Fathers4Justics - why so negative?

24

Comments

  • 2-Pot Screamer2-Pot Screamer Posts: 34,238
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    Well the CSA have 'screwed' precisely £0 out of my ex for two children for the past decade.

    I think the kids may have cost more money to run in 11 years than £0.

    The CSA aren't all that great.

    My ex emailed me last week to say he was having a great time sunning himself in Italy and, apparently, the ice cream is wonderful. My kids will get two days in a tent in the Lake District.

    That is how good the CSA are.:D My husband, the kids' stepdad, works hard and supports the kids 100%. Their birth dad last gave me £20 towards a fraction of one week's nursery fees - 8 years ago. And is on incapacity benefit therefore permanent holiday which, apparently, means all you who work fund him to travel abroad and relax, whilst the CSA say he owes us nothing because some loophole in the law says men who are nutjobs don't have to pay a penny.

    BTW, F4J represents that less than 1% of men who are usually so unhinged or violent they don't receive direct contact.

    My ex is a longstanding member/supporter. Screams about his rights from the rooftops. But lets another man, and myself, support his kids. I would imagine the rest of them are no different.
    What about all the mothers shreiking about the father's responsibilities whilst denying his rights and those of his children - who number many more than the "1%" figure you plucked out of the air, by the way?!

    Few of whom are denied access due to their own violence, though in some cases there may well be allegations of such. It's a very convenient allegation to make, after all, what other excuse would a vindictive mother offer - "I'm hellbent on revenge, so I'm going to deny him access to his child/children whether it damages them or not"?

    One individual case should hardly be taken as a point of reference for the entire country anyway. You come across as very bitter, the fact that you refer to the (presumably) mentally ill father of your children as a "nutjob" speaks volumes really!
  • academiaacademia Posts: 18,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Si_Crewe wrote: »
    That ad' campaign seems specifically designed to demonstrate the sort of prejudice that routinely faces men seeking custody.

    It's not saying "This is what we think of women".
    It's saying "This is the sort of thing MEN have to put up with".

    It wasn't a woman who scrawled all over that child's body. And it isn't prejudice to say that it was a disgusting thing to do.
    In fact I'd go so far as to say it was the work of an unhinged and hysterical personality.
  • 2-Pot Screamer2-Pot Screamer Posts: 34,238
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    academia wrote: »
    In reality, it is often men themselves who don't keep in touch with their children.
    In reality, most couples manage a reasonable arrangement for seeing childen.

    And you should be wary of listening to men's complaints about being 'screwed over' - many think like you that everything should revert to them when the marriage collapses.
    Some mothers make it hellishly difficult for the father to maintain contact, with the aim of discouraging him from trying to do so. Here's the thing: sometimes it works, the father can't take the emotional strain so he eventually gives up. Then she has the satisfaction of telling the child/children that their dad "doesn't want to see them" and, in her mind, she has the "high moral ground". :rolleyes:

    BIB: That's a ridiculous claim. Where did jra say he believes that, and what evidence do you have that "many" other men believe so?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    academia wrote: »
    It wasn't a woman who scrawled all over that child's body. And it isn't prejudice to say that it was a disgusting thing to do.
    In fact I'd go so far as to say it was the work of an unhinged and hysterical personality.

    It's just the sort of thing that confirms my belief that Fathers4Justice are more about causing trouble than they are about the well-being of their kids and seeking genuine fairness for fathers.

    I find them indefensible, and I think any man who was serious about fighting for their rights when it comes to their children should stay as far away from them as possible. There is a bloody good reason why they have no credibility and are scorned by most people. Those who defend their actions confuse me, because surely it's obvious that those actions are only damaging their cause beyond repair?
  • Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    academia wrote: »
    It wasn't a woman who scrawled all over that child's body. And it isn't prejudice to say that it was a disgusting thing to do.
    In fact I'd go so far as to say it was the work of an unhinged and hysterical personality.

    No, it wasn't a woman who made the advert.

    It IS, however, women who routinely do that sort of thing to their kids in real-life, for years on end, in order to brainwash their kid into not wanting to see the father.

    Me, I think the latter is almost certainly a bigger sign of an unhinged and hysterical personality than somebody who creates a provocative advert.

    Also, you know the ad' was photoshopped, right?
  • 2-Pot Screamer2-Pot Screamer Posts: 34,238
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nyota wrote: »
    It's just the sort of thing that confirms my belief that Fathers4Justice are more about causing trouble than they are about the well-being of their kids and seeking genuine fairness for fathers.

    I find them indefensible, and I think any man who was serious about fighting for their rights when it comes to their children should stay as far away from them as possible. There is a bloody good reason why they have no credibility and are scorned by most people. Those who defend their actions confuse me, because surely it's obvious that those actions are only damaging their cause beyond repair?
    Why?! :confused:

    Your belief is a very convenient one for a woman to have, but nowhere do you explain why fathers should not be treated fairly!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why?! :confused:

    Your belief is a very convenient one for a woman to have, but nowhere do you explain why fathers should not be treated fairly!

    Where did I say fathers should not be treated fairly? I said Fathers4Justice is a damaging organisation and fathers who want to be treated fairly should stay away from them.

    I think you misread my post.
  • Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    Why?! :confused:

    Your belief is a very convenient one for a woman to have, but nowhere do you explain why fathers should not be treated fairly!

    FWIW, I think the other person means that fathers who're looking to get custody of their children should stay away from F4J, rather than staying away from their kids.

    Ignore me if you realised that. Just that the post you quoted seems a bit ambiguous.
  • peonpeon Posts: 1,671
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    you would think Fathers4Josssticks wouldn't be negative at all man
  • MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dai13371 wrote: »
    Sometimes being outrageous is the only way to few attention to such a flawed system. Unfortunately there needs to be a balance because occasionally their antics are more newsworthy than what they are fighting for.

    Indeed - look at some of the tactics employed by some of the Suffragettes back in the day.

    It raised eyebrows - but ultimately got the job done.
  • 2-Pot Screamer2-Pot Screamer Posts: 34,238
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nyota wrote: »
    Where did I say fathers should not be treated fairly? I said Fathers4Justice is a damaging organisation and fathers who want to be treated fairly should stay away from them.

    I think you misread my post.
    The implication couldn't be clearer!

    Your claim that F4J is a "damaging organisation" is merely your opinion, which you present as fact. Anyway, what is your alternative - what do you think a father who wants to be treated fairly should do, rather than join them?
  • MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The implication couldn't be clearer!

    Your claim that F4J is a "damaging organisation" is merely your opinion, which you present as fact. Anyway, what is your alternative - what do you think a father who wants to be treated fairly should do, rather than join them?

    Its catch 22. How many threads have we seen discussing issues like this that affect men, only for some people to come along and say "stop whinging and do something then". When some men take that advise - they are branded as crackpots.
  • TheSwordTheSword Posts: 671
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    My ex, demanded that the only way my daughter could come and see me was if she came with her, that was just a way of trying to manipulate the situation to try and get back to me, she lied, she hurt me and my family, she made things up, she sold my personal possessions at a car boot sale, and she just wants to get her own way, there is no way I'm letting my daughter be in the middle of that, I will have to just make it up to her when she is a little older, when she'll be able to work things out for herself a bit.

    I think this is what F4J are trying to illustrate, these are the kind of women we have to deal with, and these are the kind of women the state are backing.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The implication couldn't be clearer!

    Your claim that F4J is a "damaging organisation" is merely your opinion, which you present as fact. Anyway, what is your alternative - what do you think a father who wants to be treated fairly should do, rather than join them?

    You are reading what YOU want into my post, not what I actually said.

    If you want to argue your own agenda that's no skin off my nose, but don't imply there are things in my post that aren't actually there at all. That's just poor debating skill.
  • ribtickleribtickle Posts: 6,361
    Forum Member
    The ASA said "We contacted Mumsnet, who reiterated that they did not tolerate any kind of prejudice on the site and this included any kind of gender bias, but users did need to bring this to their attention if action was to be taken,".

    Unless men are allowed on that site to redress the balance by giving their side of the story then it would seem obvious there is a gender bias at play. If all you have is a group of separated women there it's inevitable that men will be subject to their hell-hath-no-fury wrath, and it's that same wrath which can see some women cruelly use their children as a weapon to punish their ex-partners, removing or limiting access to hurt them and not giving a damn how it may affect the child.

    That is why I support Father's For Justice 100%.

    That same climate of bosom-heaving sisterhood operates in many agencies too, not just Child Support, but among Social Workers, since 99% of the staff are female, all automatically identifying with any tale of bad men they hear about and adopting an unethical and unprofessional cynicism. A father does not stand a chance of a fair hearing.

    People can ridicule all they like but when you're desperate, at a social disadvantage and need to get political attention you won't get anywhere by making a quiet and conventional protest. Outrage!, the gay rights activism group, knew that. If father's want to dress as Superman and dangle off a crane or draw attention to all the vituperative bitching that goes on in a coven-like web site then more power to their elbow as far as I'm concerned.
  • 2-Pot Screamer2-Pot Screamer Posts: 34,238
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nyota wrote: »
    You are reading what YOU want into my post, not what I actually said.

    If you want to argue your own agenda that's no skin off my nose, but don't imply there are things in my post that aren't actually there at all. That's just poor debating skill.
    You're not debating at all - merely expressing your diapproval, which you present as fact!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You're not debating at all - merely expressing your diapproval, which you present as fact!

    Whatever you say.
  • TheSwordTheSword Posts: 671
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ribtickle wrote: »
    The ASA said "We contacted Mumsnet, who reiterated that they did not tolerate any kind of prejudice on the site and this included any kind of gender bias, but users did need to bring this to their attention if action was to be taken,".

    Unless men are allowed on that site to redress the balance by giving their side of the story then it would seem obvious there is a gender bias at play. If all you have is a group of separated women there it's inevitable that men will be subject to their hell-hath-no-fury wrath, and it's that same wrath which can see some women cruelly use their children as a weapon to punish their ex-partners, removing or limiting access to hurt them and not giving a damn how it may affect the child.

    That is why I support Father's For Justice 100%.

    That same climate of bosom-heaving sisterhood operates in many agencies too, not just Child Support, but among Social Workers, since 99% of the staff are female, all automatically identifying with any tale of bad men they hear about and adopting an unethical and unprofessional cynicism. A father does not stand a chance of a fair hearing.

    People can ridicule all they like but when you're desperate, at a social disadvantage and need to get political attention you won't get anywhere by making a quiet protect. Outrage!, the gay rights activism group, knew that. If father's want to dress as Superman and dangle off a crane or draw attention to all the vituperative bitching that goes on in a coven-like web site then more power to their elbow as far as I'm concerned.

    Here here, and that is fact, I've seen at play too many times. Mothers drive the fathers to distress, so they can't take no more, they then leave, then the mother tries to screw them for everything they can get and the hate and the vindictiveness, simply drives father away and it simply becomes impossible to see the the children on a sensible basis.

    Anyone who thinks that this doesn't happen on a frequent basis,is simply naive, o0r blind to the truth.
  • StarpussStarpuss Posts: 12,845
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TheSword wrote: »
    My ex, demanded that the only way my daughter could come and see me was if she came with her, that was just a way of trying to manipulate the situation to try and get back to me, she lied, she hurt me and my family, she made things up, she sold my personal possessions at a car boot sale, and she just wants to get her own way, there is no way I'm letting my daughter be in the middle of that, I will have to just make it up to her when she is a little older, when she'll be able to work things out for herself a bit.

    I think this is what F4J are trying to illustrate, these are the kind of women we have to deal with, and these are the kind of women the state are backing.

    I would have said "OK then". Let her come along. At least that way you would still see your child.

    She may be an unhinged nutter that you want nothing to do with any more but in order to continue seeing your daughter then I am sure you are strong enough to put up with it all.

    Nothing on earth would stop me seeing my children. Nothing.
  • TheSwordTheSword Posts: 671
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Starpuss wrote: »
    I would have said "OK then". Let her come along. At least that way you would still see your child.

    She may be an unhinged nutter that you want nothing to do with any more but in order to continue seeing your daughter then I am sure you are strong enough to put up with it all.

    Nothing on earth would stop me seeing my children. Nothing.

    No chance, I ended up being incriminated by her actions once, and I wouldn't put it past her do some stupid stunt again, and a father in jail is no good to anyone is it?
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nyota wrote: »
    It's just the sort of thing that confirms my belief that Fathers4Justice are more about causing trouble than they are about the well-being of their kids and seeking genuine fairness for fathers.

    I find them indefensible, and I think any man who was serious about fighting for their rights when it comes to their children should stay as far away from them as possible. There is a bloody good reason why they have no credibility and are scorned by most people. Those who defend their actions confuse me, because surely it's obvious that those actions are only damaging their cause beyond repair?

    This is true. My ex sacked his lawyer, during the residency/access case, actually there in court on the day. So was in effect a litigant in person. And from the weird emails etc he had been bombarding the court with at previous hearings, even when he had a brief, they could tell he had some involvement with F4J. They give them the wordings of things, for example, and are so thick they don't realise that laywers, solicitors and judges see this all day so can soon recognise it is an F4J pro forma.:D:D

    My solicitor said that the fact he was clearly a part of them would be spotted instantly, and would go against him. It was, and it did.

    I don't think they have the interests of the kids in mind at all, it is just some big sexist mysognistic battle, for them. If a court denies a man direct contact, they do it for a good reason and so many of the men involved in this are that tiny minority who are so dangerous to their kids, they are not allowed any contact. They are gobby and vociferous, so they make it look like they are a majority of men, but they represent less than 1% and that 1% contains all the headtheballs.:D
  • StarpussStarpuss Posts: 12,845
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TheSword wrote: »
    No chance, I ended up being incriminated by her actions once, and I wouldn't put it past her do some stupid stunt again, and a father in jail is no good to anyone is it?

    Nothing would stop me from trying to see my children. If you feel there is a line that is drawn that you wouldn't cross to see yours then that is your decision. Everyone is different.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    This is true. My ex sacked his lawyer, during the residency/access case, actually there in court on the day. So was in effect a litigant in person. And from the weird emails etc he had been bombarding the court with at previous hearings, even when he had a brief, they could tell he had some involvement with F4J. They give them the wordings of things, for example, and are so thick they don't realise that laywers, solicitors and judges see this all day so can soon recognise it is an F4J pro forma.:D:D

    My solicitor said that the fact he was clearly a part of them would be spotted instantly, and would go against him. It was, and it did.

    I don't think they have the interests of the kids in mind at all, it is just some big sexist mysognistic battle, for them. If a court denies a man direct contact, they do it for a good reason and so many of the men involved in this are that tiny minority who are so dangerous to their kids, they are not allowed any contact. They are gobby and vociferous, so they make it look like they are a majority of men, but they represent less than 1% and that 1% contains all the headtheballs.:D

    I love your posts because you almost always articulate my own opinions better than I do. :D

    My mum and I joke that we think my dad (totally absent from my life since the age of seven, and who made me do a DNA test when I was thirteen because he was denying I was his as he didn't want to pay child support) is a Fathers4Justice member. While I don't see him as the type to dress as a superhero and scale random buildings, he was a big time ranter when he used to write to the CSA, and would probably fit right in.
  • George_McPhailGeorge_McPhail Posts: 21
    Forum Member
    Men need this organisation, rightly or wrongly sometimes being outrageous is the only they can get noticed.

    My brother is currently fighting a losing battle to see his kids, and its destroying him.
    He has a well paid job, a stable home family life and all he wants is too see his kids, and yet he cant because the courts have decided to side with the manipulative evil shrew called their mother.

    Who over the past year has hit him, accused him of all sorts including abuse and rape and then later changing her mind and left threatening messages to him, me and the rest of his family, indulged in a bit of homophobia and standing in the middle of the street in the early hours shrieking like a banshee with her kids beside her, And the best, she is living with her uncle a convicted murderer.

    Yet the courts seem to have said this is the best enviroment for 3 children to be in.

    So yes, their actions may seem stupid, and yes may seem bitter, but sometimes it cant be helped. There a lot of good fathers out there and a lot of evil manipulative women, and its high time the courts stopped being so in favour of the "loving mother" cos just sometimes its wrong.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Men need this organisation, rightly or wrongly sometimes being outrageous is the only they can get noticed.

    I won't argue that men need an orangisation that helps people who are serious about wanting father's rights.

    But scrawling abusive writing on a child's face and doing things like setting off rockets in the lottery studio is not being outrageous. It's being abusive and dangerous and I wouldn't want anyone who does things like that around children.
Sign In or Register to comment.