Accomodation for Single Fathers?

K-9

Boston wrote:

Hardly surprising considering women are not considered to be capable of raping males.

We're on about physical and sexual abuse, both genders are culpable.

metrovelvet wrote:

Single mothers have to be so so so careful what men they bring into their and thier children's lives.

Granted and single fathers have to be careful with their partners but how they behave around their children. Its nearly getting to the stage where you are conscious if you give your child a hug in public.

metrovelevet wrote:

At first I thought this was a good idea, but now I think it is a dangerous one as our communities are growing more and more tolerant of it and are now considering it a sexual preference and parafilia rather than acknowledging it for the sick crime that it is.

Sounds like the arguement against homosexuality for years!
I do think paedophilia is different and is recognised as such, maybe people are recognising it as a disorder and trying to provide cures/treatment. To say it is/will be accepted it ? I don't think so.

Boston wrote:

Hardly surprising considering women are not considered to be capable of raping males.

We're on about all types of abuse here, physical, mental and sexual.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote:

Firstly, something can be both a paraphilia and a sick crime. Just because there's a scientific explanation for something does not either moralize or legalize it.

Yes but once it enters the American Psychiatric Associations books as a sex preference, that's it, its over.

The Corinthian wrote:

Secondly, taken to its natural conclusion you're pretty much in the 'all men are (potential) rapists' camp. In which case you should really never let them have unsupervised contact with any men. Even fathers.

:rolleyes: Whatever. Most pedophiles are men DOES NOT = most men are potential rapists. Christ - someone needs to get in their time machine and out of the 90s.

The Corinthian wrote:

By the same logic mothers are suspect too. Incidence of sexual abuse by women is much lower granted, but still exists. Additionally women are just as prone to physical and emotional abuse as - in the case of the latter many would argue more so than - men.

Yes, but oddly people tend to be openly abusive when it comes to the strap or emotional abuse. The problem with sex abuse is that is is physical, emotional, sexual, but also seductive, quiet and in secret.

Go ahead start your women are more physically and emotionally abusive then men arguments. Let me get the popcorn....

Nevyn

I'm I going to have to you two a time out and remind you to place nice with others again ?

spaceman1

hey everybody, Im just wondering why so many ppl are talking about paedophiles on boards.ie this is a thread about single fathers....I have seen some of the same ppl on another thread about paedophiles, its kinda puzzling me, is there a paedophile ring here...not meaning to offend anyone and I hope I dont get banned, but I dont understand whats going on?

and if you dont hear from me again its probably cause Im banned......

maireadmarie

At the outset I must say, I am not a double poster, I am using the same computer as a poster on this thread.
Metrovelvet, something you said means I'm going to be thinking about it all day - because it struck some kind of chord - about not trusting your community or culture...I find I do trust my community (I live in a small village) because I know the structure of the community - there are a lot of new people here but they have to fit in, not the other way, which is a thing with this village...but I don't trust my culture any more - it is changing, very fast, and there are a lot of things that are ok now that were not as I was growing up (from which you may gauge I'm 'no chicken', as they say). I'm not actually thinking first here about sexual matters, surprise, surprise, but social attitudes and behaviour, e.g. 'manners' as they are known have changed a great deal, and what would be very rude in my young days is fine now...even though still hurtful.
Firstly, I think children sleeping over in a house with a a large number of men unknown to the children if not the houseowner, is a bad idea - for many reasons but I don't want to hog this thread...unless you want to ask all the men to be checked out by the police, which might take something from the homely atmosphere of the house; I would consider it, however, obligatory to such a set-up.
Secondly, I think young single mothers with children should be compelled to have any new live-in partners checked similarly, because in my experience, many single mothers will overlook or fail to see faults in prospective partners in order to have the security of a relationship, and I believe this is a case of two biological drives being in conflict; however, the protection of all our children should be paramount, and if this hurts feelings, so be it!
This, by the way, is not a new idea; I have a friend who had a child before she was married; when she married, and her husband wanted to adopt the little girl, they had to endure many visits from social workers before this was permitted, even though he had been the boyfriend of the young mother before she met her child's father, and had been 'there for her' from the moment the child was born. It's hard to see, therefore, how things should be different in more casual relationships where the new partner is not going to adopt the child.

The Corinthian

spaceman1 wrote:

hey everybody, Im just wondering why so many ppl are talking about paedophiles on boards.ie this is a thread about single fathers....I have seen some of the same ppl on another thread about paedophiles, its kinda puzzling me, is there a paedophile ring here...not meaning to offend anyone and I hope I dont get banned, but I dont understand whats going on?

No it's just topical atm and the same posters will tend to post on lots of things. Both I and Metrovelvet posted on a thread about Chavez too, for example - is there significance to that too?

spaceman1

Only significant Corinthian if you were talking about paedophileria, but if not then no...

metrovelvet

maireadmarie wrote:

Firstly, I think children sleeping over in a house with a a large number of men unknown to the children if not the houseowner, is a bad idea - for many reasons but I don't want to hog this thread...unless you want to ask all the men to be checked out by the police, which might take something from the homely atmosphere of the house; I would consider it, however, obligatory to such a set-up..

OK a number of points here.

First of all, depending on the age of the kids, it's the kids themselves you may have to worry about. Several people I know who were raped as children were done so by adolescent boys. Some within the family and some outside of it. So I dont know if it's even the dads who are to be worried about.

I find the idea of having the men checked out by the police in complete violation of human dignity and if you have to do this then don't set this house up at all.

CCTV - police checks - it sounds like a prison! What place is that for a child?

maireadmarie wrote:

Secondly, I think young single mothers with children should be compelled to have any new live-in partners checked similarly, because in my experience, many single mothers will overlook or fail to see faults in prospective partners in order to have the security of a relationship, and I believe this is a case of two biological drives being in conflict; however, the protection of all our children should be paramount, and if this hurts feelings, so be it!

That is surely one of the most patronising comments I have seen made toward women in a long long time. You want the police to scrutinise the romantic involvements of single mothers because their judgement cant be trusted? ha ha ha ha ha.

I have no doubt that this does happen, where a woman would be lonely enough to overlook potential dangers, but to make it legal policy that the GUARDS can investigate your sex/romantic life is insane. Sorry.

maireadmarie wrote:

This, by the way, is not a new idea; I have a friend who had a child before she was married; when she married, and her husband wanted to adopt the little girl, they had to endure many visits from social workers before this was permitted, even though he had been the boyfriend of the young mother before she met her child's father, and had been 'there for her' from the moment the child was born. It's hard to see, therefore, how things should be different in more casual relationships where the new partner is not going to adopt the child.

Social workers. More state interference in the family. Because in more casual relationships the man is not going to have any legal or financial status over the child. Adoption makes you the parent - forever.

The Corinthian

spaceman1 wrote:

Only significant Corinthian if you were talking about paedophileria, but if not then no...

I see you're missing the point. Paedophileia, like Chavez, Iraq or numerous other issues presently being argued over on Boards is presently topical. Additionally, many of the people who you've cited as having posted in both threads are also present on numerous other threads. So drawing the conclusions you've put forward is really going into silly Paedofinder General territory.

Maybe you should go catch a show in the Abbey?

maireadmarie

Well, Metrovelvet, I did specify vetting should take place if a single mother was about to take in a new live-in partner, I really think the guards are busy enough without chasing around after all romantic links; it would be quite an interference if police were to interest themselves in romantic partners who were not going to be live-in...
Sorry if I sound patronising, but I shall always continue to state what I think is right, no matter how it sounds. I don't care how it sounds, to be frank. that's my opinion. Workers in care homes have to be vetted, why not new live-in partners? You seem also to be saying that all single mothers can be trusted to make the right judgement about proposed partners, which of course is ridiculous, if one follows certain court cases, it is immediately obvious how crazy an assumption that is. I know a family where all the mother's children from an earlier partner were abused by her second partner; only when public gossip caused the authorities to be interested was he forced to leave the home; within a month he had moved in with a new partner and her young child.
I do feel that in the main social workers are not ideal, but what's the alternative?
Protect children first, and then let's worry about sounding patronising. Or should that be 'matronising'?

metrovelvet

There is a point where these things become civil rights issues. And what you are talking about violates individual civil liberties.

Workers in care homes are professionals and in a setting in which people pay and entrust them to look after the elderly or disabled.

I would agree with you that the rate of abuse among step fathers is higher than among other family members but if you start criminalising them, where does it end? Visiting uncles, cousins?

And in your example "public gossip"forced this man to leave the home? And then he moved on to someone else. So much for the authorities doing anything about it or being able to prevent it from happening again.

Perhaps if we developed ways to teach children to cultivate their instincts around sussing out danger, about who to trust and who not to, about what to do when your scared then we give them the power.

maireadmarie

What happened was, local gossip lead to the gardai finally taking an interest and the social services went in, but they weren't so worried about where he went afterwards. I agree with you about social services, in most, but not all, cases, I'm afraid.
I'm as keen as the next person on civil rights, which, let's face it usually mean, adult civil rights, but not if they leave children vulnerable. What would your solution be?

metrovelvet

My solution is to accept that evil exists, danger exists, and it's never going to go away completely. That you think the police and the authorties and some batman can come and save us all from it is just delusional. That you think that social workers and guards are not themselves capable of evil is also delusional and just not practical.

That you and others can accept "local gossip" as grounds for evicting someone out of their home is scary in itself and something out of a Shirley Jackson story even though it turned out he was guilty. Can you imagine the implications for this in some small town backwards inbred country town?

Relying on them makes children more vulnerable imo and when you scrutinise their parents like they are criminals, doesn't it teach them that their parents arent to be trusted? The very people they SHOULD trust? Perhaps the only people they should trust?

My solution is awareness and education for both parents and children. Stop with the Barney and go back to Grimms, stronger laws for convicted sex offenders and neighborhood support and watch. I certainly dont have the solution but treating the parents with the assumption of guilt and laying more power into the incompetant hands of the authorities is not the answer.

maireadmarie

No, because of the talk, the guards decided to investigate, and then decided there were grounds for concern. I can't go into more details for obvious reasons. There was no witchhunt.
Sadly, I don't know what kind of education would be either appropriate or possible - you can warn children, and keep a sharp eye yourself, but people who want to abuse children are cleverer than most of us. If you're protective people say, "oh, you've got to let them get independent". Well, the kids who are taken are often being allowed this independence. The young women who feel they have the right to go where they like without fear at night, and then do so, frequently live to regret this. Sometimes they don't. But that's another story. For another time...
I don't think you have a solution, any more than any of us, Metrovelvet.

K-9

maireadmarie wrote:

No, because of the talk, the guards decided to investigate, and then decided there were grounds for concern. I can't go into more details for obvious reasons. There was no witchhunt.
Sadly, I don't know what kind of education would be either appropriate or possible - you can warn children, and keep a sharp eye yourself, but people who want to abuse children are cleverer than most of us. If you're protective people say, "oh, you've got to let them get independent". Well, the kids who are taken are often being allowed this independence. The young women who feel they have the right to go where they like without fear at night, and then do so, frequently live to regret this. Sometimes they don't. But that's another story. For another time...
I don't think you have a solution, any more than any of us, Metrovelvet.

My God. Could you imagine chatting up some girl or indeed some mother being chatted up by a fella. Asking them "Are you ok with the social workers and guards checking you out? Great, I'll set up for tomorrow!"

There really is no solution to abuse. It's unfortunately going to happen. It does look from this thread that unfortunately in the OP's case that we would have to accept CCTV and maybe involvement of social services. It's an interesting scenario but I wonder where is the line you draw between protection of civil rights and child safety.

Having social workers around every month to check on the kids for signs of physical isn't very good for the childs welfare either, and what about the neighbours then? "Ah there's something funny going on in that house, sure look the social workers or there every 5 minutes. I bet you something is going on, why else would they be there?"

metrovelvet

I would have more of an issue with a house that was under the scrutiny of CCTV and social services then I would with with the original idea behind this thread.

And if you think social workers are the solution you are sadly mistaken. I know personally of one child who is living with her grandmother and her convicted sex offender geandfather because her mother died and no guardianship papers were signed. Social services are aware of this. Psych evals have been done and the daughter is still living with the grandmother and the TWICE convicted sex offender.

spaceman1

Well, I think we are getting off topic....single father accommodation, As far as sex offenders and beuracracy, we could be here alll day. The system is completely flawed, and I think in the system, there is no political will to tackle the problems regarding child safety, relationships between child and parents. Kids these days grow up without even knowing thei parents, its all money orientated. Between kreshes, schools and this new capitalist culture we live in now. Time seems to squeeze good old fashioned social gatherings in the house.

As far as the whole sex offenders thing, well, that stuff has been going on unchecked since the foudation of the state, possibly earlier......

What we need is someone in the goverment to start acting in the best interest of our quality of life, unfortunately, that doesnt look likely.

Nevyn

The things is that fathers should be granted joint custondy where possible and be afford rent allonace if needed to work to wards providing a home that they can have thier children in and spend time with them as a parent rather then the trips to macdondals and having to worry about where to take the children to spend time with them and to be able to have thier children have thier own rooms in thier father's home.