'Children and their Families; Contact, Rights & Welfare'

[blackice]

Family law is based on bias and prejudice
The law as it stands promotes pain, hurt and broken families, in direct
contradiction to its purpose

By Bob Geldof

Family law doesn't work. It is absurd, blunt and outdated. It is time that it was scrapped and replaced by new legislation that is based not on bias,
discrimination, prejudice and unfounded assumptions but on the understanding of the way we live today.

Social law, specifically that governing human relationships, will need to evolve ever faster, particularly in an age of unprecedented and confusing
change. Deeply cherished nostrums of the ages are as nothing when confronted with a different moral structure to that in which those beliefs took root.

The endless proposed adjustments to family law will not do. They do not eliminate the injustices or aid the intended beneficiaries. And unthinking tinkering becomes unjustified tampering with people's lives. Adjustments imply satisfaction with the core structure, but in the case of family law my view is that this is inappropriate, as this same law promotes pain, hurt and broken families, in direct and unintended contradiction to its purpose. It serves merely to compound the self-inflicted damage done to the individuals who come
before it.

I would like to see the enactment of recent Danish-type legislation, which is increasingly finding favour in other jurisdictions, particularly the US. This
assumes a 50-50 child custody split between separating couples. The principle of 50 per cent of everything must pertain. We've seen the rise of dual-career couples; now we need dual-carer couples.

The implication now of any order determining a father's allotted time with his children is that he was always of secondary importance within the house. "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.

With the incorporation of human rights legislation into British law, there must now be recognition of a father's rights, hitherto denied. Such rights may not
be granted by anyone, but are they in fact concomitant with and a corrolary to the obligations and responsibilities that accrue to a father upon his child's
birth. These are inalienable and may not be removed, particularly by a court operating under the assumption that femininity is the sine qua non of nurture and masculinity its antithesis.

Economics determine social arrangements. This affects all areas of society, but most profoundly, the relationship between the sexes, and consequently the
family. Since the financial and biological independence of women has come about, men have had to change also. There have been other factors contributing
to societal shifts, but the effect of women being free to enter the workplace has given rise to consumerism, altered production, home ownership and house
building models, and whole areas of law and sentiment.

Very little has been left unchanged by this huge and positive social movement, but most of those changes have strained the old glues that bound the family
into the breadwinner/nurturer/children model. Older fathers - the dinosaur dads - are currently the ones in the most senior positions and so have a
disproportionate influence. Most continue to see the world through the lens of their own generation's experience (ie a world of breadwinning men and
childrearing women). But something like 51 per cent of the workforce are women now. The implication of this figure is staggering, yet it does not appear to be
considered in relation to family law.

In addition, men now hold a completely different view of the parenting role than before. Again this is a huge philosophical shift with enormous implications. There are no studies which suggest that a child brought up by a man (as I was) displays any marked psychological or emotional characteristics different to one raised by a woman.

The contention that women are inherently better nurturers is wrong. Rulings appear to be based on the "sugar and spice and all things nice" school of
biological determinism, rather than on anything more significant. The law, to its eternal discredit, stands in the way of great and important cultural and social progression. If the later 20th century saw the transformation of women's lives, then the 21st century involves the transformation of men's lives, and by
definition the lives of their children.

The cardinal - and excellent - difference between now and the past is that it is no longer clear, until it is determined by the couples in question, who will do the breadwinning and who the nurturing, or whether it will be both simultaneously. And yet while individuals struggle with these difficult new conundrums, the laws governing the, if you will, "intimate" parts of society,
the "personal" laws, remain (though some are fairly recently drafted) unaltered in their presumptions, save for the pathetic pretence that they are gender neutral.

I believe it is time for a wholesale review of what marriage means today, the validity of its contract and the consequences of its rupture. Such a review
needs to be undertaken in the real world - that which contemporary couples inhabit - not the world fondly imagined by a judiciary notoriously ill-equipped to deal with how we live now.

The world of the family courts is a silent one, a secret and overarching state which has enormous powers over the lives of two people who have fallen out of
love and now face intrusion, intervention, imprisonment - penalties and powers that would be unconstitutional if applied to murderers, drug dealers or rapists. Losing control of one's life is a desperate experience; having someone else exert control over it is worse. Count the economic and social cost - serious illness and alcolholism in men arising from divorce, unhappiness on a vast scale, housing and social problems, that are directly related to the inequalities and iniquities of family law.

What more is required to make men the same in the eyes of the law as they are in the eyes of their children? The altered state of women has of course
produced the altered state of men. Men cannot be the same because women are not. The law will not acknowledge this, and it must. It appears bewildered, as indeed famously do the men in question. What is their new role? What is expected of them? How do they now define themselves in this more fluid brave new world?

And if the world now flexes, bends and warps like morality itself, why is the law so rigid, so inflexible and fixed that its application to individuals binds
them to an overweening and restrictive state of Orwellian proportions --the common experience of those who find themselves victims of the secret world of the Family Courts.

The law must now root itself in reality, not social-work theorising, or emotive or traditional notions of men and women's roles. The notion that the law is gender neutral is a grotesque lie to which all family law professionals have tacitly agreed to be party; this is acknowledged by nearly all the lawyers I have talked to. And regardless of whether the professionals acknowledge this, the vast majority of my correspondents, friends and others regard it to be so. If this is the commonly held view, then the law will change. It is simply a question of when.

So do you really think in this area for squeeky wheel, social engineering, politics, geneder based, (bias) pendium swinging, child abusing court ruled destruction... We have and or will see a change?

Or is this just missing the big picture? AKA whinning?
Should the courts have gone this far to being with? Could they and the polititians have had more foresight and created the balance before the imbalance?

Did they have thier hands tied? Were they just simply lacking the foresight, logical, balanced decission making judgement that they as judges, politicians are require and expected to do as keepers of right and wrong in our society?

[Dis]

DL!!

[DRoseDARs]

A rare breed indeed, Diss: Emperor-level DL's

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yep, things were better when the man was the boss, kids were seen and not heard (only when you wanted to see them) and women knew their place and had dinner ready at 6 or if/whenever the man of the house deigned to return, and if the ***** got out of line, a black eye or two would put her back in it.




The one-trick pony rides again.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Statistics continue to show that, within married couples, women do the overwhelming amount of childcare and general housework, even in those cases when both spouses work full-time. So your argument seems to be that even though men happily foist the kids off on their wives when married, they should lay proud claim to them 50% of the time when they're divorced. Riiiight.

[Berzerker]

Yep, things are better now with the woman as the boss, kids are seen and not heard (only when you want to see them) and men knew their place with the alimony check ready at 6 or if/whenever the woman of the house deigned necessary, and if the ******* got out of line, a social worker or two would put him back in it.

Gee, defending one extreme by pointing to another extreme sure convinced me. But when have the courts made it a practice of granting custody to actual wife-beaters?

[Berzerker]

So your argument seems to be that even though men happily foist the kids off on their wives when married, they should lay proud claim to them 50% of the time when they're divorced. Riiiight.

If you object to this, why not object when the shoe is on the other foot? Yeah, all husbands "foist" their kids off on the wife while they go play with friends. Forget about all that nonsense most people call "work", nah, the hubbies are off at the racetrack, etc...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker


If you object to this, why not object when the shoe is on the other foot? Yeah, all husbands "foist" their kids off on the wife while they go play with friends. Forget about all that nonsense most people call "work", nah, the hubbies are off at the racetrack, etc...

Learn to read more carefully. Once again: women do the overwhelming amount of childcare even when they also have full-time jobs. Moreover, and as a corollary, men in married couples do in fact spend more time on leisure than women, even when both have full-time jobs (and, perhaps even more surprisingly, also when they don't).

[Berzerker]

Learn to read more carefully. Once again: women do the overwhelming amount of childcare even when they also have full-time jobs. Moreover, and as a corollary, men in married couples do in fact spend more time on leisure than women, even when both have full-time jobs (and, perhaps even more surprisingly, also when they don't).

You ignored my question and tell me to read more carefully? Now, what exactly did I miss in your post thereby requiring me to learn to read more carefully?

[Ecthy]

is he the one with the abusive relationship?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker


You ignored my question and tell me to read more carefully? Now, what exactly did I miss in your post thereby requiring me to learn to read more carefully?

What you missed is that the shoe is rarely, if ever, on the other foot. When husbands and wives both work outside the home, its still wives who do most of the childcare. And when only husbands work outside the home, wives nevertheless engage in more labor every day than husbands do.

One supects that this is one reason that married men live longer than single men, but single women live longer than married women; on a material level, marriage continues to be a much sweeter deal for guys.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yep, things were better when the man was the boss, kids were seen and not heard (only when you wanted to see them) and women knew their place and had dinner ready at 6 or if/whenever the man of the house deigned to return, and if the ***** got out of line, a black eye or two would put her back in it.

BTW, Bob Geldof is a complete tool.

[Ben Kenobi]

One supects that this is one reason that married men live longer than single men, but single women live longer than married women; on a material level, marriage continues to be a much sweeter deal for guys.

I don't dispute that marriage works well for men, but marriage also works well for women. If both are working, both ought to contribute around the house.

Wives nevertheless engage in more labor every day than husbands do.

By what means do you gage 'more labour?' Longer hours?

[Berzerker]

Rufus -

What you missed is that the shoe is rarely, if ever, on the other foot.

You mean I actually denied or ignored that women generally spend more time taking care of the kids? I missed nothing in your post contrary to your claim and you are still ignoring my question! The shoe is rarely on the other foot because usually the husbands are off at work to earn a living and you dismiss that reality when you place more value on the wife's role in the home when it comes to divorce and custody. Yes, many fathers are not involved much with the daily caring of children for a variety of reasons, some of which can be traced back eons, but that is not an excuse to allow state behavior exemplified in blackice's opening post.

When husbands and wives both work outside the home, its still wives who do most of the childcare. And when only husbands work outside the home, wives nevertheless engage in more labor every day than husbands do.

When both are off at work, daycare, school, or relatives are taking care of the kids. Yes, I imagine in the majority of homes, the wife cooks the food, etc., but the husband is the sole or primary income earner. But this notion that women who stay at home work harder or engage in more labor is absurd. Tell that to a coal miner or a construction worker, etc. Stay at home Mom's are not on the clock 8 hours a day, or even 4 hours...

One supects that this is one reason that married men live longer than single men, but single women live longer than married women; on a material level, marriage continues to be a much sweeter deal for guys.

I'd love to see the stats for this one. Where are all these single women? I'm assuming you mean women who've never had a husband. Btw, women generally outlive men, what does that say about who gets stuck with the most labor using your logic?

[General Ludd]

Oh great, you're geting him started up again.


I'll check back on page 5 or so and see how many quotes he's putting in each post. Maybe we can break a record.

[Berzerker]

That's the nature of debate, so sorry

[blackice]

So MichaeltheGreat you think all the cost, grief and child suicides plus all the pain and anger children face today is ok? I doubt you will ever answer that question, you have not yet...

An obvious to any Disney world life time member but you, would say the court system is bias. God sakes man even the judges and lawyers do...I will add most if not all fem-nazi supporters such as yourself, completely ignore the child's side and devistation in debates like this. They simply do not want to admit, just like yourself that the children are being harmed and the ultimate victims for the gender power stuggle. As long as you get that point accross that generations long past women suffered, it does not matter who is killed in the crossfire.

You see Michel that is the difference between hardcore women's groups and mens groups. if you have not noticed, not likely though...Women's groups talk of possesion, womens rights, them power and how bad it was.. Men's groups talk of loss of possesions, loss of rights and CHILDENS RIGHTS and CHILDREN"S NEEDS and the HARM DONE TO THE CHILDREN by the courts. You up to speed yet Micheal?

I really can not wait to see you say that to your grandchildren when you too are denied access to them....

I mean MichaeltheGreat you could put more thought into this, well more than it takes to wipe your a$$ I mean.

Although most men still do less housework than their wives, that gap has been halved since the 1960s. Today, 49 percent of couples say they share child care equally, compared with 25 percent in 1985. Men's greater involvement at home is good for their relationships with their spouses, and also good for their children. Hands-on fathers make better parents than men who let their wives do all the nurturing and child care. They raise sons who are more expressive and daughters who are more likely to do well in school -- especially in math and science.

Reading old women's lib magazines are we? Where did you get your information from Rufus T. Firefly? Women do twice as much as men? Ok back to the year 2003...Come on man keep up, hey here is one for you how many dads work from home now and raise the kids? No don't look in the 50-70's magazines for that answer...

No one has yet to address the fact it is the children suffering the most with these court's.

Drake Tungsten to a simpleton maybe...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

blackice - the quotation in your last post never appaeared in any of mine; stop putting words in my mouth. The research I refer to was current, not 30 years old, and out of academic journals, not magazines.

Berzerker - stay-at-home mom's may not put in an eight-hour day, in the strict sense. On the other hand, they don't clock out at 5 pm, and they don't tend to get weekends off. That's why stats continue to show that wives spend more hours/week working than husbands, and that husbands have more leisure time than wives. As for the death info, it really is interesting and corollates with another fun fact: on the whole, men who divorce find that their income levels tend to rise but they report a decline in overall quality of life; women who divorce, by contrast, find that their income levels tend to fall but report a higher overall quality of life.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's why stats continue to show that wives spend more hours/week working than husbands, and that husbands have more leisure time than wives.

Not necessarily equivalent to 'more labour', Rufus.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not necessarily equivalent to 'more labour', Rufus.

The way I'm using it, it is. You get what I mean here, right? What phrase would you use?

[Shi Huangdi]

"An obvious to any Disney world life time member but you, "

Take it easy man, calm down.

"So your argument seems to be that even though men happily foist the kids off on their wives when married, they should lay proud claim to them 50% of the time when they're divorced. Riiiight."

If the father wants to get more involved at any point why is that a bad thing?

[Ben Kenobi]

What phrase would you use?

The phrasing is fine, you just have to consider efficiency. If one person works 8 hrs, while another finishes the same amount of work in 6 hrs, your scale would say that the person who worked 8 hrs did more work than the person who worked for 6 hrs.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"So your argument seems to be that even though men happily foist the kids off on their wives when married, they should lay proud claim to them 50% of the time when they're divorced. Riiiight."

If the father wants to get more involved at any point why is that a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing. I haven't really stated my position in this thread, so here it is: child custody should always be handled case by case, and not subject to a judicially-proscribed ratio like the 50-50 described in the article. But if it is going to be determined by a preset ratio, that ratio should reflect the social division of childcare within marriage, and that division isn't 50-50, even in households where both spouses work full-time.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The phrasing is fine, you just have to consider efficiency. If one person works 8 hrs, while another finishes the same amount of work in 6 hrs, your scale would say that the person who worked 8 hrs did more work than the person who worked for 6 hrs.

Fair enough. I know of no study that accounts for efficiency, so I can't speak to that. On the other hand, the studies I've seen treat all time men spend at their jobs as "working" -- which may be true of the coal miners Berzerker mentions, but any of us with an internet connection at work should be laughing at that notion. But you make a good point.

[Nubclear]

Two dollars an hour.

What?

[Berzerker]

Rufus -

stay-at-home mom's may not put in an eight-hour day, in the strict sense. On the other hand, they don't clock out at 5 pm, and they don't tend to get weekends off. That's why stats continue to show that wives spend more hours/week working than husbands, and that husbands have more leisure time than wives.

Husbands get weekends off? Seems to me that's when the more difficult chores are done. Where are these stats you keep citing? And why is this even relevant? Do (or should) judges actually compile a tally of hours spent laboring for the family when deciding on custody rights with the loser getting shafted?

As for the death info, it really is interesting and corollates with another fun fact: on the whole, men who divorce find that their income levels tend to rise but they report a decline in overall quality of life; women who divorce, by contrast, find that their income levels tend to fall but report a higher overall quality of life.

How can that be when the woman no longer has help with income (does alimony make up for it) or taking care of the kids? Why do poverty stats show that households headed by single women are the most likely to be in poverty? Is that a "quality of life" category? Also, you say the quality of life of divorced men declines, is that because men lose their families including custody rights adding even more stress to their lives? And you ignored my point about life expectancy and overall labor of both men and women, if women really labored more, wouldn't we see that wrt life expectancy?

I'd say your argument may have been valid in more "primitive" times when women didn't have the help of modern appliances and washing clothes was done by hand, etc., but as we see the quality of life improve thanks to technological advancements, household labor becomes less strenuous and life expectancy for women improving faster than men. Of course, women don't die in childbirth as much either so there are many variables involved, too many to make blanket statements as you've done with unsourced "stats".

[Drake Tungsten]

On a serious note, god bless stay-at-home moms. They may not be respected in this day and age, but they really do make our world a better place.

[blackice]

Rufus T. Firefly Your right it did not, I do not expect it to either. No that quote is way more recent than your out dated diatribe. Check the dates on your information then check the sources, once done post it for us all to see.

Now as far as your limited exposure to stay at home dads and or fathers in the year 2003 get a grip man where do you get this information. What womans group do you belong to? You are saying that every man in the entire world and or the majority ignore thier children and ignore thier house. Pure BS and I guarante you have absolutly no proof to back your diatribe...

Shi Huangdi I am calm this dolt seems to live in disney world. He simply ignores reality and assumes he can control and dictate his childs direction. I think he should know after his child meets the kids next door at say 3 years old his influence and direct, (control) over his child is set. The child then becomes a person and that person is subject to the same life's errors we all are. That said these laws demean and stiffle his son's ability to raise his child and or have any say in raising his children. That said...He is trolling....

But if it is going to be determined by a preset ratio, that ratio should reflect the social division of childcare within marriage, and that division isn't 50-50, even in households where both spouses work full-time.

You will have a hard time proving that statement with any creadible polls, etc. The most current study tosses your comments out with the dodo bird.

On a serious note, god bless stay-at-home moms.

And god bless stay at home Dads who have even less respect...

Comrade Tassadar let's see you get 200.00 for one child and 600.00 for three right off the top, you get all the money comming into the house, the house, the car, the kids, all the joy of raising the children and watching them grow. All the first's, time of at the park, time off for yourself, freedom to do what you want in the day.

Now how does that compare to the working parent?

Nice benefits too half the pentions, investments free lawyers, free daycare, free welfare, free transportation, free glasses and any other medical you need, support, and the courts on your side.

Not bad if you ask me, you?

[Jon Miller]

I want to be a stay at home husband

to a sugar momma

do physics during the day and not have to worry about all the *****y things that everyone else ahs to

Jon Miller

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by blackice
Shi Huangdi I am calm

Comrade Tassadar let's see you get 200.00 for one child and 600.00 for three right off the top, you get all the money comming into the house, the house, the car, the kids, all the joy of raising the children and watching them grow. All the first's, time of at the park, time off for yourself, freedom to do what you want in the day.

I just read "an hour", so I threw a number out. It was a VERY poor troll but apparently it worked