Absent Fathers

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

That has nothing to do with the cohabitation bill or whether or not the mother was living with the father or the duration of their cohabitation.

I know, I was agreeing and expanding upon your point that "the government is only concerned with money" with two different examples of policies designed to shift the fiscal responsibility of the state onto private individuals.

Consider that about 35% (apparently) of children are presently born outside of marriage in the state. If even only 40% of those are to cohabitating couples, and 20% of those then break up, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the increased income from 'palimony' would offset social welfare payments that would otherwise have to be made.

The potential savings to the state are gigantic, and all it costs is a few civil rights.

metrovelvet

Ok. I get it now.

I suppose it would create a greater incentive too for fathers to remain non residential, keep housing demand up, creating more consumers for utilities and other product, etc.

tbh

The Corinthian wrote: »

No disagreement there.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok. I get it now.

this is a big day for the GC

metrovelvet

It must be a leap year.:p

cdfm- I got this in my inbox.

http://www.uci.edu/features/2011/01/feature_neumark_110124.php

Locking up bad fathers is good for the kids?

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

It must be a leap year.:p

cdfm- I got this in my inbox.

http://www.uci.edu/features/2011/01/feature_neumark_110124.php

Locking up bad fathers is good for the kids?

This is not America.

We have discussed the US & Ireland before, where access orders are enforced by the County Sherrifs Department and compliance enforced by them thru their powers of arrest. They arrest mothers for this and they can be charged with kidnapping for moving children out of the jurisdiction.

I thought you were against the whole arrest thing. :pac:

metrovelvet

cdfm- A lot of your studies are US studies so you are sending me mixed messages here... the study you posted earlier today is based on the US too.

And its not about locking up parents for maintenance, its basically saying the lack of the bad role model around is better than the bad role model being around.

im showing you this link to give you food for thought, that's not to say I agree or disagree with it.

Fittle

CDfm wrote: »

This is not America.

We have discussed the US & Ireland before, where access orders are enforced by the County Sherrifs Department and compliance enforced by them thru their powers of arrest. They arrest mothers for this and they can be charged with kidnapping for moving children out of the jurisdiction.

I thought you were against the whole arrest thing. :pac:

So here you say this is not america.

But when I asked you previously where the stats were to prove that children don't do well with no fathers around, you quoted american 11yr old stats

CDfm

Fittle wrote: »

So here you say this is not america.

But when I asked you previously where the stats were to prove that children don't do well with no fathers around, you quoted american 11yr old stats

I am not a social worker or sociologist .

I do not know if there are Irish studies done and tbh my kids are finished and it is irrelevant to my life now.

The challenge for all parents is to do what is best for their children.

20 y/o CD junior and LC studying CDfmette are reared so its up to those who are parents now to decide for themselves.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

tbh my kids are finished and it is irrelevant to my life now.

Isn't that a bit 'throwing the toys out of the pram'? Don't get me wrong - Fiddle does the same if she doesn't like how the discussion is going, but I don't think anyone should be allowed to sidestep questions or points by simply saying they don't want to play anymore.

As to the study itself, it really depends on how it was conducted and particularly the demographics it examined. It could be flawed or skewed to push an agenda or, more likely, concentrates only on one demographic segment of society, where it is true - after all just as not all mothers are good mothers, not all fathers are good fathers.

However, the danger is always that some Muppet will point to this study in another debate as some sort of proof that the findings are somehow universal.

Fittle

I know you are not a social worker or psychologist.

To use the sentence 'We all know that mothers and fathers have different skills and that kids with their dad in their lives do better in school and in society and that a mum cannot do it all' is way too general, negates the (parenting) work that women who parent alone do and is based on nothing other than stereotyping children who grow up with their mothers raising them (alone).

So the kids who don't have a dad around...don't do as well in school as those with a dad around?
And the kids who don't have a dad around don't do well in society in general? So what exactly is lacking in the parenting that the mother is doing?

I know many children who are being raised by mothers only. Some are top of their class, and are very sociable children. I also know many children who have both parents in their lives. Some are getting extra resources in school, are bullies and aggressive due to their home environment of their parents arguing (monkey see-monkey do).

Your sentence is quite misleading.

metrovelvet

Fittle wrote: »

I know you are not a social worker or psychologist.

To use the sentence 'We all know that mothers and fathers have different skills and that kids with their dad in their lives do better in school and in society and that a mum cannot do it all' is way too general, negates the (parenting) work that women who parent alone do and is based on nothing other than stereotyping children who grow up with their mothers raising them (alone).

So the kids who don't have a dad around...don't do as well in school as those with a dad around?
And the kids who don't have a dad around don't do well in society in general? So what exactly is lacking in the parenting that the mother is doing?

I know many children who are being raised by mothers only. Some are top of their class, and are very sociable children. I also know many children who have both parents in their lives. Some are getting extra resources in school, are bullies and aggressive due to their home environment of their parents arguing (monkey see-monkey do).

Your sentence is quite misleading.

I dont think it is or should be a comment on what the mother is doing. Probably over all they do do better socially and academically simply because there are two parents at home who have the time and energy to give to the child. I think its wise as a single parent to arm yourself against the possible deficiencies of your situation so that you can counteract it. I see it already in my three year old who is not used to physical contact or rough and tumble with a male figure and he encounters this in playschoolschool with other kids who are used to more physical rough housing and he is not used to it and it freaks him out. It is something I only recently figured out and now I will have to come up with some strategy to deal with it. It has also been shown that children who do not have fathers around during infancy will later not do as well on empathy exams. Makes perfect sense since they are living with ONE perspective and never seeing two adults work things out and see another perspective. I could go on, there is plenty of evidence. That is not to say my son is destined to become an illiterate criminal, but what it does mean is that I have to be SUPER aware of what is missing and try to compensate, which I know I can never fully do, but I am duty bound to try my best.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Isn't that a bit 'throwing the toys out of the pram'? Don't get me wrong - Fiddle does the same if she doesn't like how the discussion is going,.

I am not a Dad Guru. I think about things differently now because I am not emotionally involved in the middle of it. I am just so glad its over.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

Isn't that a bit 'throwing the toys out of the pram'? Don't get me wrong - Fiddle does the same if she doesn't like how the discussion is going, but I don't think anyone should be allowed to sidestep questions or points by simply saying they don't want to play anymore.

I've noticed you repeatedly refer to Fittle as Fiddle. Why do you do it? Is it to demean her point of view?

I also notice you repeatedly avoid giving straight answers.

The Corinthian

Pherekydes wrote: »

I've noticed you repeatedly refer to Fittle as Fiddle. Why do you do it? Is it to demean her point of view?

A genuine mistake. I'll not make it again. I don't think it demeans her point of view though, at least no more than her point of view does in itself - the misandrist pronouncement she made earlier being a case in point.

I also notice you repeatedly avoid giving straight answers.

How do I do that? Example please? From what I can see, I responded to your last post to me in detail and it was you who instead skulked off. Until now.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

I am not a Dad Guru. I think about things differently now because I am not emotionally involved in the middle of it. I am just so glad its over.

I'm not suggesting you're a Dad Guru. I'm simply saying that you really can't enter a discussion, then when points made go against you, suddenly jump from it on the basis that you've lost interest or whatever - especially, as with fittle, you might end up returning a few pages later when said uncomfortable points have been quietly forgotten.

I thought it was a valid point made against you. You can hardly pick and choose which American studies you choose to believe in, unless you have other criteria, that as yet you've not cited.

metrovelvet

I dont think her comment was misandrist. It was not a comment about men at large, but about dads who abandon their kids.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont think her comment was misandrist. It was not a comment about men at large, but about dads who abandon their kids.

She made a generalization in that "men run because they just don't want the responsibility", and when pressed she went so far as to say that this was even the only reason ("Why else would they run?"), ignoring numerous posts by others who pointed out numerous other scenarios that exist.

It's like suggesting that the only reason a woman may want to have an abortion / adoption is because "they just don't want the responsibility" and that too would be considered a simplistic and misogynist generalization.

Such a simplistic and offensive generalization towards men is frankly misandry and it is difficult to explain it off as anything else, TBH.

metrovelvet

I re skimmed the thread and I found a couple of other plausible reasons, addiction [including alcoholism] and depression, both of which are forms of escape, of running away, sometimes responsibility, sometimes pain, sometimes families, sometimes memory, sometimes undigestable anger, any number of things. But.... that doesnt pay the bills, that doesnt console the angry or bereaved child... and depression or addictions -responsibilities are responsibilities, so yeah I would tend to agree with Fittle, they dont want or cant cope with the responsibility. Call it misandrist if you like, the label wont stop me from agreeing with that perception.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I re skimmed the thread and I found a couple of other plausible reasons, addiction [including alcoholism] and depression, both of which are forms of escape, of running away, sometimes responsibility, sometimes pain, sometimes families, sometimes memory, sometimes undigestable anger, any number of things. But.... that doesnt pay the bills, that doesnt console the angry or bereaved child... and depression or addictions -responsibilities are responsibilities, so yeah I would tend to agree with Fittle, they dont want or cant cope with the responsibility. Call it misandrist if you like, the label wont stop me from agreeing with that perception.

I'd call it as much self-indulgent nonsense as misandry, TBH. For example, the all too common scenario I cited of a man breaks up with his wife / girlfriend, who in turn actively obstructs, undermines and harasses him out of resentment (born of the failed relationship rather than anything to do with the child) can ultimately result in a man giving up.

That's not a willful abdication of responsibility, and to suggest it is betrays an insane belief that a mother can act in whatever manner, however destructive, belligerent or downright malignant, and somehow it will always be the father's fault. It's not, in that particular scenario, the vast bulk of any culpability there would frankly be upon the mother.

This is not to suggest that every scenario is like this or that many men do not simply abdicate parental responsibility simply because they don't want it - any more than women do - but to suggest that it is the only reason is little more than self-serving misandry.

metrovelvet

You start out with misandry and now its self indulgent? Insane beliefs? Ok then. This is not the kind of discussion I am too interested in, but thanks anyway.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

You start out with misandry and now its self indulgent? Insane beliefs? Ok then. This is not the kind of discussion I am too interested in, but thanks anyway.

Prejudice and bias is often self-indulgent. Racism has often been used to justify discrimination and self-interest, as has the misogyny of chauvinism, as examples. And certainly, one could call such views as insane, or perhaps more correctly irrational, as they appear to ignore all other evidence that may not lead one to the conclusion that suits them.

And if that is not the kind of discussion you are too interested in, then so be it, but might that not be down to where the logic of such a discussion ultimately leads?

metrovelvet

Well call me a racist, self indulgent, irrational, whatever you want, if you like but I still wont walk through Harlem at 3 am nor would I send my son to a public school in the Bronx. And these kinds of labels and linguistic tactics are conventionally used as PC or intellectual blackmail, and still not interested in it.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not suggesting you're a Dad Guru. I'm simply saying that you really can't enter a discussion, then when points made go against you, suddenly jump from it on the basis that you've lost interest or whatever

funnily enough , when Dr Galen was a Mod here he once pm'd me that I could become a right asshole when I was emotionally involved in a topic. he convinced me to take a break from the topic and it was fairly sage advice.

So I am being straight up here, because, I am not emotionally involved in the issue anymore and it does not personally affect me.

- especially, as with fittle, you might end up returning a few pages later when said uncomfortable points have been quietly forgotten.

And why not.

Somewtimes it is tactful to ignore points other posters make.

I thought it was a valid point made against you. You can hardly pick and choose which American studies you choose to believe in, unless you have other criteria, that as yet you've not cited.

That is a valid point, I will tend to use an Irish study if I can find one.

Where I can't I will look for studies that are academically rigorous or have been peer reviewed.

I wasn't trying to prove a point with fittle - I was just pointing her to a press article.

I have no doubt with fittle as his Mom ,her boy will be fine.

On tGC - I sometimes post links to the US womens e-zine www.jezebel.com and even lesbian & gay studies. A friend of mine is a US lobbyist and got me reading stuff outside my normal range.

So I have my biases, yes I do, but I try to be balanced.

Fittle

'I don't think it demeans her point of view though, at least no more than her point of view does in itself'

So my point of view actually demeans my point of view...

And


'I'd call it as much self-indulgent nonsense as misandry'

I'm also a self-indulgent misandrist?

CDfm was right. I was ignoring you to be tactful, because sometimes, just sometimes, ignoring someone says more than one could actually write.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Somewtimes it is tactful to ignore points other posters make.

Tactic, rather than tactful, TBH.

So I have my biases, yes I do, but I try to be balanced.

Fair enough, I suppose we all try to do so imperfectly.

Fittle wrote: »

I'm also a self-indulgent misandrist?

No, your view - which you decided not to defend - is self-indulgent misandry.

A woman who's child's father has simply done a runner will see it as his rejection of responsibility. However, a woman who has defied court orders on access, dragged the father through the courts, until broke and broken he gives up will similarly argue that he has simply rejected responsibility. And given that does occur, trying to apply a one rule fits all explanation is frankly self-serving.

The reality is not so simple. Not so black and white. Even between those two polar scenarios, there is an entire spectrum of situations that are far less easy to define.

And that's the thing; no one denies that some, even many, such fathers are simply rejecting responsibility. However, to cling to the belief that all are says more of the person doing so than those they judge.

CDfm was right. I was ignoring you to be tactful, because sometimes, just sometimes, ignoring someone says more than one could actually write.

And sometimes it's just because engaging in discussion may lead you to conclusions you might prefer not to reach.

Fittle

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, your view - which you decided not to defend - is self-indulgent misandry.

.

Incorrect.

I chose to ignore your bullying tactics, by refusing to answer your constant harassing questions.

That's slightly different than me deciding not to defend my 'self-indulgent misandry'.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

How do I do that? Example please? From what I can see, I responded to your last post to me in detail and it was you who instead skulked off. Until now.

As requested:

Pherekydes wrote: »

Two straight questions: Are women entitled to a vote?

Are men entitled to abdicate their responsibilites as parents?

Your use of language is designed to impugn other posters when you don't agree with them. For instance, your use of the word "skulked" in the above post. And your dismissal of Fittle's postings as misandry. I (amongst others) haven't seen any misandry in any of her postings.

Fittle

'Misandry (pronounced /mɪˈsændri/) is hatred of men or boys' Wikpedia.

I have 9 brothers, all of whom I love. I have a son, who it's pretty obvious to anyone who reads anything I've written in the soccer forum, I adore:rolleyes:. I loved his dad. I still love men and in fact, some of my best friends are male.

Misandry. I don't think so.

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

I chose to ignore your bullying tactics, by refusing to answer your constant harassing questions.

That's slightly different than me deciding not to defend my 'self-indulgent misandry'.

How is it different? How was I using bullying tactic?

When does a question you don't want to answer because it will show you up become a bullying tactic than a tactical retreat designed to avoid being shown up?

Pherekydes wrote: »

As requested:

What was the point of those two questions? Seriously, I could answer and say 'yes' and 'maybe (undecided)' in response respectively, but what would that prove? From what I can see, all you sought was distraction from the point I was making.

I repeatedly pointed out that I was making the comparison so that people would start looking at the wider picture rather than remained blinkered in "four legs good, two legs bad" cliches.

Your use of language is designed to impugn other posters when you don't agree with them. For instance, your use of the word "skulked" in the above post. And your dismissal of Fittle's postings as misandry. I (amongst others) haven't seen any misandry in any of her postings.

You decided to ignore my last post to you, any points made (seeing as you couldn't get me to go off them with your irrelevant questions) and you did skulk off. That's what it was, plain and simple.

It is ironic that you are now attempting to belittle my arguments in exactly the same way as you have accused me of doing to others. Yet, when it actually comes to making an argument, you've not really done a lot here, from what I can see.

And frankly if you cannot see a generalization based on gender (all men) as being misadrist or misogynist, then grand and I suppose there's nothing wrong with calling all women gold-diggers :rolleyes:

Fittle wrote: »

I have 9 brothers, all of whom I love. I have a son, who it's pretty obvious to anyone who reads anything I've written in the soccer forum, I adore:rolleyes:. I loved his dad. I still love men and in fact, some of my best friends are male.

LOL. Sounds like the anti-Semite's defense; "but I have lots of Jewish friends".

Honestly, I'm not accusing you of anything. I am accusing what you said of being something.

Fittle

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. Sounds like the anti-Semite's defense; "but I have lots of Jewish friends".

Honestly, I'm not accusing you of anything. I am accusing what you said of being something.

I am beginning to think you are my sons father, who behaved in exactly the same manner as you. I'm glad you find it funny but your use of the word 'honestly' does not sit well with me.

Do you have a child/ren btw, and are you an involved father?

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

I am beginning to think you are my sons father, who behaved in exactly the same manner as you. I'm glad you find it funny but your use of the word 'honestly' does not sit well with me.

Well since you've decided to get personal, I'd have to say that if you are so intransigent in even listening to others points of view (you made your generalization after ignoring the many others who gave a more balanced view), then I think I understand why you so desperately need to see things in such a black and white manner.

Do you have a child/ren btw, and are you an involved father?

None of your business. Are you hoping to turn this entire discussion into a series of personal attacks rather than discuss the arguments?

Fittle

None of my business?

I didn't get personal - I just asked if you were a father yourself - you are obviously not, or you obviously are and are not involved:rolleyes:

Having this particular debate ad-nauseum (how many posts now?) is terribly odd unless you are fighting this fight yourself. I am very confused

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

How is it different? How was I using bullying tactic?

When does a question you don't want to answer because it will show you up become a bullying tactic than a tactical retreat designed to avoid being shown up?

What was the point of those two questions? Seriously, I could answer and say 'yes' and 'maybe (undecided)' in response respectively, but what would that prove? From what I can see, all you sought was distraction from the point I was making.

I repeatedly pointed out that I was making the comparison so that people would start looking at the wider picture rather than remained blinkered in "four legs good, two legs bad" cliches.

You decided to ignore my last post to you, any points made (seeing as you couldn't get me to go off them with your irrelevant questions) and you did skulk off. That's what it was, plain and simple.

It is ironic that you are now attempting to belittle my arguments in exactly the same way as you have accused me of doing to others. Yet, when it actually comes to making an argument, you've not really done a lot here, from what I can see.

And frankly if you cannot see a generalization based on gender (all men) as being misadrist or misogynist, then grand and I suppose there's nothing wrong with calling all women gold-diggers :rolleyes:

LOL. Sounds like the anti-Semite's defense; "but I have lots of Jewish friends".

Honestly, I'm not accusing you of anything. I am accusing what you said of being something.

It's because you are using discrediting the witness tactics. By calling a viewpoint, insane, self indulgent, misandrist, inconsistent, then you dont have to consider the other persons point of view while still remaining part of the community and having your viewpoint validated by the community. Eventually what happens is disengagement [what I essentially did as a response to your calling me self indulgent and misandrist] and the dialogue stops. You can take that disengagment as an admission of concession, but you would be wrong.

Then you use the answer a question with a question tactic [re Pherekedes] which adds to the picture that you are only interested in attacking and debunking other view points rather than positing one yourself.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Tactic, rather than tactful, TBH.

Conspiracy theorist

A woman who's child's father has simply done a runner will see it as his rejection of responsibility.

However, a woman who has defied court orders on access, dragged the father through the courts, until broke and broken he gives up will similarly argue that he has simply rejected responsibility.

And given that does occur, trying to apply a one rule fits all explanation is frankly self-serving.

I agree with you here. Totally.

Most normal people should agree with you .

The reality is not so simple. Not so black and white. Even between those two polar scenarios, there is an entire spectrum of situations that are far less easy to define.

I often see you make some great points that in the US & Canada would have your POV as being defined as "capitalist Feminist" .

It is hard to be objective if you are in the middle of a situation and the use of labels might be useful in a political debate but can be perjorative in other area's. Probably, not intentional on your part.

Rights should be universal, at Xmas, I posted that LGBT, the elderly and children were also excluded as DV victims in Xmas advertising. Some posters (not you) had a pop at me.

Fittle

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's because you are using discrediting the witness tactics. By calling a viewpoint, insane, self indulgent, misandrist, inconsistent, then you dont have to consider the other persons point of view while still remaining part of the community and having your viewpoint validated by the community. Eventually what happens is disengagement [what I essentially did as a response to your calling me self indulgent and misandrist] and the dialogue stops. You can take that disengagment as an admission of concession, but you would be wrong.

Then you use the answer a question with a question tactic [re Pherekedes] which adds to the picture that you are only interested in attacking and debunking other view points rather than positing one yourself.

That's a terribly intelligent way of putting it metrovelvet:)

I don't think I'd have put it that way myself.

Maguined

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's because you are using discrediting the witness tactics. By calling a viewpoint, insane, self indulgent, misandrist, inconsistent, then you dont have to consider the other persons point of view while still remaining part of the community and having your viewpoint validated by the community. Eventually what happens is disengagement [what I essentially did as a response to your calling me self indulgent and misandrist] and the dialogue stops. You can take that disengagment as an admission of concession, but you would be wrong.

Then you use the answer a question with a question tactic [re Pherekedes] which adds to the picture that you are only interested in attacking and debunking other view points rather than positing one yourself.

How else do you propose to consider the statement "men leave their kids because men are scumbags" which while not what was written is what is implied because there was plenty of reasons offered as to the "why" but instead were ignored to imply it is just men being selfish for leaving their kids?

The Corinthian labelling the statement as misandrist does not mean he did not consider it, merely that he considered it and judged it to be misandrist.

metrovelvet

Maguined wrote: »

How else do you propose to consider the statement "men leave their kids because men are scumbags" which while not what was written is what is implied because there was plenty of reasons offered as to the "why" but instead were ignored to imply it is just men being selfish for leaving their kids?

The Corinthian labelling the statement as misandrist does not mean he did not consider it, merely that he considered it and judged it to be misandrist.

First of all no one said that. So let's stick to what people said rather than your fantasies of what people said or what you choose to infer from them before we get into a Lacanian debate around signs where no one is actually communicated anything. Or is that too misandrist for you?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's because you are using discrediting the witness tactics. By calling a viewpoint, insane, self indulgent, misandrist, inconsistent, then you dont have to consider the other persons point of view while still remaining part of the community and having your viewpoint validated by the community. Eventually what happens is disengagement [what I essentially did as a response to your calling me self indulgent and misandrist] and the dialogue stops. You can take that disengagment as an admission of concession, but you would be wrong.

Yet when I point out how such generalizations are offensive and misandrist, you and Fittle simply ignore the rebuttals. Even without any negative or aggressive language (which is frankly understandable given the offensive nature of the generalizations) you would, and have previously, simply ignored counter arguments simply because they do not suit your black and white view - after all, it was not only me who offered gray or opposite scenarios (all equally ignored), so you can't accuse everyone else of bullying, can you?

It is difficult to see this in any light, other than a desperate need to block out all dissent to a view that validates some self-indulgent need. Which now has, ironically (given I am accused of "discrediting the witness") led us to a point that Fittle has now plumbed to a strategy of ad hominem attacks.

Fittle

So me asking you if you are a father is an attack

And it's fiTTle. With two 't's. Not 'd's. Although I see that's already been pointed out to you and you're choosing to ignore it.

metrovelvet

Why am I suddenly reminded of the ADL?

Even without any negative or aggressive language (which is frankly understandable given the offensive nature of the generalizations) you would, and have previously, simply ignored counter arguments simply because they do not suit your black and white view - after all, it was not only me who offered gray or opposite scenarios (all equally ignored), so you can't accuse everyone else of bullying, can you?


As I said earlier this morning, I went back and looked at some of the other possibilities mentioned in this thread and I addressed them. But apparantly not to your satisfaction as you persisted in calling me misandrist and self indulgent, I think the word insane was thrown in there too, and it was at that point that I disengaged.

Maguined

metrovelvet wrote: »

First of all no one said that. So let's stick to what people said rather than your fantasies of what people said or what you choose to infer from them before we get into a Lacanian debate around signs where no one is actually communicated anything. Or is that too misandrist for you?

As I said, it is not what was actually written but what was implied.

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?

The only reason men would not be involved in their childs life is because they are selfish and don't want the responsibility, despite all the other possibilities offered up in this thread it comes down to men being selfish.

That is an overgeneralised statement so just because it was labelled misandrist does not mean it is not being considered, at what point would you accept an opinion to be considered? if you do not agree with an opinion how can you consider it while still disagreeing with it?

metrovelvet

Maguined wrote: »

As I said, it is not what was actually written but what was implied.

What you inferred.

Nozebleed

is there an unfit mothers thread by any chance? just curious..

Fittle

Maguined wrote: »

As I said, it is not what was actually written but what was implied.



The only reason men would not be involved in their childs life is because they are selfish and don't want the responsibility, despite all the other possibilities offered up in this thread it comes down to men being selfish.

That is an overgeneralised statement so just because it was labelled misandrist does not mean it is not being considered, at what point would you accept an opinion to be considered? if you do not agree with an opinion how can you consider it while still disagreeing with it?

I was specifically referring to men who run. Who renege on their responsibilities because they do not want to take on the responsibility of being a parent.

I was not referring to the men who are forced to walk away due to court cases and the constant battle with their ex's (although those men are in the minority). I never said men were selfish. I was specifically referring to the men who walk away..not those who are forced to walk away. But a couple of hundred odd posts later, and my words are still being twisted.

Fittle

Nozebleed wrote: »

is there an unfit mothers thread by any chance? just curious..

I haven't seen one. You should start one here.

metrovelvet

Fittle wrote: »

I was specifically referring to men who run. Who renege on their responsibilities because they do not want to take on the responsibility of being a parent.

I was not referring to the men who are forced to walk away due to court cases and the constant battle with their ex's (although those men are in the minority). I never said men were selfish. I was specifically referring to the men who walk away..not those who are forced to walk away. But a couple of hundred odd posts later, and my words are still being twisted.

I did not think you were talking about cases of parental alienation or abuse of the court systems [which cuts both ways]. I took you to mean the guys who walk.

Iago

There are some in this thread who are clearly too close to the situation to be able to think without the bonds of their emotional and subconscious bias. That is completely understandable by the way.

I agree broadly with the vast bulk of what The Corinthian has had to say in this thread. I do think that there are "anti-men" elements to some of the posts/posters in the thread, but I don't think it's intentional misandry more so a (on the face of it entirely reasonable) hatred and bias towards one man who happens to represent their view of the people captured by the title of the thread.

As I, and others, have mentioned on this thread a number of times each situation is completely different and can't be bundled up into a nice tidy explanation of why. Circumstances, personalities, responsibilities, fundamentals are all very different in each case and only a combination of all of them can dictate where things end up.

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

I was specifically referring to men who run. Who renege on their responsibilities because they do not want to take on the responsibility of being a parent.

I'm going to speak specifically to this point.

Your statement in and of itself was probably true (I'm probably paraphrasing a little here) "men that decide to walk away just don't want the responsibility"

In terms of language and sentence structure this is correct (unlike most of mine ) The important question for me from this is "What are the various reasons where this might be the case?" and following on from that "Do you think that all men who walk away are fully at fault and equally responsible for the child in question?"

I don't have an issue with your statement per se, but I felt the intention and thought process behind it was that "All men who decide to walk away just don't want the responsibility and are therefore worth less as a result" I don't agree with that sentiment, but perhaps that wasn't your thought process at all.

metrovelvet

Iago wrote: »

I'm going to speak specifically to this point.

Your statement in and of itself was probably true (I'm probably paraphrasing a little here) "men that decide to walk away just don't want the responsibility"

In terms of language and sentence structure this is correct (unlike most of mine ) The important question for me from this is "What are the various reasons where this might be the case?" and following on from that "Do you think that all men who walk away are fully at fault and equally responsible for the child in question?"

I don't have an issue with your statement per se, but I felt the intention and thought process behind it was that "All men who decide to walk away just don't want the responsibility and are therefore worth less as a result" I don't agree with that sentiment, but perhaps that wasn't your thought process at all.

This is exactly how I looked at it and tried to explain it earlier but was shot down by it being called self indulgent misandry. I think they do not want or cant cope with the responsibility but there could be any number of reasons for that - mental illness, imprisonment, poverty, low self esteem, addiction problems, feelings of ineptitude, feelings of powerlessness, strife with the mother, etc etc, or plain old cant be arsed.

Maguined

Fittle wrote: »

I was specifically referring to men who run. Who renege on their responsibilities because they do not want to take on the responsibility of being a parent.

I was not referring to the men who are forced to walk away due to court cases and the constant battle with their ex's (although those men are in the minority). I never said men were selfish. I was specifically referring to the men who walk away..not those who are forced to walk away. But a couple of hundred odd posts later, and my words are still being twisted.

This thread was started on an article that said children who do not have involvement with their fathers are due to the fathers walking and while that was refuted and debated at the start it is still the basis of this thread, that those that do not see their kids do so out of their own choice.

I do not intend to twist your words but when you write in generalised language as "men don't want the responsibility" it is going to be read in a generalised way rather than "those individuals who don't want the responsibility".