I love your posts because you almost always articulate my own opinions better than I do.
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.
I have a feeling my ex was involved quite heavily but behind the scenes. His brother was one of those far right wing football thugs back in the 1980s, and they all strike me as having that kind of background. They are rarely cogent, well educated blokes but knuckle dragging neantherthals/toothless Jeremy Kyle guest types.:D
My solicitor did say outright that they recognised the wording of some of his stuff as being straight from F4J materials, and that the judge would also spot that instantly. And that would go against him.
These men are very fast to go on about their own rights, and their own tortured souls but not so fast to pay for their kids, eh?
Their campaigns come across as bitter, these men seem more angry about their life circumstance, and women than "justice", which does not involve attacking other groups, surely? They will not win public support like this.
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.
Being in jail would seriously curtail seeing your children, no?
And what's more I wouldn't put it past this woman to muster up a child abuse accusation, now that would cause me and my daughter some serious problems, and could affect her for the rest of a life in a really bad way, I think that's a good line to draw.
Honestly I'm not kidding, she is a vindictive, nasty, devious, manipulating nutcase, I just hope my daughter don't take after her too much.
I have a feeling my ex was involved quite heavily but behind the scenes. His brother was one of those far right wing football thugs back in the 1980s, and they all strike me as having that kind of background. They are rarely cogent, well educated blokes but knuckle dragging neantherthals/toothless Jeremy Kyle guest types.:D
My solicitor did say outright that they rceognised the wording of some of his stuff as being straight from F4J materials, and that the judge would also spot that instantly. And that would go against him.
These men are very fast to go on about their own rights, and their own tortured souls but not so fast to pay for their kids, eh?
My dad's a barrister and well educated, but such a complete numpty I think he'd still join such an organisation. Back then, I think he would have done anything if it had got him out of paying child support and having to acknowledge that he had a kid in ANY way.
I agree with your theory about most of them being like football thugs though. Those who have been shown on TV have usually had that look/vibe. I'm sue now we'll be accused of classism or something now though.
Maintenance payments for your children should not be tied in to visitation rights - and I don't think are.
The two things should be left completely separate and treated as two totally different issues - so absent parents (be that mother or father) should not use the money they pay as a reason for seeing the children or a bargaining tool to get more access. And the prsent parent should not use the fact that maintenance isn't being paid to restrict access to the absent parent.
In an ideal world - each case would be taken individually and based on its own individual merits.
F4J have become a parody of themselves unfortunately - the cause is justified, but their methods (and some members) now leave a hell of a lot to be desired.
The suffragettes chained themselves to railings and threw themselves under horses. Feminists in the late '60's early 70's set fire to items of clothing.
Being in jail would seriously curtail seeing your children, no?
And what's more I wouldn't put it past this woman to muster up a child abuse accusation, now that would cause me and my daughter some serious problems, and could affect her for the rest of a life in a really bad way, I think that's a good line to draw.
Honestly I'm not kidding, she is a vindictive, nasty, devious, manipulating nutcase, I just hope my daughter don't take after her too much.
I threatened to do something that would have at least got me arrested when my ex rang me to tell me he wasn't coming to pick our daughter up as planned. Things had been fine for a couple of months after we split then he started with the being late and bringing her back early.
I snapped. I would have gone through with it but at the end of a couple of hours of me being like a mad woman :eek: he realised that he actually was going to pick her up as planned.
Since then things have been great, It was 10 years ago and their relationship is fantastic.
But to answer your question. Yes. I would risk jail. And as you aren't seeing your daughter at all now isn't it worth the risk?
The suffragettes chained themselves to railings and threw themselves under horses.
We're they nutters too?
Of course not, and I take your point about double standards.
Ironically, one only has to read some of the posts in this thread to see that there are quite a few embittered and vindictive women around, who quack about "misogyny" whilst spitting forth their hatred of men - thus unwittingly demonstrating the need for organisations such as F4J!
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.
But its OK to let 3 kids live in the same house as a notorious glasgow murderer who killed his own son when he was drunk
So basically, you wouldn't want their kids around their fathers who would do anything to see them, And also I think you fail to see the point, these are demonstrations and actions to get noticed, I would hardly think they would do this in front of their own children.
I threatened to do something that would have at least got me arrested when my ex rang me to tell me he wasn't coming to pick our daughter up as planned. Things had been fine for a couple of months after we split then he started with the being late and bringing her back early.
I snapped. I would have gone through with it but at the end of a couple of hours of me being like a mad woman :eek: he realised that he actually was going to pick her up as planned.
Since then things have been great, It was 10 years ago and their relationship is fantastic.
But to answer your question. Yes. I would risk jail. And as you aren't seeing your daughter at all now isn't it worth the risk?
Oh no, it's not worth the risk, there are more people to be concerned about than just me and my daughter and what I want, my mum is very dependent on me after my father died late last year, too much stress might just kill her, so no it's not worth the risk.
Besides it's not really a risk, it's inevitable that something really bad would happen, if you knew her you'd soon realise.
But its OK to let 3 kids live in the same house as a notorious glasgow murderer who killed his own son when he was drunk
So basically, you wouldn't want their kids around their fathers who would do anything to see them, And also I think you fail to see the point, these are demonstrations and actions to get noticed, I would hardly think they would do this in front of their own children.
But imagine the humiliation of seeing one of these prats on the news and then a close up to his face and.... it's your dad.
Plus, ask yourself the question, why have the courts stopped these men from direct contact? Why don't they stop the other 99% of non resident parents from direct contact? Just how bad would these men have to be?
Oh no, it's not worth the risk, there are more people to be concerned about than just me and my daughter and what I want, my mum is very dependent on me after my father died late last year, too much stress might just kill her, so no it's not worth the risk.
Besides it's not really a risk, it's inevitable that something really bad would happen, if you knew her you'd soon realise.
You open up an interesting point actually. Maybe there is a fundamental difference in the way men and women see these things.
My mother is elderly, widowed and nearly blind. She relies on me for many things but if it came down to a choice between her and seeing my children I would instantly choose my children (which I am 100% certain she would agree with).
Maybe men have a more general sense of responsibility for the family as a whole and women are more focused on the children. It is interesting.
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%.
But Mumsnet does allow men on its site. It's a resource for mums generally but that doesn't mean it bans men from taking part in discussion. Frankly, the ad was just bizarre and heavily implied that Mumsnet actually endorsed the comments and carried anti-male hatred on its sites which was blatantly untrue. Look at the range of opinions on the DS forums...do you think DS should be judged on the opinions of every single person on here?
My dad's a barrister and well educated, but such a complete numpty I think he'd still join such an organisation. Back then, I think he would have done anything if it had got him out of paying child support and having to acknowledge that he had a kid in ANY way.
I agree with your theory about most of them being like football thugs though. Those who have been shown on TV have usually had that look/vibe. I'm sue now we'll be accused of classism or something now though.
My ex was an actor so not very well educated, but had the ability to blend in with people, and subsume something of the general ambience, let's say, which would enable him to fit in with the knuckle draggers of F4J.
He had a lot of money in the bank but the kids haven't seen a penny for best part of ten years. He also bombards me with emails telling me they are written out of his will, etc. Got one of them last week. He referred to them as, I quote, ".. those 'children' ", inverted commas his, as if they aren't even human.
Yet in court he is spouting the F4J party line and in public going on endlessly to whoever will listen, how much he loves them, how deprived he is, etc. Utter hypocrisy.
I bet if you checked up on the F4J members the majority will have dodged paying for their kids, one way or another.
It is amusing to see myself classed by F4J types as 'man hater' as I pointed out, my husband (who I think last time I looked was a man), pays for everything for the kids, loves them and looks after them as if they were his own, unquestioningly. These neanderthals are in a tiny, tiny minority of a fraction of 1% of men. Which I also said. Some men love to play the victim, eh?
But imagine the humiliation of seeing one of these prats on the news and then a close up to his face and.... it's your dad.
Plus, ask yourself the question, why have the courts stopped these men from direct contact? Why don't they stop the other 99% of non resident parents from direct contact? Just how bad would these men have to be?
Many men still pay Child Support and are given contact by the courts, but if the mother then decides to refuse, decides not to comply with that order then the courts will NOT punish her. So what is a man in that situation supposed to do?
It is amusing to see myself classed by F4J types as 'man hater' as I pointed out, my husband (who I think last time I looked was a man), pays for everything for the kids, loves them and looks after them as if they were his own, unquestioningly. These neanderthals are in a tiny, tiny minority of a fraction of 1% of men. Which I also said. Some men love to play the victim, eh?
I'm sure it can be quite useful to have a bloke around, but are you saying that any woman with a male partner, cannot, by definition, be a misandrist?
Presumably then, it's impossible for any male with a female partner (including many "F4J types") to be a misogynist!
Or does the usual sexist double standard apply here?
So any woman with a male partner, cannot, by definition, be a misandrist?
Presumably then, it's impossible for any male with a female partner (including many "F4J types") to be a misogynist!
Or does the usual sexist double standard apply here?
You're being disingenuous, I assume.:)
What I am saying is, I was not implying all men are idiots, just this small, tiny minority. And I was also pointing out that there are men who will pay out for, and care for their kids - and other people's. Only this vociferous minority have 'issues'.
It is difficult to pass judgment on a group. In such things as relationship breakups and divorce, each case should be examined and judged on separate, this is where a lot of problems start with too many pre-assumptions and stereotypical images.
The courts are getting better when it comes to divorce. My ex wanted a divorce and told me in no uncertain terms I should leave, I refused, we tried to work things out, didint happen. Fortunately my solicitor told me all the rights I had, such as if she changed the locks while I was out at work, I could then have police come to gain entry and let me back in.
Problem was my ex had mental health problems, the courts ended up awarding everything to me, including custody of our kids. My ex then dissapeared for 3 years only making 2 phone calls around Christmas time. I only got about £100 off her in 15 years. T
hen she starts to use the kid to attack me and make my life hell by repeatedly going back to court to gain custody and to get better access and visiting. She was only allowed to see them between 930am to 6pm on a weekend very 8 weeks. She did that twice in 6 months,, then stopped for 2 years again. She made such a huge issue about visiting, but obvious it was just down to make me look bad and to make my life a misery, once she had it, she couldn't care less. there were plenty of other examples too, but they all ended the same.
The courts just saw her as an unfit parent and mother and acted accordingly. It does work both ways, its not just fathers who are shut out, it just seems a few who are. I know a number of divorced fathers and they have had no problems what so ever, relationship is amicable and visiting times are flexible and they work for the good of the children. Its not all doom and gloom.
What I am saying is, I was not implying all men are idiots, just this small, tiny minority. And I was also pointing out that there are men who will pay out for, and care for their kids - and other people's. Only this vociferous minority have 'issues'.
And as I pointed out, many such men are granted contact orders from the courts but if the mother doesn't obey that order, they will NOT punish her. So why did you ignore my post and not 2 Pot screamer's?
You open up an interesting point actually. Maybe there is a fundamental difference in the way men and women see these things.
My mother is elderly, widowed and nearly blind. She relies on me for many things but if it came down to a choice between her and seeing my children I would instantly choose my children (which I am 100% certain she would agree with).
Maybe men have a more general sense of responsibility for the family as a whole and women are more focused on the children. It is interesting.
I don't know, I think it's just the way circumstances are at the moment, I'm not big on family at all.
And as I pointed out, many such men might be granted contact orders from the courts but if the mother doesn't obey that order, they will NOT punish her. So why did you ignore my post and not 2 Pot screamer's?
Comments
I have a feeling my ex was involved quite heavily but behind the scenes. His brother was one of those far right wing football thugs back in the 1980s, and they all strike me as having that kind of background. They are rarely cogent, well educated blokes but knuckle dragging neantherthals/toothless Jeremy Kyle guest types.:D
My solicitor did say outright that they recognised the wording of some of his stuff as being straight from F4J materials, and that the judge would also spot that instantly. And that would go against him.
These men are very fast to go on about their own rights, and their own tortured souls but not so fast to pay for their kids, eh?
The Guardian, now there's an impartial source !!!
Being in jail would seriously curtail seeing your children, no?
And what's more I wouldn't put it past this woman to muster up a child abuse accusation, now that would cause me and my daughter some serious problems, and could affect her for the rest of a life in a really bad way, I think that's a good line to draw.
Honestly I'm not kidding, she is a vindictive, nasty, devious, manipulating nutcase, I just hope my daughter don't take after her too much.
My dad's a barrister and well educated, but such a complete numpty I think he'd still join such an organisation. Back then, I think he would have done anything if it had got him out of paying child support and having to acknowledge that he had a kid in ANY way.
I agree with your theory about most of them being like football thugs though. Those who have been shown on TV have usually had that look/vibe. I'm sue now we'll be accused of classism or something now though.
The two things should be left completely separate and treated as two totally different issues - so absent parents (be that mother or father) should not use the money they pay as a reason for seeing the children or a bargaining tool to get more access. And the prsent parent should not use the fact that maintenance isn't being paid to restrict access to the absent parent.
In an ideal world - each case would be taken individually and based on its own individual merits.
F4J have become a parody of themselves unfortunately - the cause is justified, but their methods (and some members) now leave a hell of a lot to be desired.
Were they nutters too?
I threatened to do something that would have at least got me arrested when my ex rang me to tell me he wasn't coming to pick our daughter up as planned. Things had been fine for a couple of months after we split then he started with the being late and bringing her back early.
I snapped. I would have gone through with it but at the end of a couple of hours of me being like a mad woman :eek: he realised that he actually was going to pick her up as planned.
Since then things have been great, It was 10 years ago and their relationship is fantastic.
But to answer your question. Yes. I would risk jail. And as you aren't seeing your daughter at all now isn't it worth the risk?
Ironically, one only has to read some of the posts in this thread to see that there are quite a few embittered and vindictive women around, who quack about "misogyny" whilst spitting forth their hatred of men - thus unwittingly demonstrating the need for organisations such as F4J!
But its OK to let 3 kids live in the same house as a notorious glasgow murderer who killed his own son when he was drunk
So basically, you wouldn't want their kids around their fathers who would do anything to see them, And also I think you fail to see the point, these are demonstrations and actions to get noticed, I would hardly think they would do this in front of their own children.
It's not even worth responding to, is it?
Oh no, it's not worth the risk, there are more people to be concerned about than just me and my daughter and what I want, my mum is very dependent on me after my father died late last year, too much stress might just kill her, so no it's not worth the risk.
Besides it's not really a risk, it's inevitable that something really bad would happen, if you knew her you'd soon realise.
I'm fairly sure men in the early 20th century found the suffragettes amusing too. Sexists rarely see the other point of view.
Don't you believe in equal treatment under the law regardless of gender?
So don't.
But imagine the humiliation of seeing one of these prats on the news and then a close up to his face and.... it's your dad.
Plus, ask yourself the question, why have the courts stopped these men from direct contact? Why don't they stop the other 99% of non resident parents from direct contact? Just how bad would these men have to be?
You open up an interesting point actually. Maybe there is a fundamental difference in the way men and women see these things.
My mother is elderly, widowed and nearly blind. She relies on me for many things but if it came down to a choice between her and seeing my children I would instantly choose my children (which I am 100% certain she would agree with).
Maybe men have a more general sense of responsibility for the family as a whole and women are more focused on the children. It is interesting.
I think you'll find that I didn't - I was responding to Hogzilla.
But Mumsnet does allow men on its site. It's a resource for mums generally but that doesn't mean it bans men from taking part in discussion. Frankly, the ad was just bizarre and heavily implied that Mumsnet actually endorsed the comments and carried anti-male hatred on its sites which was blatantly untrue. Look at the range of opinions on the DS forums...do you think DS should be judged on the opinions of every single person on here?
My ex was an actor so not very well educated, but had the ability to blend in with people, and subsume something of the general ambience, let's say, which would enable him to fit in with the knuckle draggers of F4J.
He had a lot of money in the bank but the kids haven't seen a penny for best part of ten years. He also bombards me with emails telling me they are written out of his will, etc. Got one of them last week. He referred to them as, I quote, ".. those 'children' ", inverted commas his, as if they aren't even human.
Yet in court he is spouting the F4J party line and in public going on endlessly to whoever will listen, how much he loves them, how deprived he is, etc. Utter hypocrisy.
I bet if you checked up on the F4J members the majority will have dodged paying for their kids, one way or another.
It is amusing to see myself classed by F4J types as 'man hater' as I pointed out, my husband (who I think last time I looked was a man), pays for everything for the kids, loves them and looks after them as if they were his own, unquestioningly. These neanderthals are in a tiny, tiny minority of a fraction of 1% of men. Which I also said. Some men love to play the victim, eh?
Many men still pay Child Support and are given contact by the courts, but if the mother then decides to refuse, decides not to comply with that order then the courts will NOT punish her. So what is a man in that situation supposed to do?
Presumably then, it's impossible for any male with a female partner (including many "F4J types") to be a misogynist!
Or does the usual sexist double standard apply here?
You're being disingenuous, I assume.:)
What I am saying is, I was not implying all men are idiots, just this small, tiny minority. And I was also pointing out that there are men who will pay out for, and care for their kids - and other people's. Only this vociferous minority have 'issues'.
The courts are getting better when it comes to divorce. My ex wanted a divorce and told me in no uncertain terms I should leave, I refused, we tried to work things out, didint happen. Fortunately my solicitor told me all the rights I had, such as if she changed the locks while I was out at work, I could then have police come to gain entry and let me back in.
Problem was my ex had mental health problems, the courts ended up awarding everything to me, including custody of our kids. My ex then dissapeared for 3 years only making 2 phone calls around Christmas time. I only got about £100 off her in 15 years. T
hen she starts to use the kid to attack me and make my life hell by repeatedly going back to court to gain custody and to get better access and visiting. She was only allowed to see them between 930am to 6pm on a weekend very 8 weeks. She did that twice in 6 months,, then stopped for 2 years again. She made such a huge issue about visiting, but obvious it was just down to make me look bad and to make my life a misery, once she had it, she couldn't care less. there were plenty of other examples too, but they all ended the same.
The courts just saw her as an unfit parent and mother and acted accordingly. It does work both ways, its not just fathers who are shut out, it just seems a few who are. I know a number of divorced fathers and they have had no problems what so ever, relationship is amicable and visiting times are flexible and they work for the good of the children. Its not all doom and gloom.
I don't know, I think it's just the way circumstances are at the moment, I'm not big on family at all.
Hah! Women! So fickle!:D