of a rock and a hard place. Foster care is no disney land either, and tehre are no guarantees with adoption either. Your child could be landed in god knows where.

There is always the option of getting your **** together, going to rehab or AA, or a shrink.

Yes, but they usually aren't quick fixes.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Anecdotes aren't great either, but most people use them, including yourself.

They're not and I do use them, but I would never solely rely upon them if I can help it. Personal anecdotes are worse, IMO, and I try to avoid them like the plague outside of professional discussions.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You know the many reasons women might deny access? An irritating ex, constant bickering, breaking of access orders, abuse, yadda yadda, and while many women put up with it for the sake of their kids, others mightn't and just slam the door? Or lets say, you refuse to put the fathers name on the birth cert and a year goes by with no movement on that, and he takes you to court and you don't want to go to court so you take the child and run away to a place where he cant take you to court. And as a result he doesn't see the child. I think TC is trying to say [and Im aware he can speak for himself] that there are similar reasons for a man walking away. While some put up with it, others won't. So they sacrifice their children in a bid for self preservation.

Indeed, as can legal belligerence, being treated as an ATM, harassment for the sake of harassment, broken promises, lies, inconsistent access (given or taken) and active attempts to sabotage one's relationship with one's child add up to this extreme for either parent.

All too often, I suspect, it comes down to the relationship between the parents rather than any wish to abdicate responsibility or not. In such cases, the child ends up paying for the resentment felt, for a failed relationship, by one or both parents.