Absent Fathers

AnnyHallsal

ntlbell wrote: »

But regardless of how many PARENTS abandon their children it's worthy of discussion, I just don't see the importantce of singling out men.

Over the last few pages a number of posters have cited issues, such as LC4M, that pertain exclusively to Absent Fathers, justifying its own thread, I believe.

Otis Driftwood

Cavehill Red banned for 7 days.Ntlbell,the thread was started asking why there are absent fathers,not mothers,not parents,FATHERS.Please stop trying to derail the thread or you will also be banned.

CDfm

There is a huge difference between a voluntarily absent Dad and an excluded Dad.

I found this article from Mary Corcoran of Maynooth who did a qualitative study around Dublin.

Well worth a read.

http://eprints.nuim.ie/1212/1/MCIJS_14_%282%29.pdf

One thing that is always hard to find are unbiased quantative statistics and, this is a pity because it leads to uneven social policy.

Another article here commenting on a study by Harry Fergusson - the thing that sticks out is that social workers expect mothers to carry the load rather than encouraging them to involve the Dad.

A huge culture shock for me having moved back to Ireland was that even schools and doctors did not want you involved. I had no idea I was so unlikeable.

Absent fathers - another view on SVP remarks

Author: Tom O'Gorman
Date: 6th January 2009
The very important remarks of SVP regional head Brendan Delaney on absent fathers again highlight the importance of children having both their mother and their father. Why are they absent? In some cases it is because the father wants nothing to do with his children. In other cases the mother doesn’t want him to have anything to do with them. In other cases still, social support agencies actively discourage fathers from having a proper relationship with their children.
This last category was highlighted by a report published in 2004 called ‘Strengthening Families Through Fathers’. It was carried out by by Professor Harry Ferguson, of the University of the West of England, and Mr Fergus Hogan, of Waterford Institute of Technology, on behalf of the Family Support Agency. It studied vulnerable fathers and their relationship with family support services.
The report was scathing about the social welfare system in terms of its interaction with fathers. It found "that the overall orientation of welfare systems to exclude men is so powerful that even in cases of inclusive practice clear evidence emerged of men's exclusion.”
It recommended an overhaul of the family law and social welfare systems to make them more father-friendly. It found them to be biased against the inclusion of men in family support and assessment work. In other words, when social services went to assist a family they did not see fathers as part of the solution even when the fathers wished to become involved.
The study, in which 24 men, 10 mothers and 11 children were interviewed, found that the system leaves many men feeling excluded, even though they expressed a desire to have a role in their children's lives.
It found that fathers were extremely frustrated and angry at the way support agencies overlooked them, and that some social workers held negative attitudes towards fathers. Some social workers were reported as saying that men were difficult or dangerous, that there was enough work to be done with the mothers and that there needed to be obvious benefits to working with men.
The report said that "The dynamics of such exclusion took many forms, the most common and powerful of which was a view of men as dangerous, non-nurturing beings."
According to the study, social workers generally expected mothers to carry the load, "leaving the potential resource fathers have to offer largely untapped".
The above indicates that the problem of absent fathers, while very real and very tragic, has multiple causes and all of them need to be considered in any analysis of the proble


http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=445

Fittle

I believe that threads like this will never end, because of all of the 253 posts, there are many, many posters with their own agenda.

My agenda - though I wouldn't call it an agenda, because it is more my life experience - is that of a woman who was in a relationship where we planned to have children, I got pregnant and then he decided he really didn't want a child after all. So I went on to have the child - and he went on to stick to his own viewpoint - that of a 41yr old man, who didn't really want a baby after all. He told me of the 'rights' of a man to abort the child, he gave me a cheque to 'get the boat'..and he has never seen his 8yr old son.

There are others here who have been in relationships with women who won't allow them to see their children, and they are therefore, in a constant state of battle. It appears to me, that they are battling with anyone and everyone who cares to listen. And ultimately, nobody can do anything for them - other than the mother of their child/ren who may or may not allow them to see them.

But ultimately - and you can all get banned from a website, only to come back in a week and begin the debate again - there are boys (and I can only speak of boys, because I don't have a girl) who don't have male role models in their lives, because there are men who have decided - for whatever reason they care to tell all and sundry - that they don't really want to be daddies after all.

So boys like my boy, will grow up with no daddies. He has no real male role model. I had hoped he would get a male teacher this year, but I can't impact on the Dept of Ed decisions. I had hoped my brothers mite become role models for him, but they have their own dysfunction going on and in fact, I'm glad some of them aren't involved in his life.

So here he is. Playing football on the road everyday...trying to turn himself into a young man/adult man, without really knowing how men should behave, because he lives with his mam, and I can't teach him how to be a man.

He said to me once, when he was about 5 and playing mammies & daddies with his 4yr old pal from creche...(and this is a quote) 'I don't really know how to be the daddy, mam...coz I don't really know what daddies DO???' I am luckier than most - I have a load of brothers and having grown up in a house full of boys, I know how boys behave (tho I'm still not a boy) - I have learned as much as I can about footbabll, I do as much as I can to encourage him to be a 'boy', but it's difficult!

So the absent fathers in the original thread...they created boys like mine..and I can only hope that I will be enough for him and that he will figure out for himself, that just because you don't have a daddy, doesn't mean you can't become a responsible daddy yourself someday.

CDfm

Fittle wrote: »

There are others here who have been in relationships with women who won't allow them to see their children, and they are therefore, in a constant state of battle. It appears to me, that they are battling with anyone and everyone who cares to listen. And ultimately, nobody can do anything for them - other than the mother of their child/ren who may or may not allow them to see them.


So the absent fathers in the original thread...they created boys like mine..and I can only hope that I will be enough for him and that he will figure out for himself, that just because you don't have a daddy, doesn't mean you can't become a responsible daddy yourself someday.

A lovely post Fittle and so eloquent. Those paragraphs hit me.

One of the reasons I began to dislike threads like this was they left me conflicted. On one hand , I am hugely sympatethic to guys like me who have to go 12 rounds for access but on the other hand my instinct is that some women have tough breaks with their co-parent too.

My kids feature hugely in my life and I just could not imagine life without them in it, but, I know other guys like me who lost contact with their kids. So I could not imagine not wanting contact.

So when I see extremist womens groups , it does drive me up the wall , but, by the same token I would have little in common with their polarised agenda's it makes no sense to me either. For me, I have to look at the issues from a non gender basis.

I have a feeling your boy will be just fine. My daughter went thru a tough year or two and we worked thru it. I was at one of her friends houses and told the Dad " a girl can never have too many string tops" to a chorus of "too true". I also got the cleanser & moisturise thing.

And, who knows, you may meet someone else. I did.

I have a son too, and, if either of them are in the same situation in years to come , I would like better outcomes for them both. So I have to be grounded and rounded so they learn that.

TouchingVirus

Fittle wrote: »

There are others here who have been in relationships with women who won't allow them to see their children, and they are therefore, in a constant state of battle. It appears to me, that they are battling with anyone and everyone who cares to listen. And ultimately, nobody can do anything for them - other than the mother of their child/ren who may or may not allow them to see them.

The fact that a father must fight for a right to see their kids because of personal issues between themselves and the mother is a serious issue for me.

Sure, I'm aware many couples break up and raise kids while separated and the father is active in their life, but I know of a few situations very close to home where the father i willing to dote on their child/ren but is unallowed to. It's heartbreaking to be honest and almost puts me off the idea of having children.

I'm also fully aware that there are fathers out there who want nothing to do with their children. I can't understand it myself and think it is a crying shame.

tbh

Someone mentioned that this is a thread that could go on forever, and thats true. It's because this isn't a black and white issue, there are no right and wrong answers or opinions.

I would remind people of the tagline under this forums title: A place for the civil discussion of mens issues.

Civil: We are here to share experiences, not to win arguments. Some excellent posts have been made, and some poor ones. You are responsible for what you post. If you cannot post without sarcasm or pouring scorn on anothers opinion, you may have to find somewhere else to post.

Mens issues: This is, unapologetically, a mens forum. The mods will stand over our record of not allowing generalisations about men or by men. We don't want or allow women-bashing, but neither do we require the men who post here to defend the actions of all men worldwide.

In short: share your experiences, support your arguments and express your point of view. Understand that others will have differing opinions to yours, because their lives have taken different turns to yours. Their opinion is as valid as yours, and where their method of expressing that opinion lowers the tone of the forum or makes it a less pleasent or encouraging place to post, the mods will step in - if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, however well-meaning you may be.

We will not allow the same posters fight the same fight over and over in every thread of this type to the exclusion of all others.
We will not ban the discussion of these issues from the forum, rather we will ban any problematic users.

Bill2673

Cavehill Red wrote: »

3: Fathers are therefore actively discouraged to remain part of their children's lives should their relationship with the mother fall apart.


5. Sorry, but it has to be said - while I for one welcome the increased liberalisation of society, one of the developments has been the erosion of the concept of marriage and the nuclear family. I'm not in favour of shotgun weddings, magdalene laundries or any of the other horrible jails of the soul that society once trapped people in, but when you open the doors to freedom, some people will run wild with it.

Just on these two points:

On 3. Am I right in saying free legal aid is available to women and not to men where a couple is seperated? I know of one couple that has seperated, and the mum uses her full allotment of legal aid each year, taking the father to court over and over and over under her legal aid allotment, accusing him of hitting the kids, not minding the kids when he has custody, not feeding the properly, none of which has stood up in court. But its a huge strain for him, and to my knowledge he has to pay all his court costs, and take off work to attend. This sounds like discrimination; which I suppose is discouragement at a societal level. i know its just one example, rather than a general situation.

On 5. A lot of single women, especially in mid to late '30s, want to have a child. And personally, I would say, why shouldn't they. That is clearly a breakdown of the nuclear family, but i wouldn't particularly go boo-hooing about it. Or as another example, a lot of gay or lesbian couples want to have kids. And again why shouldnt they. That they can do so and it be socially acceptable also relates to liberalisation of society, but personally i'd see that aspect of it is a good thing.

Bill2673

nedtheshed wrote: »

Cavehill Red banned for 7 days.Ntlbell,the thread was started asking why there are absent fathers,not mothers,not parents,FATHERS.Please stop trying to derail the thread or you will also be banned.

With respect, moderator, the Original Post was a provacative one. You haven't referred to all of it.

It started by quoting a study in the UK which said 25% of kids are not in touch with their fathers. The OP then went on rather provactively in my view to ask something along the lines of "why do so many fathers run away from their responsibilities". To extrapolate from one to the other (with no explanation or statistal support) is provactive, and some might find it offensive, and thats part of the reason why this thread has dragged on so long in my view. The Original Post was not just the simple question that you described.

CDfm

Bill2673 wrote: »

Just on these two points:

On 3. Am I right in saying free legal aid is available to women and not to men where a couple is seperated? I know of one couple that has seperated, and the mum uses her full allotment of legal aid each year, taking the father to court over and over and over under her legal aid allotment, accusing him of hitting the kids, not minding the kids when he has custody, not feeding the properly, none of which has stood up in court. But its a huge strain for him, and to my knowledge he has to pay all his court costs, and take off work to attend. This sounds like discrimination; which I suppose is discouragement at a societal level. i know its just one example, rather than a general situation.

I've been there and it feels like the death of a thousand cuts.

My experiences took me ages to get over.

I am not being bitter when I say if any of the judges had even threatened using legal sanctions such as a fine or a weekend in jail with my ex I would have been spared it.

On 5. A lot of single women, especially in mid to late '30s, want to have a child. And personally, I would say, why shouldn't they. That is clearly a breakdown of the nuclear family, but i wouldn't particularly go boo-hooing about it. Or as another example, a lot of gay or lesbian couples want to have kids. And again why shouldnt they. That they can do so and it be socially acceptable also relates to liberalisation of society, but personally i'd see that aspect of it is a good thing.

I know you have gone off topic with the gay issue but you do have a point. I certainly know that on issues like domestic violence that the lesbian, gay and bisexual community have the same lack of enforcement as do young people and old people of both genders against perpetrators.

Some rights are human rights and it seems to be the case that laws are not enforced with one eye out for the reaction of powerful womens lobby groups and the unfair allocation of limited resourses.

Bill2673

TouchingVirus wrote: »

It's heartbreaking to be honest and almost puts me off the idea of having children.

To be honest, it would be a worry for me event though I'm in a fairly solid r'ship with two kids. i love my partner, she loves me. But who knows what the future holds, and as things stand she can walk off and bring the kids with her and there would be damn all I could do about it, she knows it, i know it, its like a sword of damocles, and i suppose every father is in the same situation.

Not my biggest worry, but there's enough there to be thinking about it.

Fittle

Bill2673 wrote: »

To be honest, it would be a worry for me event though I'm in a fairly solid r'ship with two kids. i love my partner, she loves me. But who knows what the future holds, and as things stand she can walk off and bring the kids with her and there would be damn all I could do about it, she knows it, i know it, its like a sword of damocles, and i suppose every father is in the same situation.

Not my biggest worry, but there's enough there to be thinking about it.

And every mother could also be left parenting alone. Yes, the law states they get to 'keep' the kids (I'm purposely not getting too technical here, because I think there's enough stuff been said already), but parenting alone is not fun. There is little, if any pleasure in having to make every single solitary decision alone - knowing that it might be the wrong decision but having no-one to discuss or share it with. And then there's the questions that you can't answer, that you dread they will ask (why does my dad not love me?).

I was also in a solid relationship. We had just put a deposit on our first home. My life plan was not to be a single parent at 34, but I guess none of us knows what's around the corner, so I do agree that it's a sword of damocles. I believe it's worth acknowledging though, that for every father who fears his wife/partner can take the kids from him, there are mothers who fear that their partners will leave them to parent alone.

Edit: Just to add that my boy brings me pleasure every second of every day, so it's not HIM I'm referring to when I said there's no pleasure...it's the responsibility of parenting alone.

Fittle

Can I throw this in the mix, or is it off-topic?

Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states;

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from
birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to
know and be cared for by his or her parents.

'...The right to know...his or her parents'.

There are many children who don't know their fathers. Apart from the problems that in itself could cause for the child (self-esteem issues, depression following the rejection from a parent etc), it can cause untold problems for half-siblings in the future etc. So what about my boys human right to know both his parents? (Not that I would want the man in his life after this length of time of course - but that's really not the point).

What about the children of these absent fathers and THEIR human rights?
Nobody really ever discusses that

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

Can I throw this in the mix, or is it off-topic?

Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states;

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from
birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to
know and be cared for by his or her parents.

'...The right to know...his or her parents'.

You'll note that it says "as far as possible" - without this adoption, sperm or egg donation, and a raft of other scenarios would not be possible. Many mothers who put their children up for adoption specifically do not want to be traced (I knew a girl who was rebuffed by her biological mother when she contacted her, for example) and ever since legislation was brought into the UK allowing children born from sperm donations to trace their biological fathers, the well has run dry (if you'll excuse the expression) on such donations.

Indeed, the entire article is in reality vague and open to interpretation, for example, on the question of nationality, the second part of the article goes on to specify that this would be an issue principally "where the child would otherwise be stateless."

In short, the article aspires to a child knowing its parents - as long as an exception is not made. And lots of governments make lots of exceptions. Like many things the UN comes out with, it actually is very non-committal when you look at it carefully.

What about the children of these absent fathers and THEIR human rights?
Nobody really ever discusses that

If we want to discuss the rights of children, perhaps we should question how these are presently administered. In most cases they are represented by the mother, who does not necessarily represent the best interests of the child.

For example, given the choice to keep or put a child up for adoption, it is her wishes that are presently paramount, not the child's interests. Should we change the law so that this decision is taken out of her hands and decided upon by weighing up what is actually in the child's best interests?

Would you support that?

Fittle

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'll note that it says "as far as possible" - without this adoption, sperm or egg donation, and a raft of other scenarios would not be possible. Many mothers who put their children up for adoption specifically do not want to be traced (I knew a girl who was rebuffed by her biological mother when she contacted her, for example) and ever since legislation was brought into the UK allowing children born from sperm donations to trace their biological fathers, the well has run dry (if you'll excuse the expression) on such donations.

Indeed, the entire article is in reality vague and open to interpretation, for example, on the question of nationality, the second part of the article goes on to specify that this would be an issue principally "where the child would otherwise be stateless."

In short, the article aspires to a child knowing its parents - as long as an exception is not made. And lots of governments make lots of exceptions. Like many things the UN comes out with, it actually is very non-committal when you look at it carefully.

If we want to discuss the rights of children, perhaps we should question how these are presently administered. In most cases they are represented by the mother, who does not necessarily represent the best interests of the child.

For example, given the choice to keep or put a child up for adoption, it is her wishes that are presently paramount, not the child's interests. Should we change the law so that this decision is taken out of her hands and decided upon by weighing up what is actually in the child's best interests?

Would you support that?

Why the constant referring back to adoption?

The children I am talking about are not adopted - it is not comparable.

The children I was referring to are those whose biological fathers have abandoned them and whose biological mothers are raising them and are the children of the 'Absent fathers' referred to in the OP.

Do they not have a right to know their biological fathers on any level?

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

Why the constant referring back to adoption?

The children I am talking about are not adopted - it is not comparable.

The children I was referring to are those whose biological fathers have abandoned them and whose biological mothers are raising them and are the children of the 'Absent fathers' referred to in the OP.

Do they not have a right to know their biological fathers on any level?

This isn't really correct.

The child you are talking about is your own, and that's completely understandable.

The children in the OP were not necessarily abandoned by their fathers, the fathers are just absent. That could be for any number of reasons, not just abandonment.

If you want to talk about the overall issue then abortion, adoption, abandonment, bereavement, crime, awareness etc all come into it.

Fittle

Iago wrote: »

This isn't really correct.

The child you are talking about is your own, and that's completely understandable.

The children in the OP were not necessarily abandoned my their fathers, the fathers are just absent. That could be for any number of reasons, not just abandonment.

If you want to talk about the overall issue then abortion, adoption, abandonment, bereavement, crime, awareness etc all come into it.

This was the quote the OP used in his original post on this thread, immediately after his reference to the fact that around quarter of the children in the UK have no contact with their fathers...

'Don't think the statistics are that high in Ireland, but there's definitely a growing number of dads who don't seem to give a crap about their offspring.'

It was pretty clear to me that the OP was referring to dads who don't give a crap...not abortion, adoption, bereavement etc.

Otis Driftwood

Bill2673 wrote: »

With respect, moderator, the Original Post was a provacative one. You haven't referred to all of it.

It started by quoting a study in the UK which said 25% of kids are not in touch with their fathers. The OP then went on rather provactively in my view to ask something along the lines of "why do so many fathers run away from their responsibilities". To extrapolate from one to the other (with no explanation or statistal support) is provactive, and some might find it offensive, and thats part of the reason why this thread has dragged on so long in my view. The Original Post was not just the simple question that you described.

With all due respect to you,I dont have to explain my actions to anyone except to my fellow mods or the admins of this site however I will humour you.

Cavehill Red was banned becaue he posted off topic with accusations of father bashing and misandry in this thread which there simply isnt.He posted despite two mod warnings and two posters being banned previously.

This thread started with a question about why there are so many absent fathers.

The first reply gave his thoughts on the matter as did a few others then all of a sudden it went on a complete tangent.Direction was given and ignored so when that happens there isnt much more that can be done.

What I said in my last post was directed at Ntlbell,he kept trying to bring up absent mothers,absent parents etc,not what the opening post was about.If users want to start a thread on either of these there are suitable forums such as Humanities where they can be discussed at lenght however to repeat,this thread was started about absent fathers and why there are absent fathers the reasons why some men choose to walk away from their children etc.

Obviously this is an emotive subject particularly for men that have had difficulty getting access to their kids,two of my friends are in that exact situation as I type however that is no excuse for dragging or trying to drag threads off topic or for making unfounded accusations.

Finally,as you should well know,questioning mod actions on thread across any of the forums on boards can be a ban worthy offence.Please remember that in future.

Regards,
OD

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

This was the quote the OP used in his original post on this thread, immediately after his reference to the fact that around quarter of the children in the UK have no contact with their fathers...

'Don't think the statistics are that high in Ireland, but there's definitely a growing number of dads who don't seem to give a crap about their offspring.'

It was pretty clear to me that the OP was referring to dads who don't give a crap...not abortion, adoption, bereavement etc.

Yet you posted an article from a UN declaration that specifies parents and not simply fathers and so really you do have to examine the entire question of a parent not being involved in a child's life, be that parent male or female, be that lack of involvement involuntary or not, be the manner in which they are missing state sanctioned or not.

You also made the off topic contribution (by your own admission), so accusing others of being off topic when responding to it is a bit odd, TBH.

If all you want to do is focus on your own agenda (or life experience, as you called it), then fine - but not everyone has your experience and many have very different stories to you. This is why you cannot simply look at the issue in a black and white fashion, tar everyone - be they mothers or fathers - with the same brush, and consider that why children end up like this is not down to any one single reason but to a plethora of them.

I note you did not comment on the second part of my last post. I take it that you do not support a shift to decisions being made in the best interest of the child then?

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

This was the quote the OP used in his original post on this thread, immediately after his reference to the fact that around quarter of the children in the UK have no contact with their fathers...

'Don't think the statistics are that high in Ireland, but there's definitely a growing number of dads who don't seem to give a crap about their offspring.'

It was pretty clear to me that the OP was referring to dads who don't give a crap...not abortion, adoption, bereavement etc.

I feel we're going back over the same ground again and again (we in a group sense as opposed to me and you specifically)

The 25% of children figure is correct. The tenuous link between it and the emboldened part of the text above is yet to be established. I'd also question the veracity of the whole "growing number of dads who don't seem to give a crap" and I'd like to see evidence to back it up as opposed to an individuals perception.

Taking all that aside, if you want to talk about dads who don't give a crap which subset would you like to talk about?

One night stands?
Steady Relationships?
Thos who don't know that they have a child?
Those who planned the child and changed their mind?
Those who wanted their partner to have an abortion or put the child up for adoption?
Those who waited for the child to be born and at some subsequent point abandoned it?

The problem with doing any of the above is that regardless of which we choose we move away from the point of the thread which was a general discussion as to why it would happen as opposed to a specific instance.

It also prevents any of us being objective because we can talk about how we feel or would react in that circumstance. That doesn't make for healthy debate because it's too close to home.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course there are consequences, just as there were social consequences to women's liberation. Or would you like us to reverse the clock on those?

Well I wouldn't equate the fight for a right for a paternal right of abdication of parental rights with the Suffragete movement myself, if we are going down the road of comparisons!

The Corinthian wrote:

If it swaps one set of problems with another for the sake of equality, then that is probably a better situation overall (maybe not for the gender who has to sacrifice some of their rights in the name of equality).

It depends on the different set of circumstances I would have thought. We do to all intents and purposes have the likes of LC4M for a significant number of men, we just don't know the percentages. That causes problems as it is so I suppose the question is, how would legalising LC4M affect that situation and problems? In a way I'm wrong in saying a different set of circumstances would arise, we already have the problems, just LC4M isn't a legally recognised avenue for men.

The Corinthian wrote:

As for bringing up the sake of the child, I just don't buy that line. The current system has practically nothing to do with protecting the rights of the child, only the rights of the woman. Even when the rights of the child are considered, it is the mother who gets to speak for it.

If the rights of the child were really considered, the choice to keep a child would not be made by the mother, but judged separately in the interests of that child - if it is better off with the mother, father or adopted.

Yes, that is a problem with the current system. As for the decision to keep the child, ideally there would be an independent arbitrator in cases like that, somebody with the wisdom of Solomon! The current system needs reform in that respect to include the social services and family courts.

The Corinthian wrote:

A man may only walk away and back again only because there is no legal provision to do otherwise. Women may choose abortion and adoption, that are both final, men can choose avoidance at best. A LC4M option, if introduce would be as final as adoption, is my understanding.

Which to my understanding conflicts with the UN declaration of childrens rights.

The Corinthian wrote:

Not at all. You're using the good of society as logic to deny rights. When you open the door on such logic, then you should be aware that it can easily turn round and bite you.

It isn't biting me at all. I find it a very contrived and appeal to emotion comparison.

The Corinthian wrote:

So if it was introduced legally in the UK, can men get a constitutional right to have it recognized in Ireland then if they fly over there?

Well many men choose to fly to England and other countries and exercise LC4M there, having no contact or financial input to a child's life, if we want to be facetious about it.

The Corinthian wrote:

I really don't accept this abortion is illegal in Ireland stuff either. Women have a constitutional right to both information on abortion at to travel for it. Even if it was legal in Ireland I can guarantee that most would still travel for it - and with the state of the health system in Ireland, who could blame them?

It is illegal but it still happens. Same as LC4M is illegal but still happens. There is a certain equality in that respect.

Iago wrote: »

Well that depends on what point you believe a child exists I guess, I'm sure I could line up a couple of hundred people who would argue that the child exists before the mother even knows she's pregnant if I tried. However I get your point, so lets look at the three scenarios

1. Abortion

A woman can decide to have or not to have an abortion

A man cannot and cannot prevent her from doing so.

There is inequality in this scenario even if it's a nightmare scenario to try and resolve and equalise.

2. Adoption

A woman can decide to put her child up for adoption or not

A man cannot make this decision, and while he can perhaps prevent the adoption through legal means, I would guess (having never done it) that it would be a long, drawn out, expensive and possibly fruitless exercise. If you managed to get that far in the first place! Which given the fact that men can't really dictate that their name goes on the birth cert would be a mountain in and of itself.

Then you have to take into consideration that the vast majority of men wouldn't want their child to suffer in any way. If you think about what kind of beginning that child would have if the mother is forced to bring her/him up while waiting for this legal challenge to play itself out then I think a lot of men would simply stand aside rather than put their child through that.

So in my view, there is also clear inequality in this situation which also needs to be resolved.

3. Raising a child

Ultimately if the woman has not made one of the choices above this is what remains, and again is fully her choice.

If however the man has made one of the choices above, this is still what remains, and has nothing to do with his choice.

There is inequality in this situation, and this is also something that needs to be resolved.

~~~~~~~~

It's not as simple as saying "think of the children" because there are (at least) three distinct people who are impacted by these choices and decisions, and they are lifelong impacts, not something that will wear off after a month or two. Yet despite the fact that these decisions impact on three separate lives, only one person actually gets to make any of the decisions around them. Those decisions will always be made with an element of personal bias (as we are all only human) and may not be in the best interests of either of the other two parties.

To align this back to the voting piece if only men could vote, then that voting system/structure would have an inherent bias to the male point of view regardless of the impact that it would have on women, many of which would also be lifelong impacts.

There would be inequality in that, and that is something that has been resolved.

I can't take issue with that post at all. I understand all those concerns but again as I've repeatedly stated, my concern comes from a childrens rights point of view. Some may facetiously scoff at that as "somebody think of the children" but children are the third party here, as you say yourself.

The problem is the practical ways of addressing the issues. I can't see how men can get an equivalent to Abortion rights without it affecting childrens rights. That's a whole other debate but practically the final decision on abortion is always going to be the mothers, down to biological reasons! To me it is ridiculous to look for the same rights of women who only really have those rights due to their sex and reproductive abilities. As you say yourself, many don't even agree that women should have them rights so I can't see it ever being accepted by the majority of society that men have a right to abort their child legally and constitutionally.

On Adoption, that could be solved if the authorities would consider giving custody of the child to the father, if he so wishes. I can't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case at all, other than societal prejudice and old fashioned attitudes.

Just a minor point but yes, a man can insist on his name on the birth cert, despite a mothers protests. Once he gets a guardianship or maintenance order, which is in effect a statement of paternity, there are provision with the birth registration office for him to get his details added. It isn't well known about, but it is there.

Fittle wrote: »

Can I throw this in the mix, or is it off-topic?

Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states;

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from
birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to
know and be cared for by his or her parents.

'...The right to know...his or her parents'.

There are many children who don't know their fathers. Apart from the problems that in itself could cause for the child (self-esteem issues, depression following the rejection from a parent etc), it can cause untold problems for half-siblings in the future etc. So what about my boys human right to know both his parents? (Not that I would want the man in his life after this length of time of course - but that's really not the point).

What about the children of these absent fathers and THEIR human rights?
Nobody really ever discusses that

Funny enough I was thinking about this today. There is also supposed to be a new childrens rights bill coming up though that will be delayed with the current political circumstances. I can't see how LC4M can sit aside that declaration.

Fittle

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet you posted an article from a UN declaration that specifies parents and not simply fathers and so really you do have to examine the entire question of a parent not being involved in a child's life, be that parent male or female, be that lack of involvement involuntary or not, be the manner in which they are missing state sanctioned or not.

You also made the off topic contribution (by your own admission), so accusing others of being off topic when responding to it is a bit odd, TBH.

If all you want to do is focus on your own agenda (or life experience, as you called it), then fine - but not everyone has your experience and many have very different stories to you. This is why you cannot simply look at the issue in a black and white fashion, tar everyone - be they mothers or fathers - with the same brush, and consider that why children end up like this is not down to any one single reason but to a plethora of them.

I note you did not comment on the second part of my last post. I take it that you do not support a shift to decisions being made in the best interest of the child then?

I wasn't aware that I had tarred anyone with the same brush, and because I did not comment on the second part of your post, you assume I don't support a shift in decisions? How did you come to that conclusion

'Taking all that aside, if you want to talk about dads who don't give a crap which subset would you like to talk about?

The problem with doing any of the above is that regardless of which we choose we move away from the point of the thread which was a general discussion as to why it would happen as opposed to a specific instance.'

Firstly, not all of the catergories you refer to are relevant - those that don't know they have children for example because how can they give a crap, when they don't even know?

A 'general discussion' covers all of the examples you refer to - you cannot have a general discussion about absent fathers, without referring to specific instances (mine, in this case).

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

Firstly, not all of the catergories you refer to are relevant - those that don't know they have children for example because how can they give a crap, when they don't even know?

A 'general discussion' covers all of the examples you refer to - you cannot have a general discussion about absent fathers, without referring to specific instances (mine, in this case).

Well they are relevant in the sense that they too form a part of the original 25% figure in the OP.

I agree that a "general discussion" covers all the examples, but you seem to want to bring it back to a specific instance. I can't tell you the thinking behind your ex-partners decision, and I can't comment on whether or not your child in particular deserves to have a father in his life.

I can say that in general terms I think it's important that a child has a father in their lives and that in general terms I would expect that a child that has both parents playing an active role in their life will be generally more rounded, balanced and better able to deal with being a child and growing up.

After we go through that paragraph though, what else is there to say?

When we speak about absent fathers (parents) there are many reasons, circumstances, excuses, explanations etc. Sometimes the child will be better off for it, but without knowing the exact background from all sides for any of those reasons then we're back to what we think we would do in that situation.

Fittle

So I will refrain from referring to my own situation again, but I will say that the INSTANT situations like mine are referred to, whether it's mine or others, the tone is consistently 'Ahhhhhh but see, we don't REALLY want to talk about situations like yours...ones where dads just walk away....' which is very frustrating.

I thought by giving my own situation as an example, it would add to the OP (which is about Absent Fathers who don't give a crap), but in hindsight I was wrong.

I will say that I completely agree with your comment 'I think it's important that a child has a father in their lives and that in general terms I would expect that a child that has both parents playing an active role in their life will be generally more rounded, balanced and better able to deal with being a child and growing up.'

Completely.

Over & Out.

K-9

Fittle wrote: »

So I will refrain from referring to my own situation again, but I will say that the INSTANT situations like mine are referred to, whether it's mine or others, the tone is consistently 'Ahhhhhh but see, we don't REALLY want to talk about situations like yours...ones where dads just walk away....' which is very frustrating.

I thought by giving my own situation as an example, it would add to the OP (which is about Absent Fathers who don't give a crap), but in hindsight I was wrong.

I will say that I completely agree with your comment 'I think it's important that a child has a father in their lives and that in general terms I would expect that a child that has both parents playing an active role in their life will be generally more rounded, balanced and better able to deal with being a child and growing up.'

Completely.

Over & Out.

Yes, but there is a tendency to just write off all absent Dads as deadbeat, you get in the tabloids and other media.

I have no problem acknowledging they do exist and did so in my first post on here. To me they just are selfish individuals and there are female equivalents with similar character traits, unluckily for some children they still have that parent around. In some cases it maybe better that the parent, whether that be a Dad or Mum, isn't around.

There are other reasons though and it mightn't be popular or too nuanced for some who just want easy answers to the problem.

There are more of them I'd say than 30/40 years ago obviously due to societal changes like the sexual revolution and divorce but they existed in the 50's and 60's, you can be sure of that. It was just hushed up then and the child sent to the Magdalene laundries or some such institution.

A big part of it for me is too many One night stands which combined with drink and bad judgement often doesn't end well but hey, it's our right to sleep around and have them and more deadbeat Dads are a consequence of those choices.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'll note that it says "as far as possible" - without this adoption, sperm or egg donation, and a raft of other scenarios would not be possible. Many mothers who put their children up for adoption specifically do not want to be traced (I knew a girl who was rebuffed by her biological mother when she contacted her, for example) and ever since legislation was brought into the UK allowing children born from sperm donations to trace their biological fathers, the well has run dry (if you'll excuse the expression) on such donations.

Indeed, the entire article is in reality vague and open to interpretation, for example, on the question of nationality, the second part of the article goes on to specify that this would be an issue principally "where the child would otherwise be stateless."

In short, the article aspires to a child knowing its parents - as long as an exception is not made. And lots of governments make lots of exceptions. Like many things the UN comes out with, it actually is very non-committal when you look at it carefully.

If we want to discuss the rights of children, perhaps we should question how these are presently administered. In most cases they are represented by the mother, who does not necessarily represent the best interests of the child.

For example, given the choice to keep or put a child up for adoption, it is her wishes that are presently paramount, not the child's interests. Should we change the law so that this decision is taken out of her hands and decided upon by weighing up what is actually in the child's best interests?

Would you support that?

Fittle wrote: »

Why the constant referring back to adoption?

The children I am talking about are not adopted - it is not comparable.

The children I was referring to are those whose biological fathers have abandoned them and whose biological mothers are raising them and are the children of the 'Absent fathers' referred to in the OP.

Do they not have a right to know their biological fathers on any level?

I don't think adoption or abortion have much to do with this because we are talking about children that are born and with the mother.

One issue is reluctant Dad's who are not given a choice some guys become dads and want to be dads, others have being a dad forced upon them.

A guy like me would want to be there for my child anyway.That does not nesscessarily mean I want to be with the mother.

So when you have a situation of rejection on either side or, an unwanted pregnancy (by the Dad) -thats a real kick in the teeth. Emotions get high & feelings are hurt.

The way I see it is you need the will of the mother and the goodwill of the state agencies to make it work.

Solutions are what is needed ,but, these need to be solutions that also work for Dad's -otherwise it is just sociological theory.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Well I wouldn't equate the fight for a right for a paternal right of abdication of parental rights with the Suffragete movement myself, if we are going down the road of comparisons!

Why not?

We do to all intents and purposes have the likes of LC4M for a significant number of men, we just don't know the percentages.

Isn't that like saying that having back street abortions is the same as having abortion legalized in all intents and purposes? If not, please explain.

That causes problems as it is so I suppose the question is, how would legalising LC4M affect that situation and problems? In a way I'm wrong in saying a different set of circumstances would arise, we already have the problems, just LC4M isn't a legally recognised avenue for men.

Perhaps if we legalized abortion in Ireland the same set of circumstances would arise as we already have in countries where it is illegal and where no legal alternative is available, by the same logic.

Yes, that is a problem with the current system. As for the decision to keep the child, ideally there would be an independent arbitrator in cases like that, somebody with the wisdom of Solomon! The current system needs reform in that respect to include the social services and family courts.

As I suggested in an earlier post that would be a possible solution, yes.

Which to my understanding conflicts with the UN declaration of childrens rights.

I addressed it earlier - it would conflict with said document just the same as adoption would. You have actually read what it says?

It isn't biting me at all. I find it a very contrived and appeal to emotion comparison.

How is it an appeal to emotion? That makes no sense.

Well many men choose to fly to England and other countries and exercise LC4M there, having no contact or financial input to a child's life, if we want to be facetious about it.

Without a constitutional right to do so, unlike women and abortion in Ireland.

It is illegal but it still happens. Same as LC4M is illegal but still happens. There is a certain equality in that respect.

Not in the slightest. Please tell me the last time a woman was prosecuted for getting an abortion outside of the state?

Fittle wrote: »

I wasn't aware that I had tarred anyone with the same brush, and because I did not comment on the second part of your post, you assume I don't support a shift in decisions? How did you come to that conclusion

Because you avoided the question. Still are.

'Taking all that aside, if you want to talk about dads who don't give a crap which subset would you like to talk about?

Actually it would be a good thing to examine all the different causes for the problem and see which ones can be addressed, how and if there are common problems between them - especially the last bit.

Otherwise we just end up in a father bashing debate, which hardly solves the problem, but might make some posters feel more validated.

A 'general discussion' covers all of the examples you refer to - you cannot have a general discussion about absent fathers, without referring to specific instances (mine, in this case).

I think in such discussions all anecdotal arguments are a bad idea as they inevitably create a bias. There are posters here who categorically do not want to discuss any case other than one similar to your own and others that will not discuss any case other than ones of parental alienation by the mother.

Both are bad directions to go into, IMHO.

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

I thought by giving my own situation as an example, it would add to the OP (which is about Absent Fathers who don't give a crap), but in hindsight I was wrong.

Let's look at the OP:

Blisterman wrote: »

Heard a shocking statistic today, that in the UK, over a quarter of kids have no contact with their father.

Don't think the statistics are that high in Ireland, but there's definitely a growing number of dads who don't seem to give a crap about their offspring.

I think most people can agree that it can't be very good for kids growing up without a dad. So why do so many guys run away from their responsibilities?

Should something be done? What could be done? How come it's happening so much nowadays, when it didn't before?

First he quotes a statistic from a study. Then he makes, twice, the assumption that this is down to fathers not caring.

It would be like starting a thread quoting a statistic citing lower grades for black students in the US and then presuming the reason is because they are genetically more stupid.

Should we then stick to such an original topic and accept the presumption or seek to correct it? You tell me.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

I don't think adoption or abortion have much to do with this because we are talking about children that are born and with the mother.

My mistake then. Only fathers can abdicate their parental responsibility then. Mothers obviously never do. Adoption and abortion are obviously just special ways of embracing it.

liah

The Corinthian wrote: »

My mistake then. Only fathers can abdicate their parental responsibility then. Mothers obviously never do. Adoption and abortion are obviously just special ways of embracing it.

That's a bit disingenuous considering CDfm is a father who's been through hell on this very topic, he's clearly not saying that at all.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

My mistake then. Only fathers can abdicate their parental responsibility then. Mothers obviously never do. Adoption and abortion are obviously just special ways of embracing it.

Some mothers do but this isn't about mothers. You keep harping on about mothers. This thread is about absent fathers.

Incidentally, the only way we can examine why fathers abandon their children is by examining individual cases, like fittle's. We can't simply look at entire categories of absent fathers and damn them all with the same set of circumstances.

K-9 wrote: »

Well I wouldn't equate the fight for a right for a paternal right of abdication of parental rights with the Suffragete movement myself, if we are going down the road of comparisons!

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why not?

Because one is a fight for a right; the other is a fight to abdicate a responsibility.

Stheno

Bill2673 wrote: »

Just on these two points:

On 3. Am I right in saying free legal aid is available to women and not to men where a couple is seperated?

No, legal aid is based on means, there is no such thing as free legal aid here, you still have to contribute something, the minimum being €10

I know of one couple that has seperated, and the mum uses her full allotment of legal aid each year, taking the father to court over and over and over under her legal aid allotment, accusing him of hitting the kids, not minding the kids when he has custody, not feeding the properly, none of which has stood up in court. But its a huge strain for him, and to my knowledge he has to pay all his court costs, and take off work to attend. This sounds like discrimination; which I suppose is discouragement at a societal level. i know its just one example, rather than a general situation.

As the Father works, it's possible he does not satisfy the criteria for legal aid. If the mother does not work then she would possibly satisfy the criteria in terms of income.

Iago

Pherekydes wrote: »

Incidentally, the only way we can examine why fathers abandon their children is by examining individual cases, like fittle's. We can't simply look at entire categories of absent fathers and damn them all with the same set of circumstances.

This is exactly correct.

So all we need now is for Fittle's ex to come on and post his side of the situation and then once we have both we can examine it and come to a conclusion as to what caused it.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss and dissect individual cases, but without hearing from both parties it's impossible to do.

Fittle

Iago wrote: »

This is exactly correct.

So all we need now is for Fittle's ex to come on and post his side of the situation and then once we have both we can examine it and come to a conclusion as to what caused it.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss and dissect individual cases, but without hearing from both parties it's impossible to do.

Would you like his phone number:rolleyes:

I said it before....

People like my ex are not on websites debating issues about Absent Fathers.
No more than women who will not allow their ex's to see their children are.

Pherekydes

Iago wrote: »

This is exactly correct.

So all we need now is for Fittle's ex to come on and post his side of the situation and then once we have both we can examine it and come to a conclusion as to what caused it.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss and dissect individual cases, but without hearing from both parties it's impossible to do.

It's not going to happen, though is it? Who's going to come on and defend their behaviour?

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

Would you like his phone number:rolleyes:

I said it before....

People like my ex are not on websites debating issues about Absent Fathers.
No more than women who will not allow their ex's to see their children are.

I'm not trying to attack you here. Your situation just happens to be one that's come to the fore due to your specific experience and the fact that you are a member of this community, but how exactly do we debate specific instances if we don't know the circumstances behind them?

We don't know the state of mind, the thought process behind the decision, or the internal regret or justification of the other person in any given situation.

On the face of it, it looks very bad on the part of your ex, and on balance of probabilities it most likely is. So we can discuss on that basis, but it's not based on fact, just supposition and perception. Without any more information though who can say more than "that was a childish and selfish thing to do with no consideration for others"

where does the debate/discussion go from there without knowing the individual?

Iago

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not going to happen, though is it? Who's going to come on and defend their behaviour?

That depends on whether or not the person in questions feels their behaviour was bad. If they don't think it was then why wouldn't they come on and defend it?

Again these are not small decisions that are made lightly, these are huge decisions on both sides that will dictate to you for the rest of your life.

Fittle

Iago wrote: »

That depends on whether or not the person in questions feels their behaviour was bad. If they don't think it was then why wouldn't they come on and defend it?

Again these are not small decisions that are made lightly, these are huge decisions on both sides that will dictate to you for the rest of your life.

I don't really believe it's a conscious huge 'decision' on mens parts though.

I think alot of them just want to run away from the responsibility of a child (if I'm honest here, there are days when I too would have loved to run away from that responsibility in those first few weeks after he was born), don't see the child from birth, therefore don't bond with the child and somehow, find it easy to live their lives pretending the child doesn't exist.

I imagine (although I am not speaking with any expert knowledge here) that alot of them regret it, but as time passes, it gets harder to make amends - which is similar to what happens in many situations in life. And so, they continue to ignore the fact that they have children 'out there', who might one day knock on their door. I doubt when they see the blue line on that test, they are thinking 'If I run now, it will affect me for the rest of my life'. I imagine they just want to run, with very little forward-thinking.

Biology obviously comes into the equation also - the man is both physically and emotionally in a much easier position to actually 'run' away. The womans hormones change from the moment of conception, and therefore, she is somewhat more emotionally affected by her choice to give birth/have an abortion or give the child up for adoption.

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

I don't really believe it's a conscious huge 'decision' on mens parts though.

I think alot of them just want to run away from the responsibility of a child (if I'm honest here, there are days when I too would have loved to run away from that responsibility in those first few weeks after he was born), don't see the child from birth, therefore don't bond with the child and somehow, find it easy to live their lives pretending the child doesn't exist.

I imagine (although I am not speaking with any expert knowledge here) that alot of them regret it, but as time passes, it gets harder to make amends - which is similar to what happens in many situations in life. And so, they continue to ignore the fact that they have children 'out there', who might one day knock on their door. I doubt when they see the blue line on that test, they are thinking 'If I run now, it will affect me for the rest of my life'. I imagine they just want to run, with very little forward-thinking.

Biology obviously comes into the equation also - the man is both physically and emotionally in a much easier position to actually 'run' away. The womans hormones change from the moment of conception, and therefore, she is somewhat more emotionally affected by her choice to give birth/have an abortion or give the child up for adoption.

If that was the case do you not think there would be a much bigger number of men who abandoned their partners as soon as they fell pregnant?

or to put it another way, instead of it being seen as "abnormal" for a man to run away from a child/pregnancy, it would be "abnormal" for him to stick around.

Fittle

Iago wrote: »

If that was the case do you not think there would be a much bigger number of men who abandoned their partners as soon as they fell pregnant?

I don't know the stats for the number of men who abandon during pregnancy, but yes, I believe men run because they just don't want the responsibility.

It's never about the ACTUAL child. Yes, they can blame their partners, citing her 'psycho' behaviour etc and them just not being able to deal with her - but ultimately, they just don't want the responsibility that comes with being a parent.

The relationship between a man and his child (and I am speaking about men here purely as it relates to this thread) is HIS responsibility. He can blame whomever and whatever situation he likes - but only he can develop that relationship, or decide not to have it in the first instance.

The Corinthian

liah wrote: »

That's a bit disingenuous considering CDfm is a father who's been through hell on this very topic, he's clearly not saying that at all.

He's not clearly saying that. And I'm sorry, but his experiences do not mean that he is beyond challenge.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Some mothers do but this isn't about mothers. You keep harping on about mothers. This thread is about absent fathers.

How can you examine the problem unless you look at the issue in all it's forms?

Incidentally, the only way we can examine why fathers abandon their children is by examining individual cases, like fittle's. We can't simply look at entire categories of absent fathers and damn them all with the same set of circumstances.

I disagree, because with cases, such as fiddles we will end up only looking at one category, never leave it and by inference it becomes assumed that it is the only category, just as the OP did.

Because one is a fight for a right; the other is a fight to abdicate a responsibility.

So the right to choose isn't really a right by that logic from what I can see. Neither is the right to choose to put a child up for adoption a right. Glad that's cleared up.

Or are you just playing with semantics on what constitutes a right and what can be brushed under the carpet?

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not going to happen, though is it? Who's going to come on and defend their behaviour?

Fiddle did.

Now I am not suggesting that she had given an untrue account by any means, but people sometimes do. Often in these situations you will get facts omitted, distorted or even invented - his side of the story could be very different indeed. We just don't know.

Imagine a father comes on line and gives a sob story about how his ex has effectively cut him out of his childrens' lives. Lots of sympathy follows.

Without his ex's side of the story, which might include details of addition, abuse or simple apathy punctuated by inconsistent involvement, we might say the same of her - how could she come on and defend her behaviour?

This one of the many reasons that I hate such accounts being injected into the discussion - by anyone. They become Appeals to Emotion and end up corrupting whatever rational discourse is taking place.

Fittle wrote: »

I wasn't aware that I had tarred anyone with the same brush, and because I did not comment on the second part of your post, you assume I don't support a shift in decisions? How did you come to that conclusion

I'm still waiting for you to actually deny that you oppose such a policy. Or can we simply take it that you do at this stage?

Fittle

'or to put it another way, instead of it being seen as "abnormal" for a man to run away from a child/pregnancy, it would be "abnormal" for him to stick around.


Now I'm confused.

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

I don't know the stats for the number of men who abandon during pregnancy, but yes, I believe men run because they just don't want the responsibility.

It's never about the ACTUAL child. Yes, they can blame their partners, citing her 'psycho' behaviour etc and them just not being able to deal with her - but ultimately, they just don't want the responsibility that comes with being a parent.

The relationship between a man and his child (and I am speaking about men here purely as it relates to this thread) is HIS responsibility. He can blame whomever and whatever situation he likes - but only he can develop that relationship, or decide not to have it in the first instance.

That's a massive leap and is packed with the inherent bias that I mentioned in an earlier post. It's also a gross generalisation that attempts to put an entire set of people into one very convieniant box, which just doesn't work.

I could argue that every woman who doesn't let the father see his child is a manipulative and selfish money grabbing good for nothing. She can say that he is an alcohol abuser, or lets the child down by not turning up, or whatever she likes but really it's just because she's manipulative and selfish.

Fittle

You can come to whatever conclusion you like, but you have now accused me of committing an 'Appeal for Emotion' and you even have a hyperlink to whatever that may be.

You just don't want to hear about dads who run, and I have no clue why.

I foolishly mentioned my own case here to try to broaden posters thinking on the issue of Absent Dads and to demonstrate that this is ultimately about children who grow up without male role models. I failed, miserably obviously.

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

I don't know the stats for the number of men who abandon during pregnancy, but yes, I believe men run because they just don't want the responsibility.

It's never about the ACTUAL child. Yes, they can blame their partners, citing her 'psycho' behaviour etc and them just not being able to deal with her - but ultimately, they just don't want the responsibility that comes with being a parent.

This is one of the most offensive posts I've read in quite a while.

So if the mother is indeed a 'psycho' and makes it impossible for him to get near his children, drags him endlessly through the courts, subjects him to abuse and exploitation and eventually he gives up it's because "they just don't want the responsibility"? You're kidding, right?

So the only reason that men would not want to be father's is because they can't deal with the responsibility? And what of women who don't want to be mothers? Are they the same, or is that 'different'?

I see some abdication of responsibility in your argument, but it's not from the father's side TBH.

Unbelievable misandry.

Fittle

Iago wrote: »

That's a massive leap and is packed with the inherent bias that I mentioned in an earlier post. It's also a gross generalisation that attempts to put an entire set of people into one very convieniant box, which just doesn't work.

I could argue that every woman who doesn't let the father see his child is a manipulative and selfish money grabbing good for nothing. She can say that he is an alcohol abuser, or lets the child down by not turning up, or whatever she likes but really it's just because she's manipulative and selfish.

But I'm not generalising. Why is it a massive leap to state that men who run don't want to take on the responsibility that comes with being a parent? Surely that's a given?

Fittle

'So the only reason that men would not want to be father's is because they can't deal with the responsibility'

Not 'can't deal' with the responsibility.

Don't want the responsibility.

Why else would they run?

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

You just don't want to hear about dads who run, and I have no clue why.

Not at all, I have repeatedly pointed out that irresponsibility and fecklessness is one of the reasons - only that it is not the only reason, which given your previous post on the subject is for you the only reason.

So I would have to ask why you just don't want to hear about those other reasons, and I have no clue why.

I foolishly mentioned my own case here to try to broaden posters thinking on the issue of Absent Dads and to demonstrate that this is ultimately about children who grow up without male role models. I failed, miserably obviously.

No you mentioned your own case to direct all discussion towards the only reason you believe that fathers are not in their children's lives.

Fittle

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not at all, I have repeatedly pointed out that irresponsibility and fecklessness is one of the reasons - only that it is not the only reason, which given your previous post on the subject is for you the only reason.

So I would have to ask why you just don't want to hear about those other reasons, and I have no clue why.

No you mentioned your own case to direct all discussion towards the only reason you believe that fathers are not in their children's lives.

I didn't.

But I don't have the energy for this anymore.

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

'So the only reason that men would not want to be father's is because they can't deal with the responsibility'

Not 'can't deal' with the responsibility.

Don't want the responsibility.

Why else would they run?

Have you not been reading what others have said? Even in my last post? Even the accounts of fathers who have gone through the process and who have sympathy for those who would not go through the same sheer Hell? And that is only one of numerous scenarios.