The Real Love that Dare

blackice · September 9, 2003, 00:47

Quote:

The Sunday Times (Britain) - Review
7 September 2003

"The father love that dare not speak its name"

By Bob Geldof

When it comes to access to children, divorced men haven't a chance, writes Bob Geldof. In a world of dual-career couples, the law needs to recognise the hands-on parenting role played by many fathers

Family law as it currently stands does not work. It is rarely of benefit to the child and promotes injustice, conflict and unhappiness on a massive scale. Most custody rulings show no understanding of contemporary society.

The contention that women are inherently better nurturers is wrong. Custody rulings appear to be based on the "sugar and spice and all things nice"
school of biological determination rather than on anything more significant. If a woman "mothers" a child, a warm universe of nurturing is conjured. If a man "fathers" a child it simply implies nothing more than the swift biological function involved in the procreative act.

If the later 20th century saw the transformation of women's lives, then the 21st century is seeing the transformation of men's lives, and by definition
the lives of their children. Nearly half the workforce is female and men now hold a different view of parenting. There are no studies which suggest that a child brought up by a man (as I was) displays any psychological or
emotional characteristics different to one raised by a woman.

My complaints are not the moans of the unsuccessful litigant at the hands of family law. I, in fact, was "successful". This is someone dismayed by
the inappropriateness of the law to the everyday. Nor is this the complaint of the proto-misogynist - indeed the law is so inept that it produces misandrists in equal measure - but rather the irritation and anger of
someone who sees exact parallels with women's struggle against bias and prejudice.

What's sauce for the goose, as they say, is sauce for the gander - except, of course, in the eyes of family law, where the man ceases to be an equal partner in anything but name. A husband had better hang on to his marriage or risk losing everything he has had and be forced under pain of pursuit, prosecution and imprisonment to be a wage slave for life. There is grave
injustice here.

Many may read Bob the embittered, abandoned husband in this. They would be quite wrong. My personal response to my situation was shock and dismay, pain, emptiness and loss. I was embittered only with the law and my consequent lack of rights as a man.

I am only too aware of the pain that women suffer in divorce, but it is equally true that it is as nothing compared with the financial and emotional loss suffered by men. She may lose her man, he loses the lot.

If he is the offending party, people believe that it's right that he should leave the house and kids and pay for them. He even half-thinks this in his
guilt. But rarely does he think: I've got a new woman, I'm happier, so I'll just take the kids and go off to this new life. Indeed, society would view it askance if he took the kids. Why? We don't if she does precisely the
same. Why?

It is this type of confused thinking, lying at the heart of family law, that allows it to be unjustly weighted in favour of women. This is acknowledged by most commentators and lawyers when they are being honest.

I can accept that this was not the intent. The intent is that the law should always act in the best interests of the child. We all agree with that. But the unspoken assumption is that the interests of the child are nearly always best served by the presence of the mother.

This is simply wrong. Only in exceptional circumstances will a man be allowed to raise his children - something that outside the justice system and within society is assumed to be inalienable upon his child's birth.

The law is creating vast wells of misery, massive discontent, an unstable society of feral children and feckless adolescents who have no understanding of authority, no knowledge of a man's love and how different but equal it is to a woman's.

It also creates irresponsible mothers, drifting, hopeless fathers, problem, violent and ill-educated sons and daughters, a disconnection from the extended family and society at large. So many of us are hurting and yet the law will treat the man in court (if my case is typical) with contempt, suspicion, disdain and hostility.

He is a father who has already lost his wife, his children, his home and, of course, his money, often his health and frequently his job. Good, eh? No doubt professionals will decry this view. But it is a commonly held one.

Everything can be tolerable until the children are taken from you. I cannot begin to describe the awful pain of being handed a note, sanctioned by your
(still) wife with whom you had made these little things and had felt them grow and kick and felt intense pride and profound love for before they were even born.

You had changed their nappies, taught them to talk and read, wrestled and played with them, walked them to school, picked them up, made tea with them, bathed and dressed them, put them to bed, cuddled them and lain with them in your arms and sung them to sleep. You have felt them and smelt them around you at all times, alert even in sleep to the slightest shift in their breathing. And then you're handed a note that will "allow" you "access" to these things who are the best of you.

What have you done? Why are you being punished? When did she assume control? She wants to leave. What's that got to do with the kids and me? Were I to issue her a similar note, what would happen? I still ask these questions.

Why is the language that of the prison visit? Why is the person (and I'm being restrained because it is nearly always the woman, but we're actually not meant to say that for fear of being labelled misogynist) who has taken the children, or been left with them, given immense emotional, legal and financial power over the other party?

It is at this juncture that things spiral into acrimony, bitterness and hate. Losing control of one's life is a desperate experience - having someone else being able to exert control over it is worse. Some readers
will know better than I the incidence of serious illness and alcoholism in men arising from divorce. Isn't this serious enough to insist on change?

Count the economic and social cost if that means more to you than the human. What more is required to make men the same in the eyes of the law as
they are in the eyes of their children? Both parents must have equal status after separation. There must be an immediate presumption, as there has been
in Denmark since January 2002, that the children, where possible, will live with the father 50% of the time. Isn't that eminently civilised?

The principle of 50% of everything must pertain. Children are genetically 50% of the man and that selfish gene which drove him to express genetic
infinity with his partner through their children cannot just conveniently disappear in some legalistic, Stalinist coup de théâtre.

We have seen the rise of dual-career couples; now we need dual-carer couples. An equal child-sharing arrangement would be advantageous in many
ways, not least because it would help both parents to be free to earn a living and pursue their independent lives, and thereby achieve and maintain
greater amicability between them, which will in turn benefit their children. As to those who can't or won't participate in this arrangement,
then the parties can work out something of mutual convenience and benefit to the children.

The implication of any order determining the father's allotted time with his children is that he was always of secondary importance. Reasonable contact is an oxymoron. The fact that as a father you are forbidden from seeing your children except at state-appointed moments is by definition unreasonable. The fact that you must visit your family as opposed to live with them is unreasonable. "Contact" with your children should not be infrequent and odd. In public parks on Sundays you can watch the single men with children drag themselves through the false hours in a frantic panic of activity, every second measured and weighed in a moment of state-sanctioned time.

I know that what I have written spills from coherent thought into pain and anger. The problem is that this issue is bound up with pain. The law is profoundly flawed. Its laughable pretext of gender neutrality and impartiality must be removed and the true face of bias, discrimination and prejudice fully displayed. There is no harm in being radical when the status quo breeds injustice. I am suggesting:

Education in schools that would lead to an understanding of relationships and "familial responsibility".

Marriage classes which outline the consequences of having children and their impact upon that contractual agreement.

At separation, and before divorce can be contemplated, a mandatory arbitrator who could insist on a staged withdrawal or conciliation before the dispute may be permitted to go to court. And should proceedings move to divorce, a presumption of equal parenting, implying shared responsibility and equal residency.

My "50%" proposition has already begun to be assimilated into the mainstream in Denmark and frequently in the United States. I fought for it
myself. I had always worked from home. I had money. I took care of the children. I had ample accommodation and a stable relationship with a woman
they knew and liked. My former wife worked. Why couldn't the children be with me for 50% of the time? I could not and still don't understand why
there was so much opposition.

Eventually I succeeded, but I had nearly to bankrupt myself in the process simply to be able to live with my children. How is that in their interests?
Finally I was granted full custody. But I never wanted or asked for that. My former wife was not a criminal, so why this punitive measure of taking our children from her?

If I disagree with it happening to men, equally so with women. I was given full custody because the professionals involved would not agree that split
residence was acceptable, despite the urging of the judge in the case who had sat on international benches making those judgments daily.

As I entered court on my first day someone leant over who felt he was doing me a favour. "Whatever you do," he said, "for Chrissakes never say you love your children."

Bewildered, I asked: "Why not?"

"The court thinks you're being unhealthily extreme if, being a man, you express your love for a child."

For two years I shut up while I heard the presumptions in favour of a mother's love. Finally I began articulating the real love that dare not speak its name - that of a father for his child. No law should stand that
serves to stifle this.

---

This is an abridged version of a chapter entitled The Real Love that Dare
not Speak its Name by Bob Geldof, from Children and their Families, Hart
Publishing, Oxford, £31

© Bob Geldof

All over the world this is being echoed....
Bottom line the kids are suffering...

MichaeltheGreat · September 9, 2003, 00:54

Another evil women doin' us all wrong thread. Poor little victim-men.

The Emperor Fabulous · September 9, 2003, 00:59

You must have severe issues with your mother

Ben Kenobi · September 9, 2003, 01:02

When did you change your sig, blackice?

Puts what I've had on mine to shame.

Shi Huangdi · September 9, 2003, 01:02

Divorce is too costly, men should seek out women with a more conservative view of the sacramental nature of marriage. "Let no Man seperate what God has joined". There is too much divorce in this country...

Nubclear · September 9, 2003, 01:04

I know a young person the victim of the opposite. The custody was given to the father (who literally paid off the psychologists who were willing and threatened the ones who werent) and the child endured 7 years of emotional abuse.

MichaeltheGreat · September 9, 2003, 01:05

It's not just women not having a particularly strong view of the sacrament. There is plenty of "fault" to go around, and a lot of marriages which shouldn't happen in the first place.

Shi Huangdi · September 9, 2003, 01:09

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's not just women not having a particularly strong view of the sacrament. There is plenty of "fault" to go around, and a lot of marriages which shouldn't happen in the first place.

Very true.

blackice · September 9, 2003, 01:23

MichaeltheGreat you simply miss the point and the big picture, it is appropriate you use the ZZZZZZ smiley.
If you could disput this fact do so, if you can prove it wrong do so, if you can do anything other than whine about it do so...

Bottom line is you can not, you simply go to sleep. You can not accept this is reality and kids are suffering world wide.
This rings true for me:

Quote:

My complaints are not the moans of the unsuccessful litigant at the hands of family law. I, in fact, was "successful". This is someone dismayed by
the inappropriateness of the law to the everyday. Nor is this the complaint of the proto-misogynist - indeed the law is so inept that it produces misandrists in equal measure - but rather the irritation and anger of
someone who sees exact parallels with women's struggle against bias and prejudice.

What's sauce for the goose, as they say, is sauce for the gander - except, of course, in the eyes of family law, where the man ceases to be an equal partner in anything but name. A husband had better hang on to his marriage or risk losing everything he has had and be forced under pain of pursuit, prosecution and imprisonment to be a wage slave for life. There is grave
injustice here.

Now do your best to show that 9-10 men in England are bad dads and do not deserve custody of thier kids. Go for it

and good luck fool...

Now remember according to the family courts in England only one out of ten men are a better person to parent thier children than the woman. You must beleive this to be true.

You must think it is ok for your wife to leave you with the kids and take your house your cash and have you pay for her the rest of your life. I may add to see your kids when the courts or she chooses.

You are one sick puppy Micheal, you like pain don't you

Come on you wear the tights don't you

The Emperor Fabulous

actually my cat but that's for another time...

Ben Kenobi when I came across all the comments women (Famous and no so famous) had to say about abortion.

Dis · September 9, 2003, 01:25

I'm sensing a common them in your posts.

blackice · September 9, 2003, 01:27

Quote:

and a lot of marriages which shouldn't happen in the first place.

But they do, so tell me do you scream at you kids over spilt milk too?

It happens get over it, now be real and deal with it. So other than ignoring it and making excusses and zzzzzz.
Do you hate boys too? Will you raise your son to simply accept this injustice as ok? Will you tell your son go on to marry and have kids but if she leaves you will have no house, no kids, no money but it's ok because if you protest you will be called a poor little victim male by your dad?

I really do not think you have given this much thought. Either that or back to Disney land and your perfect son will marry the prefect woman and live calling the rest of the population whinners....

What do you think is in the best interest of the kids?
Uncle dads or shared parenting?

Quote:

It's not just women not having a particularly strong view of the sacrament.

Last stats I saw 68% of all marrage break ups were at the hands of the wife leaving the husband.

Now go one to tell us 68% of all married men are creeps... I know you think it but I would like to see it posted, so go for it.

Dissident theme? Go figure

I would guess so, I would guess most posters have a common theme. Things that interest them and are news worthy would be two off the top of my head.

Dis · September 9, 2003, 01:35

I have heard remarks that men have been reduced to little more than sperm-doners. Many women deliberately get pregnant because they are lonely/depressed and want a baby to care for to make them feel better, and feel needed.

Why go to a sperm bank, when you can find some unlucky sap who doesn't know better to wear a condom. Not only is the sperm free, you get a fee meal, and you get 18 years of child support.

But I have little sympathy for men. Men are just getting what they deserve for treating women as nothing more than sexual objects.

but it is funny to see MTG trolling

Dis · September 9, 2003, 01:36

I see you have a Canada flag.

Things are indeed bad in Canada I've heard. They are also bad in California as well.

But in the rest of the U.S. things aren't that bad for men...yet.

blackice · September 9, 2003, 01:45

Dissident

yes punish the sons of the sons of the sons for past wrongs, oh ya and those innocent kids caught in the cross fire, to hell with them...

Good one your are a smart cookie are'nt you....What justice what thoughts, punish the children for past perceived wrongs.

I think you had better look closer at those stats you pretend to know for the states...

BeBro · September 9, 2003, 01:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Why go to a sperm bank, when you can find some unlucky sap who doesn't know better to wear a condom. Not only is the sperm free, you get a fee meal, and you get 18 years of child support.

Don´t let the evil women get you!

Dis · September 9, 2003, 01:47

where are you getting the bit about past wrongs?

men to this day treat women as sex objects. Even after impregnating them, they still do not change their attitudes towards women.

And the laws in Nevada aren't bad. I forgot to mention Washington though. They are almost as bad as California. I've heard bad things about Oregon as well.

blackice · September 9, 2003, 01:48

Yes speak for the masses, of course ALL men treat women like sex objects.

go girl go

Now what about the kids, half you flakes ignore that fact... So do tell us what about the kids>

We all have seen your opinion of cash grabbing women and stupid men. But I have yet to see anyone address the issue Bob is writting about also....The Kids...

Dis · September 9, 2003, 01:50

do all women treat men as sperm doners that pay their bills?

No.

The standard applies both ways.

blackice · September 9, 2003, 01:52

And the kids in the crossfire? You seem to ignore that why? You hate kids that much?

I seem to see a common theme here with you stupid parents, ignore the child carnage....

el freako · September 9, 2003, 02:00

If two adult who seperate cannot agree to amicably on how to raise their children then they are the ones acting childishly.

It will take concessions on both sides.

Oerdin · September 9, 2003, 02:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Divorce is too costly, men should seek out women with a more conservative view of the sacramental nature of marriage. "Let no Man seperate what God has joined". There is too much divorce in this country...

Get a divorce and you're financially hosed and if you happen to have children from the marriage then get ready to live in a card board box. I knew a fellow from my old Army unit who got divorced and after he paid $3500 per month in court ordered alimony and child support he had just $300 per month to live on. That's $300 for food, clothing, shelter, and transpertation. Sorry, but our system is fundimentally broken.

Oerdin · September 9, 2003, 02:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I have heard remarks that men have been reduced to little more than sperm-doners. Many women deliberately get pregnant because they are lonely/depressed and want a baby to care for to make them feel better, and feel needed.

Many women do this and I saw one girl I knew do just this. It's stupid and immature but young girls do it never the less. I do agree with you though that the guys are idiots and deserve a life of indentured servitude.

blackice · September 9, 2003, 02:09

el freako it's called human emotion, call it what you will in the event they can not the kids suffer... Back to spilled milk....

Dis · September 9, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by blackice
And the kids in the crossfire? You seem to ignore that why? You hate kids that much?

I seem to see a common theme here with you stupid parents, ignore the child carnage....

I have nothing against the kids. The kids shouldn't soley go with the father though. I support 50% custody.

Dis · September 9, 2003, 02:12

I'm beginning to think blackice is like the blacktide DL. But instead of hating the french, he hates women

blackice · September 9, 2003, 02:12

Dissident I agree with 50% provided each parent is a good person.

I hate women because I post about injustice to men and children in the courts?

You need a shrink, it would seem you may have and issue with rights and injustice when it relates to men....
Did your father beat you as a child?

Shi Huangdi · September 9, 2003, 02:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Get a divorce and you're financially hosed and if you happen to have children from the marriage then get ready to live in a card board box. I knew a fellow from my old Army unit who got divorced and after he paid $3500 per month in court ordered alimony and child support he had just $300 per month to live on. That's $300 for food, clothing, shelter, and transpertation. Sorry, but our system is fundimentally broken.

Just an observation, it seems that it can definitely be argued from a practical standpoint that a living a traditional lifestyle is better from the man's viewpoint. If you hook up with a woman and later on she decides it isn't wasn't a good idea, she can accuse you of rape and get you into a good deal of trouble. If she becomes pregnant, she will have a choice on whether the baby stays and you won't, and if she chooses to keep the baby you will have to pay child support for the next 18 years. If you and your wife fail to appreciate the sacramental nature of marriage/enter into one unwisely, and you come to a divorce, well.....

Skanky Burns · September 9, 2003, 05:00

I opened this thread up expecting it to be about how women are evil. Thank goodness I was proven wrong!

I guess I don't need to use phrases like "beating a dead horse" or "one-trick pony"...

Urban Ranger · September 9, 2003, 05:03

Did that guy review his own book?

DanielXY · September 9, 2003, 06:39

Quote:

Why go to a sperm bank, when you can find some unlucky sap who doesn't know better to wear a condom. Not only is the sperm free, you get a fee meal, and you get 18 years of child support.

If you feel betrayed with a one-night-stand demanding child support, there are 2 possibel reactions:
a) move to another country and dont leave an adress
b) dont earn enough money... Get a part-time job enjoy
your freetime ... you can have a good life with little money, if you so choose (you can earn up to 930,-/m before you have to give any for debts or child-support or whatever ... at least in germany...

)

On the divorce issue:
No. 1: Dont get married!
No. 2: Dont hord money. Spent it for your pleasure. Dont
buy a house or whatever...

Life is easy when you are (relativ...) poor