The rights of father - Page 2

Pekka · December 20, 2003, 22:28

Dr Strangelove, yeah, it goes both ways..

Agathon · December 20, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hey, I have 1.5 years until I can call myself Esq. I don't want to get in trouble with the Bar Association

.

I don't think you'll ever have any trouble with them.

Ned · December 20, 2003, 22:43

All I can say is that this woman is mad and the new boyfriend is not the entire problem.

The fault usually lies with how the man treats the woman. Lack of communication (listening to the woman) is the most common problem.

Pekka, your friend should figure out what he did wrong and see if he could patch things up with the woman rather than continuing to hurt her feelings the way he is. Counselling helps, especially when both parties' feeling are deeply hurt.

Dr Strangelove · December 20, 2003, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
Dr Strangelove, yeah, it goes both ways..

There are places down here where the old way of doing things lives on.

Kuciwalker · December 20, 2003, 22:51

*cough*texas*cough*

tandeetaylor · December 20, 2003, 23:24

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I can tell you that I was once that 4 year old (not specifically the same, but close). Tell your friend to never give up. Always fight for her. It will seem hopeless sometimes and he will tragically miss a lot of his daughter's life. But if she's got anything like a good head on her shoulders, no matter how indoctrinated she is, one day she will realize what has happened, and she will reject her mother and return to her father. She has physical and legal superiority over her daughter now, but one day she will be an adult, and she'll have no more power over her than her daughter chooses.

MrFun · December 21, 2003, 01:49

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
*cough*texas*cough*

** throws a bottle of NyQuil at skywalker **

Dis · December 21, 2003, 03:40

I saw the thread title and I was sure this was a blackice thread.

Buck Birdseed · December 21, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Snapcase won't answer the question! Snapcase won't answer the question! nya nya nya.

Okay, you want an answer? I do believe the laws are missapplied in the mothers' "favour", thus enforcing the social position of women as the subservient, "caring", portion of society. Women and men need to be able to set their own identity (co-operatively, of course) and not have one imposed on them by the legal system.

Oe caveat I'd have to the above is that it is indeed true that most violence in today's patriarchal society is committed by men. However, I do think more "caring" fathers is an appropriate method to combat this and good examples of single fathers coping with children is a key factor in this.

Agathon · December 21, 2003, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed

Okay, you want an answer? I do believe the laws are missapplied in the mothers' "favour", thus enforcing the social position of women as the subservient, "caring", portion of society. Women and men need to be able to set their own identity (co-operatively, of course) and not have one imposed on them by the legal system.

But is this the result of social pressures or is there something innate in the psychology of women that has caused or partially caused what we see as gender differences? Until we have an answer to this question it's premature to think we can fix it by changing the law.

Quote:

One caveat I'd have to the above is that it is indeed true that most violence in today's patriarchal society is committed by men. However, I do think more "caring" fathers is an appropriate method to combat this and good examples of single fathers coping with children is a key factor in this.

Again, is this something that could conceivably be fixed by social or political reform, or do we need more radical solutions, like drug therapy or genetic engineering to rid ourselves of the violence?

Buck Birdseed · December 21, 2003, 14:05

Lemme just say I don't think it's a coincidence that the "all differerences between genders are genetical" crowd pretty much coincides with those who continually benefit from opression in some way. Of course, they'd say identity self-definition is wishful thinking on my part that I use to pursue my political goal of just distribution of power, whereas the natural order-slash-God clearly dictates that their power-systems are the right ones.

(Yes, I believe all religious "virtues" are in fact those that the natural flock mentality imposes upon us, and that it's our ability to break free of the heard that makes us more than mere animals.)

Agathon · December 21, 2003, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Lemme just say I don't think it's a coincidence that the "all differerences between genders are genetical" crowd pretty much coincides with those who continually benefit from opression in some way.

That's true. I hope you don't count me as one of these.

Quote:

Of course, they'd say identity self-definition is wishful thinking on my part that I use to pursue my political goal of just distribution of power, whereas the natural order-slash-God clearly dictates that their power-systems are the right ones.

I wouldn't go that far, but I'd be careful of attributing all the differences to social conditioning without evidence. It stands to reason that biology plays a large role in shaping our preferences. We like to think we enjoy absolute freedom, but what of homosexuals - are they "free" to change their sexual preferences? contra Sartre, I don't think so. So it looks like we may lose as much as we gain by not accepting innate differences.

Quote:

(Yes, I believe all religious "virtues" are in fact those that the natural flock mentality imposes upon us, and that it's our ability to break free of the heard that makes us more than mere animals.)

That's true, but is everyone really ready for this? How many people prefer the safe environs of social approval to the loneliness of authenticity? A life in the herd is a safe life and while I think this is contemptible, it doesn't make me want to inflict misery on people by forcing them to be real individuals.

Az · December 21, 2003, 14:26

How does the fact that there are genetic differences between men and women ( I hope you won't argue about that with me ) implies any sort of opression?

Buck Birdseed · December 21, 2003, 17:05

It doesn't. But it's a convenient explanation offered by the right whenever the subject comes up, much like they claim low taxes/large social injustice is economically best for everyone. Or that opposition to abortion is ordained by God. Etc.

Mazarin · December 21, 2003, 18:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah, the law seems broken on this one. Especially since parental obligations and rights can no longer be tied to biological parenthood (surrogacy, IVF, etc.).

Some kick-ass lawyer needs to expose these laws.

Here's a chance for Imran Siddiqui esq., lawyer of Georgia, to show his quality.

Here are some definitions from German laws:
(I'm translating this one myself, so there can be errors due to not entirely correct translation)
from the BGB:

Quote:

§1591 Motherhood. The mother of a child is the woman that has born it.

surrogate motherhood is illegal,

Quote:

§1592 Fatherhood. Father of a child is the man,
1. who is married to the child's mother at the point of the child's birth
2. who has acknowlenged the Fatherhood or
3. whose Fatherhood has been ascertained by a court according to §1600d.

The fatherhood can be contested (if a married woman has been unfaithful, for example) and equals biological fatherhood in these cases; semen donators(voc.?) are not protected by German laws: if the woman can find out who it is, he will have to pay for the child.

Agathon · December 21, 2003, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Mazarin

The fatherhood can be contested (if a married woman has been unfaithful, for example) and equals biological fatherhood in these cases; semen donators(voc.?) are not protected by German laws: if the woman can find out who it is, he will have to pay for the child.

Yeah, that's a lame definition. I take it 1600d establishes genetic paternity.

See, men have no reproductive rights.

Mazarin · December 21, 2003, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Yeah, that's a lame definition. I take it 1600d establishes genetic paternity.

See, men have no reproductive rights.

Well...if their semen has been used for impregnation without their knowledge/their approval illegally (rape/deceit) they can go to court and demand compensation. The laws have been made to ensure the children are provided security for in the first place -independently from further legal complications.

Dis · December 21, 2003, 20:06

women make a better parent than a man in most cases.

Imran Siddiqui · December 21, 2003, 20:14

Quote:

semen donators(voc.?) are not protected by German laws: if the woman can find out who it is, he will have to pay for the child.

What a silly law. All this does is make sure that men will never donate semen anymore.

mrmitchell · December 21, 2003, 20:24

Quote:

women make a better parent than a man in most cases.

Mazarin · December 21, 2003, 20:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What a silly law. All this does is make sure that men will never donate semen anymore.

I concur, one more law that has been made to keep everything nicely defined and preserve potential problems.

Imran Siddiqui · December 21, 2003, 20:31

Why are all politicians in every country such idiots?

Oerdin · December 21, 2003, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
There must be something he can do with the courts?

This should be a slam dunk for him to get joint custidy since he's paying child support and isn't a danger to anyone. He just has to go to the courts to get it ordered.

Dis · December 22, 2003, 04:02

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell

are you saying women don't make better parents?

there is a reason why women are generally awarded custody in the U.S. (and in Canada)

Jaguar · December 22, 2003, 06:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
There are endless stories like that here. It's really pissing me off, because it's almost always the kids that suffer the most, because one or both of the parents become very selfish and use the kids as weapons against eachother

CerberusIV · December 22, 2003, 07:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
there is a reason why women are generally awarded custody in the U.S. (and in Canada)

There are a lot of reasons why women usually get custody in North America and Western Europe but fitness as a parent isn't often one of them.

1 A societal assumption that women should be the ones to raise children.

2 Men have historically earned more money so it is in the child's interest that it lives with her whilst he pays for it. This also saves the government money in social security payments to women with poor career prospects because they dropped out of work to have children.

3 Womens rights groups are better organised than mens rights groups.

Basically, it used to be because men worked and women raised children and the law supported that arrangement. That presumption has now been hijacked in favour of the economic benefit to everyone else of fathers working and paying.

TheStinger · December 22, 2003, 07:17

In the UK, maintenace from the Father is not an issue in contact cases

aaglo · December 22, 2003, 07:20

Oh crap... that's a sad situation with your friend, Pekka. If the story is true, then the mother has lost her marbles.

I've been in a similar situation myself (but without the kid), and it hurt like hell. I bet your friend's situation is worse. MUCH worse. I can't even imagine losing a daughter that way.

All the best for him and his daughter...

and may his ex come to her senses.

Enigma_Nova · December 22, 2003, 07:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why are all politicians in every country such idiots?

It's a prerequisite for being popular with the herd that you appear to be of the herd.

My opinion on this case? I resent incompetant parents. The Father does not appear to be one of these; The Mother does.
My opinion? Let the Father have the child. Period.

IMO Children have a right to be free from corruption, coercion and vilifiaction. If this child is being pumped with lies by the mother, and being kept from the father, I consider that to be corruption and coercion.

Let the records show that Enigma_Nova agrees with a parenting strategy in this example

CerberusIV · December 22, 2003, 07:58

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
In the UK, maintenace from the Father is not an issue in contact cases

No, it is now dealt with by the Child Support Agency, possibly rivalled only by the Inland Revenue for its incompetence in dealing with its "clients".

In a way that makes it worse as the courts rule on access arrangements, and any enforcement of them, completely separately from maintenance and child support payments.