Fathers4Justics - why so negative?

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,168
Forum Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/04/fathers4justice-ad-banned-by-asa?newsfeed=true

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.
«134

Comments

  • johnnybgoode83johnnybgoode83 Posts: 8,908
    Forum Member
    Perhaps they are angry at a divorce system that is weighed heavily against the man?
  • kaiserbeekaiserbee Posts: 4,276
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I thought this group had had a clear out of all the nutjobs. Presumably there are still quite a few amongst them. Shame really, because they have some important points to make.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I actually feel for their cause but they are going about it in the worst way possible. Dressing up as superheroes and being abusive are the worst things a parent could do when trying to prove themselves worthy of respect and justice. I think they are absolute idiots and are more about trolling than they are about truly wanting the justice they supposedly seek. If they're actually totally serious...wow. They're deranged.
  • Dai13371Dai13371 Posts: 8,071
    Forum Member
    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.
  • johnnybgoode83johnnybgoode83 Posts: 8,908
    Forum Member
    Sometimes the only sane approach in an insane world is insanity.
  • Pisces CloudPisces Cloud Posts: 30,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Perhaps they are angry at a divorce system that is weighed heavily against the man?

    To be fair, I think the courts are sometimes stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are rightly going to award the main custody to the prime carer, who is usually the mother, and the rest is then about causing the least disruption to the children involved. Fining or sending a parent to prison because they don't comply isn't going to achieve that.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    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.

    I really don't think so in this specific case. Other causes, I could agree. When it comes to parenting people will just think they are nutjobs not fit to be responsible for kids.
  • jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    One thing is for sure, the divorce/family law system needs to be sorted out. This is one reason why I will never get married. Come divorce/separation there is too much to lose for a man.

    For instance.
    I'll most likely lose custody of the children (if any) and may be denied rights to see them on a regular basis.
    I'll most likely lose my home, even if I'm paying the mortgage, so will have to rent out, somewhere else.
    I'll still have to pay maintenance to any children, even if my ex shacks up with a millionaire.
    I'll lose at least half of the value of my estate, irrespective of what my other half has contributed.

    Now, where is that 'lack of equality' badge some of you ladies are wearing.

    I've seen it time and time again, that married men when it comes to divorce/separation, are literally screwed over by their wives/partners. It's not pretty and shouldn't be allowed.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 914
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    To be fair, I think the courts are sometimes stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are rightly going to award the main custody to the prime carer, who is usually the mother, and the rest is then about causing the least disruption to the children involved. Fining or sending a parent to prison because they don't comply isn't going to achieve that.

    So you're arguing that certain people should have leeway to ignore legal rulings.
    Great, can I be one of them?
  • Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    _drak wrote: »
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/04/fathers4justice-ad-banned-by-asa?newsfeed=true

    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.

    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".
  • BreadstixBreadstix Posts: 10,387
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Men seeking custody?

    Pfft, shouldn't have walked out on their kids in the first place.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,216
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nyota wrote: »
    I actually feel for their cause but they are going about it in the worst way possible.

    They seem to go for maximum publicity but make the mistake of assuming that publicity = success.

    If your campaign is a stupid one then all that getting publicity does is reveal to more people just how stupid you are.

    I too think that their cause is just - but they're doing men no favours with ridiculous campaigns like this.
  • Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    They seem to go for maximum publicity but make the mistake of assuming that publicity = success.

    If your campaign is a stupid one then all that getting publicity does is reveal to more people just how stupid you are.

    I too think that their cause is just - but they're doing men no favours with ridiculous campaigns like this.

    TBH, I think they might have ("might" being the operative word, given that I don't actually spend much time on Mumsnet) a fair point and it's a bit of a cop-out for a website to dodge such claims by simply saying that the views of members don't reflect the views of the website.

    I mean, come on. Mumsnet claiming they don't support prejudice of any kind?

    That's kinda like the cops refusing to take action against the MAC website because they have a disclaimer saying that they don't endorse criminal behaviour.

    At the end of the day a forum IS the sum of the members' posts so if members ARE posting prejudiced stuff the forum should be forced to accept responsibility for it.
  • jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    Breadstix wrote: »
    Men seeking custody?

    Pfft, shouldn't have walked out on their kids in the first place.

    Great analysis there. Many men are ousted from their own home by the partner/wife for whatever reason.
  • Regis MagnaeRegis Magnae Posts: 6,810
    Forum Member
    Breadstix wrote: »
    Men seeking custody?

    Pfft, shouldn't have walked out on their kids in the first place.

    Presumptuous.
  • 2-Pot Screamer2-Pot Screamer Posts: 34,238
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They seem to go for maximum publicity but make the mistake of assuming that publicity = success.

    If your campaign is a stupid one then all that getting publicity does is reveal to more people just how stupid you are.

    I too think that their cause is just - but they're doing men no favours with ridiculous campaigns like this.
    So - as you acknowledge the cause is just, yet don't agree with the adopted tactics - how do you think the campaign should proceed?
  • Alan1981Alan1981 Posts: 5,416
    Forum Member
    Breadstix wrote: »
    Men seeking custody?

    Pfft, shouldn't have walked out on their kids in the first place.

    Many never walked out on their children. I used to work with a bloke who lost access to his children after his wife met up with her first boyfriend on facebook, and ran off dragging the kids with her.

    Of course it's always the mans fault isn't it.
  • 2-Pot Screamer2-Pot Screamer Posts: 34,238
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Breadstix wrote: »
    Men seeking custody?

    Pfft, shouldn't have walked out on their kids in the first place.
    Yes, ignore reality, why don't you? :rolleyes:

    The reality being that whoever did the "walking out", the legal advantage will lie with the female in the relationship.
  • John MalkovichJohn Malkovich Posts: 344
    Forum Member
    Breadstix wrote: »
    Men seeking custody?

    Pfft, shouldn't have walked out on their kids in the first place.

    Most fathers love their kids and would want to spend all the time in the world with them if they could.

    It's the woman they're walking away from.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mumsnet and F4J are a marriage made in heaven, from what I've seen. Equally deranged.

    They do say tis a fine line between love and hate...
  • D*****D***** Posts: 3,584
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Some of the stories you hear regarding men and divorce/ children's custody are so cruel you soon begin to understand why so many are bitter.

    It is an important fight for equality that they are going for and I support everything they do.
  • TheSwordTheSword Posts: 671
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That ad is a mirror of how so many embittered, nasty, evil women, behave and treat the father of their children, most of which I think work for the Child Support Agency.

    I know of so many women that have trapped men, then make their lives a misery, kick them out of their own home, and live off what the CSA can screw out of them, this is fact,not my opinion, total fact, it's happened to me, and a lot of friends people I know. The CSA is a horrid organisation, that you can't deal with on a rational basis, and in my case, keep sending all manner of threatening letters.

    Any woman or man come to that that behaves in this manner deserve everything they get.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    TheSword wrote: »
    That ad is a mirror of how so many embittered, nasty, evil women, behave and treat the father of their children, most of which I think work for the Child Support Agency.

    I know of so many women that have trapped men, then make their lives a misery, kick them out of their own home, and live off what the CSA can screw out of them, this is fact,not my opinion, total fact, it's happened to me, and a lot of friends people I know. The CSA is a horrid organisation, that you can't deal with on a rational basis, and in my case, keep sending all manner of threatening letters.

    Any woman or man come to that that behaves in this manner deserve everything they get.

    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.
  • TheSwordTheSword Posts: 671
    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.

    I had to come to a personal arrangements with my ex, i.e. by-passing the CSA, the CSA put an emergency assessment on me, and there was nothing I could do to get it sorted, if it was left to them she would have never received a penny, as it was I was quite generous, but the CSA are still threatening to take me to court for tens of thousands of pounds.

    I have another issue now with my other child, I sent them an estimate last year of what I expected my earnings to be, they actually turned out to be a lot less, and they are saying that they won't back date them, however they give stern warnings that if the estimate is lower that they will TAKE ACTION. Between the goods I left with my child's mother, including freezer, washing machine, furniture, that were my personal items before we met and she never contributed towards, and payments made when I could afford to that were way above what I should have paid, I am absolutely furious with them, and at the same time they say they encourage couples to come to their own arrangements, but from my experience, when the mother pulls out, any 'overpayments' are ignored. It's just a shame I never realised that her mum was a nutcase before it was too late, and more than that she did stuff that seriously curtails my earnings potential, so she deserves to get exactly what she's getting.

    Well as far as I'm concerned they can stuff it, I'm a reasonable kind man, which is probably why I get screwed all the time.
  • academiaacademia Posts: 18,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    One thing is for sure, the divorce/family law system needs to be sorted out. This is one reason why I will never get married. Come divorce/separation there is too much to lose for a man.

    For instance.
    I'll most likely lose custody of the children (if any) and may be denied rights to see them on a regular basis.
    I'll most likely lose my home, even if I'm paying the mortgage, so will have to rent out, somewhere else.
    I'll still have to pay maintenance to any children, even if my ex shacks up with a millionaire.
    I'll lose at least half of the value of my estate, irrespective of what my other half has contributed.

    Now, where is that 'lack of equality' badge some of you ladies are wearing.

    I've seen it time and time again, that married men when it comes to divorce/separation, are literally screwed over by their wives/partners. It's not pretty and shouldn't be allowed.

    In reality, women suffer financially more than men when it comes to divorce - except in the high profile rich people's divorces.
    Many men don't pay anything towards their children - little gets done about that - the CSA was a massive flop.
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.