Fathers4justice storm Loose Women Set

Tasden

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The golden rule of citizenship in a fair society is this: Rights and obligations are counteracting forces. Obligations entail corresponding rights, and vice versa.

There absolutely should be a rebuttable presumption that a parent who is obliging with their responsibilities towards their children, financial and otherwise, should have coextensive rights in the upbringing of that child.

That is a perfectly just principle, and the only argument I have seen used in countering that principle has tended to be implicitly sexist in nature.

Maintenance is only one of the obligations though. This was exactly my point, which seems to have been missed, by using the example i did. He can fulfill his financial obligations perfectly by paying sufficient maintenance but he is not being a good parent.(people can insert whatever gender pronouns they wish, men were used in the op so i continued with men paying the maintenance). But if access is based on maintenance he has a right to it because he has "paid his dues" so to speak. He has the "right" to his child who he doesn't actually care for in other aspects but because he can afford maintenance he is entitled to access. That was my point, that fulfillment of ONE obligation/ responsibility should not automatically mean you have a right to access. It should all be based on the individuals and circumstances of the family and best interests of the child.

I think all parties have the right to be treated fairly if that dovetails with the childs best interests, which must be paramount.

I don't think treating the child as some sort of pay-per-view event is helpful in putting those interests at the apex of the pyramid. Meeting your parental financial responsibility is one thing, buying time with your child regardless of your interest or parenting skills is another.

wokingvoter

stoplooklisten wrote: »

When family's split, maybe both parents should be forced to work full time and wages garnished. children will be in school/daycare/.

One or both parents may be disabled sick or otherwise unfit for work, one or both parents may be caring for a sick person, one of the children may need full time care.
You just can't get make rules like that .

stoplooklisten

wokingvoter wrote: »

One or both parents may be disabled sick or otherwise unfit for work, one or both parents may be caring for a sick person, one of the children may need full time care.
You just can't get make rules like that .

if they are disabled and unfit for work, are they able to care for small children?
If they are caring for a sick person..that is work?
If one of the children need full time care, hire a nurse
Garnish both wages of 300/month for the children and each parent has to supply thier own house.


Are their demands that outrageous we cant meet them? Equal rights for fathers sounds like a reasonable demand.

wokingvoter

Potatoeman wrote: »

I wouldn't have much faith in a mother that would choose a well know drug addict criminal as the father of her child either.

That's extremely unfair. I'm glad you never make any mistakes. Young girls and not so young girls get caught up in things and babies are born. as long as she and baby are totally cut off from the bad environment there's no reason why she can't be as good a mother as any other

eviltwin

stoplooklisten wrote: »

When family's split, maybe both parents should be forced to work full time and wages garnished. children will be in school/daycare/.

Not all the time. Not all parents want their kids in day care. If a man or woman is expected to support their offspring when in a relationship why would that change just cause the relationship breaks down.

stoplooklisten

eviltwin wrote: »

Not all the time. Not all parents want their kids in day care. If a man or woman is expected to support their offspring when in a relationship why would that change just cause the relationship breaks down.

they are still expected to support their offspring, just in changed circumstances. Not all parents want their relationships to break up, but life happens. The differences between What we want and what we have can be different.

Why should one person be left paying for the others accommodation for example?

wokingvoter

stoplooklisten wrote: »

if they are disabled and unfit for work, are they able to care for small children?
If they are caring for a sick person..that is work?
If one of the children need full time care, hire a nurse
Garnish both wages of 300/month for the children and each parent has to supply thier own house.


Are their demands that outrageous we cant meet them? Equal rights for fathers sounds like a reasonable demand.

Are you suggesting that disabled parents can't care for children ?!?!
What do you mean hire a nurse to care for a sick child? Hire a nurse at €600+ per week?
Caring for a sick person entitles you to €204 per week SW payment.
I'm sorry I don't understand your point at all. Can you explain a big better what you think should happen in any of the cases I mentioned

Tasden

wokingvoter wrote: »

That's extremely unfair. I'm glad you never make any mistakes. Young girls and not so young girls get caught up in things and babies are born. as long as she and baby are totally cut off from the bad environment there's no reason why she can't be as good a mother as any other

Also people change. You can have a child with someone who is perfectly respectable and they can change. You can have a child with somebody and not realise their involvement in certain things until it is too late. You can have an unplanned pregnancy with someone. The possibilities are absolutely endless and it is extremely unfair and small minded when people say stuff like that poster did.

mikeym

Who would want to watch that loose women show its a load of baloney.

stoplooklisten

wokingvoter wrote: »

Are you suggesting that disabled parents can't care for children ?!?!
What do you mean hire a nurse to care for a sick child? Hire a nurse at €600+ per week?
Caring for a sick person entitles you to €204 per week SW payment.
I'm sorry I don't understand your point at all. Can you explain a big better what you think should happen in any of the cases I mentioned

You're saying disabled people who cant work, what about them??

I'm saying, What about them. If you are that badly disabled that you can;t work, I would question the capability of looking after children.

For example, if you back is bad and you can't work. Can you really be expected to be capable of lifting and carrying a baby. Etc. If you're well enough to perform the demanding job of parenting, you are well enough of getting a job to support said children. If youve a child to care for, you;ve got to get out there. Someone with no arms or legs, would hire a nurse to help anyway.


Yes, hire a nurse

204/week x 4 = 800 for the month. 300 for the children. 500 for yourself.

wokingvoter

stoplooklisten wrote: »

they are still expected to support their offspring, just in changed circumstances. Not all parents want their relationships to break up, but life happens. The differences between What we want and what we have can be different.

Why should one person be left paying for the others accommodation for example?

Because if you are an adult then you accept that you played your part in the failure of your relationship with the other parent of your children
You accept that your children need a roof over their heads , food to eat, warm beds electricity, water etc clothes shoes and as their other parent you have to make a financial contribution commensurate with your circumstances and your ex's circumstances.
The fact that your ex also lives there is irrelevant.
If you insist then that your ex go out to work then are you happy to go halves as well on the cost of childcare?

Story Bud?

Holy Sh*t. You really do forget what utter fcuking idiots there are in the world sometimes. It's no wonder the system is the way it is.

hatrickpatrick

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm all for fathers rights but by not paying maintenance they are hurting the very children they claim to love.

Maintenance should be tied to access and custody, and work both ways. No responsibility without access, no access without responsibility.

Would simultaneously solve the problems of deadbeat dads and dad disenfranchisement.

Robert ninja

Any financial statistics on child support in Ireland? I'm curious to see the figures on women paying when the custody is awarded to the male partner.

stoplooklisten

wokingvoter wrote: »

Because if you are an adult then you accept that you played your part in the failure of your relationship with the other parent of your children
You accept that your children need a roof over their heads , food to eat, warm beds electricity, water etc clothes shoes and as their other parent you have to make a financial contribution commensurate with your circumstances and your ex's circumstances.
The fact that your ex also lives there is irrelevant.
If you insist then that your ex go out to work then are you happy to go halves as well on the cost of childcare?

I agree with what you say, until the bolded bit. I don't agree it's irrelevant.

yes


just to add "have to make a financial contribution commensurate with your circumstances and your ex's circumstances." - yes, but with you current circumstance, not with your previous one

wokingvoter

stoplooklisten wrote: »

You're saying disabled people who cant work, what about them??

I'm saying, What about them. If you are that badly disabled that you can;t work, I would question the capability of looking after children.

For example, if you back is bad and you can't work. Can you really be expected to be capable of lifting and carrying a baby. Etc. If you're well enough to perform the demanding job of parenting, you are well enough of getting a job to support said children. If youve a child to care for, you;ve got to get out there. Someone with no arms or legs, would hire a nurse to help anyway.


Yes, hire a nurse

204/week x 4 = 800 for the month. 300 for the children. 500 for yourself.

So all the disabled and otherwise incapacitated people should be prevented from becoming parents.
People living with diabetes MS MND cystic fibrosis different psychiatric conditions. etc you believe aren't fit to parent.
Interesting
I'm not understanding your maths either.
How will the Carers Allowance at €204 pay for the nurse at €600? taking into consideration you can only work 15 hours per week wen your on Carers?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Maintenance should be tied to access and custody, and work both ways. No responsibility without access, no access without responsibility.

Would simultaneously solve the problems of deadbeat dads and dad disenfranchisement.

How?

There are plenty situations where one parent is either not a suitable caregiver, or has no interest in having access. In your scenario, seeing as they're not getting access, they don't have to contribute financially to maintenance?

makingmecrazy

discus wrote: »

Come now, don't play silly beggars. You know that they award stupidly high costs that take into account the 'mothers lifestyle' into account. When I was in the forces, I knew a lot of guys paying CSS payments, and their access was nearly always the worst possible "every second saturday 12-4, supervised". TBH, I'm not a father but I wouldn't be able to stomach my child being reared by other people but funded by me.

If they had such limited access AND it was supervised, I can practically guarantee you that these guys had problems, major problems more than likely.

They may have come across as the best buddies any guy could have but the courts do not, no way no how, order such limited and careful supervision on a whim.

hatrickpatrick

Blaze Disgusting Crib wrote: »

How?

There are plenty situations where one parent is either not a suitable caregiver, or has no interest in having access. In your scenario, seeing as they're not getting access, they don't have to contribute financially to maintenance?

There's a difference between not wanting access, and not being offered it. Obviously the former cases should still be on the hook for helping out financially with their kid's upbringing.

stoplooklisten

wokingvoter wrote: »

So all the disabled and otherwise incapacitated people should be prevented from becoming parents.
People living with diabetes MS MND cystic fibrosis different psychiatric conditions. etc you believe aren't fit to parent.
Interesting
I'm not understanding your maths either.
How will the Carers Allowance at €204 pay for the nurse at €600? taking into consideration you can only work 15 hours per week wen your on Carers?

That's maths wasn't to calculate the nurse. The cash was the finaincal position of the person who was caring for someone. You;d hardly get a job of being a carer and then hiring a nurse to care for both of you?


nobodys preventing anyone from becoming a parent. How does diabetes stop you from working? I know loads of people that work with diabetes.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's a difference between not wanting access, and not being offered it.

Yes but that's not an answer. There are people who are denied access, and there are people who have to be chased to spend time with their child, and there are people who feel they are entitled to access but who have proven themselves not capable of taking care of the child. In those latter two scenarios, the principle of no access without responsibility doesn't work. There's no black and white, one size fits all simple solution to the question.

Edit, oops sorry, didn't see your edit.

hatrickpatrick

Blaze Disgusting Crib wrote: »

Yes but that's not an answer. There are people who are denied access, and there are people who have to be chased to spend time with their child, and there are people who feel they are entitled to access but who have proven themselves not capable of taking care of the child. In those latter two scenarios, the principle of no access without responsibility doesn't work. There's no black and white, one size fits all simple solution to the question

I believe the latter to be exceptional cases. In the vast, vast majority of cases, both biological parents should have access automatically, regardless of current or former relationship status, by virtue of being biological parents. That should be the default, with potential mitigating factors of course altering that.

EDIT:

Edit, oops sorry, didn't see your edit.

I thought I'd managed to do a ninja edit. Feck off with your prompt refreshing of threads.

stoplooklisten

Also are we taking the position that all single parents who have custody of the disabled children are suffering from cronic diseases, while caring for relatives?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I believe the latter to be exceptional cases. In the vast, vast majority of cases, both biological parents should have access automatically, regardless of current or former relationship status, by virtue of being biological parents. That should be the default, with potential mitigating factors of course altering that.

EDIT:


I thought I'd managed to do a ninja edit. Feck off with your prompt refreshing of threads.

I don't think it's exceptional at all, especially in cases where the parents are young and the child unplanned, which make up a big proportion of the cases where the relationship breaks down and issues of access arise. In principle, and in a perfect world, both parents would be capable caregivers, in suitable accommodation, and with a genuine desire to do the best for their child, and should have equal access. But the real world isn't like that a lot of the time. On the one hand children get weaponised and access is held over fathers' heads and used to control them, and the mother paints a picture of the father as useless, irresponsible etc. On the other hand, you have people who are not able to take care of their children adequately and when access gets withheld try to paint the other parent as the crazy controlling wagon.

Dravokivich

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Maintenance should be tied to access and custody, and work both ways. No responsibility without access, no access without responsibility.

Would simultaneously solve the problems of deadbeat dads and dad disenfranchisement.

For the child, any potential to develope a proper relationship with either or both parents is of greater importance then the ability or the willingness of one parent to pay the other maintenance as a precursor to that access.

To insist on payment for access is to belittle it to a legally binding ransom. A parent who withholds access for no reason other than the payment is complicit in preventing their child establishing a relationship with the other parent and by extension their greater family.

Sapphire

50/50 access is a great idea in theory, but I'd hate to be the poor kid that lives out of bags. Because that is realistically what would happen if they spent half their week at their mums and half at dads. Imagine what a pain it would be to want to play with something, or read a book, but it's in your other room, an hour's drive away so you'll just have to wait three days until you can get it.

So 50/50 is of least benefit to the child and the most disruptive for the child.

Handing over your child to the other parent at every single weekends sucks too. They get all the fun stuff, you are stuck with the part where you are roaring up the stairs and making lunches and doing school pickups, dinners, homework and early bedtimes and at the weekend, when you have time to spend with your child as quality time, well, they've gone to the other parent so you get no days out with your child.

An overnight during the week with the non-resident parent and every other weekend sounds very limiting, but its probably the fairer system for the child, and it balances out the weekend time they'd have with each parent.

Maintenance should never be linked to access. And it should be fair to both households but all too often you get one parent trying to shaft the other and the only person they end up fcuking over with their shenanigans is their poor kids stuck in the middle.

wokingvoter

stoplooklisten wrote: »

That's maths wasn't to calculate the nurse. The cash was the finaincal position of the person who was caring for someone. You;d hardly get a job of being a carer and then hiring a nurse to care for both of you?


nobodys preventing anyone from becoming a parent. How does diabetes stop you from working? I know loads of people that work with diabetes.

And loads of other people can't work with their diabetes, sometimes because secondary illnesses have compounded their condition. And because nobody's diabetes is the same. It doesn't matter though. Plenty of parents with chronic conditions out there doing a bang up job with their kids.
Plenty of parents caring for an elderly sick relative on long term Carers leave from work and the relative would have to go into full time care at great cost to the taxpayer if that Carer wasn't available.
Your suggestion that all parents should be put to work on the breakup of a relationship just doesn't wash

wokingvoter

stoplooklisten wrote: »

Also are we taking the position that all single parents who have custody of the disabled children are suffering from cronic diseases, while caring for relatives?

No. You've just deliberately twisted things about instead of admitting that your wrong.

Samaris

I'm all for father's rights, and I firmly believe that the child should live with the parent that is most suited to caring for them. This is not necessarily the mother. The payments take into account the mother's lifestyle (assuming the mother is the primary caregiver, which is the general result still) because the mother's ability to work is severely limited by being the primary caregiver for the child. When it's the other way around (still pretty rare), the father's lifestyle is also taken into account as then -his- ability to work and support himself is severely limited.

The assumption by the courts, and by society in general, is still "woman = caregiver, father = career" (or provider, if you prefer) which is a hang-up from fifty years ago. And, frankly, it's unfair on both mother and father.

stoplooklisten

wokingvoter wrote: »

And loads of other people can't work with their diabetes, sometimes because secondary illnesses have compounded their condition. And because nobody's diabetes is the same. It doesn't matter though. Plenty of parents with chronic conditions out there doing a bang up job with their kids.
Plenty of parents caring for an elderly sick relative on long term Carers leave from work and the relative would have to go into full time care at great cost to the taxpayer if that Carer wasn't available.
Your suggestion that all parents should be put to work on the breakup of a relationship just doesn't wash

Diabetes Ireland does not consider diabetes a disability nor do we consider it to have a substantial effect on any person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities.

. Diabetes is legally viewed as a disability, because it is a disease that affects a “major life activity.” Recent court rulings have established that eating is a major life activity.
As a person with diabetes, you have certain rights. The right to eat food (either on the job, or to have a reasonable number of breaks to do so) is crucial for people with diabetes.


https://www.diabetes.ie/living-with-diabetes/living-type-1/entitlements-social-welfare-information/



Not really considered a disability by people who know about these things.
They're people with disabilities doing a bang up job parenting and therefore no reason they can;t do a bang up job in the workplace. Once they have the right to eat food, which most workplaces will allow.


Now, caring for the relative. If they are at home caring for a relative, they have the facility to also mid the child. Therefore no need to pay creche fees and they still can contribute the 300/month - see previous calculations

Sapphire

Samaris wrote: »

The assumption by the courts, and by society in general, is still "woman = caregiver, father = career" (or provider, if you prefer) which is a hang-up from fifty years ago. And, frankly, it's unfair on both mother and father.

I believe that this partially stems from the very beginning of a baby being born when a mother gets all of the maternity leave and the father gets nothing. It's setting her up to be the main caregiver and we've no choice in that because maternity leave is not transferable between a mother and a father. Getting unpaid leave is nice, but lets face it, how many of us can afford to take that leave?

If I was a benevolent dictator, I'd set up maternity leave so that after the first 6 weeks mandatory for mum (to allow for post-partum recovery) that paid maternity leave can be split whatever way a couple want to split it. I work with a lot of blokes and most of them would love this system too. This system would also help improve bias employers might have towards a woman of childbearing age in hiring because it could just as easily be a male candidate that ends up taking maternity leave.

Then when it comes to a separating couple, neither are assumed to be the caregiver because either one could have been the caregiver in the early days. Our thinking is still pretty much based on the 50's housewife-single-income family model when the vast majority of today's families are composed of two full time working parents who equally share child rearing and household chores and our state supports should reflect that.

One eyed Jack

"Fathers4Justice"? A small band of misguided misfits and vigilante thugs is all they are, the worst enemy of the people they claim to represent.

wokingvoter

stoplooklisten wrote: »

Diabetes Ireland does not consider diabetes a disability nor do we consider it to have a substantial effect on any person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities.

. Diabetes is legally viewed as a disability, because it is a disease that affects a “major life activity.” Recent court rulings have established that eating is a major life activity.
As a person with diabetes, you have certain rights. The right to eat food (either on the job, or to have a reasonable number of breaks to do so) is crucial for people with diabetes.


https://www.diabetes.ie/living-with-diabetes/living-type-1/entitlements-social-welfare-information/



Not really considered a disability by people who know about these things.
They're people with disabilities doing a bang up job parenting and therefore no reason they can;t do a bang up job in the workplace. Once they have the right to eat food, which most workplaces will allow.


Now, caring for the relative. If they are at home caring for a relative, they have the facility to also mid the child. Therefore no need to pay creche fees and they still can contribute the 300/month - see previous calculations

If a diabetes sufferer has had amputations as a result of their diabetes or has suffered sight loss as a result of their diabetes then they certainly may be restricted in finding work. Having the right to eat food in the workplace won't really do it for them.
You really went to a lot of bother there to read up about diabetes in the workplace without properly reading my last post.
Regarding the €300 per month, can you just explain where this €300 is going , to whom, for what?

stoplooklisten

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"Fathers4Justice"? A small band of misguided misfits and vigilante thugs is all they are, the worst enemy of the people they claim to represent.

What's the issue you have with them?

One eyed Jack

stoplooklisten wrote: »

What's the issue you have with them?

You could take your pick really -


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_4_Justice


Thankfully, they are not in any way representative of the people they claim to represent.

stoplooklisten

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You could take your pick really -


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_4_Justice


Thankfully, they are not in any way representative of the people they claim to represent.

I read that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_4_Justice
Criticism

Members of the group have been accused of conducting intimidating attacks in order to upset court staff, family lawyers and Members of Parliament.[49] During protests outside the offices of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), individual case workers were identified by name in a similar style to animal rights protesters[who?]. One office of CAFCASS was forcibly entered by F4J members, who detained an unnamed employee. No criminal proceedings are known to have resulted.[52]



So you object to them identifying case workers?

Two Tone

stoplooklisten wrote: »

What if its the mother that's the well known dangerous drug addict?


or has a constant stream of strange men coming through the place?

If the father is the one who provides a better home to the child (in terms of stability, security, care, love, education etc) than the mother does, the child should be with their father. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry, but a father being denied the right to see their child is utterly disgusting, especially if they are a good one.

Again, I don't think anyone here would disagree with that.

Personally I cannot help but think that a father who is actually denied seeing his child(ren) should be obliged to pay maintenance. I know it is the children who are the ones punished financially then, so therefore their father should be allowed to see them.

One eyed Jack

stoplooklisten wrote: »

I read that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_4_Justice

So you object to them identifying case workers?

I object to them claiming they represent unmarried and separated fathers, because they don't. I object to their examples they're setting for not just their own children, but trying to encourage other fathers to avoid supporting their children now?

They're a bunch of idiots, and they do the perception of unmarried and separated fathers no favours by behaving like petulant children themselves.

Maireadio

Loose Women is godawful. Godawful.

The few times I've watched it, I've been shocked at how they talk about their partners and husbands. Both denigrating them and revealing way too much private business.

Two Tone

Maireadio wrote: »

Loose Women is godawful. Godawful.

The few times I've watched it, I've been shocked at how they talk about their partners and husbands. Both denigrating them and revealing way too much private business.

Aye, I don't know anyone who likes it. That Simpsons clip of a show on "The Oestrogen Network" called Afternoon Yak, where the presenter just says "Men" and the audience bursts into an angry chant of boos... Loose Women to a tee.
(Cannot link to it but someone linked to it earlier - lol).

stoplooklisten

i was researching on why F4j dislike the other site and i came across this being shared and agreed with, my eyes are burning.

The main problem I have with Men’s Rights Activists is that their name really doesn’t do them justice.

They’re Straight Cis White Men’s Rights Activists.

I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign for the inclusion of trans men in their spaces.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign to end the social stigma around black fatherhood.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign for better pay and equal career mobility for men of colour.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists actively campaign for more gay men’s rights.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists advise others in their group on how using ****** to emasculate men who aren’t part of their cause is alienating and marginalising other MEN.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign, raise awareness of, or support victims of male rape unless it’s in order to derail a discussion around female victims of rape.
I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign, raise awareness of, or support male victims of domestic abuse unless it’s in order to derail a discussion around female victims of domestic abuse.

Men’s Rights Activists are hypocrites and frauds. They’re bitter privileged white men who don’t want to campaign for the rights of men - they want to campaign to keep their privilege unchecked and their ability to discriminate against others.

If you want to be a real Men’s Rights Activist - be a ****ing Feminist.

beach_walker

stoplooklisten wrote: »

If you want to be a real Men’s Rights Activist - be a ****ing Feminist.

... You're pulling the pi$$ right?

One eyed Jack

stoplooklisten wrote: »

i was researching on why F4j dislike the other site and i came across this being shared and agreed with, my eyes are burning.

...

As cringeworthy and all as that is though, what does it have to do with fathers rights? Or even Fcukwits4Injustice for that matter?

stoplooklisten

beach_walker wrote: »

... You're pulling the pi$$ right?

oh, I didn't write it. I'm just sharing it becasue it shocked me. I was googling F4j and came across it in another form mentioned in the OP discussing them. They weren't taking the piss , it was being high five'd

beach_walker

stoplooklisten wrote: »

oh, I didn't write it. I'm just sharing it becasue it shocked me. I was googling F4j and came across it in another form mentioned in the OP discussing them. They weren't taking the piss , it was being high five'd

Ah my mistake, I misread it.

stoplooklisten

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As cringeworthy and all as that is though, what does it have to do with fathers rights? Or even Fcukwits4Injustice for that matter?

You call them names but could you expand.

You say they don't represent fathers, who do you think they represent ? I can sense you are hostile towards them but am unsure why?

Ave Sodalis

stoplooklisten wrote:

You say they don't represent fathers, who do you think they represent ? I can sense you are hostile towards them but am unsure why?

Because their silly, immature actions have a negative consequence on the people they're trying to represent. Threats, harrassment, handcuffing, and defacing of art, distrupting what could be serious family court sessions... not exactly an image I would imagine the vast majority of single fathers want for themselves.

One eyed Jack

stoplooklisten wrote: »

You call them names but could you expand.

You say they don't represent fathers, who do you think they represent ? I can sense you are hostile towards them but am unsure why?

sup_dude nailed it in one.

ceadaoin.

Sapphire wrote: »

I believe that this partially stems from the very beginning of a baby being born when a mother gets all of the maternity leave and the father gets nothing. It's setting her up to be the main caregiver and we've no choice in that because maternity leave is not transferable between a mother and a father. Getting unpaid leave is nice, but lets face it, how many of us can afford to take that leave?

If I was a benevolent dictator, I'd set up maternity leave so that after the first 6 weeks mandatory for mum (to allow for post-partum recovery) that paid maternity leave can be split whatever way a couple want to split it. I work with a lot of blokes and most of them would love this system too. This system would also help improve bias employers might have towards a woman of childbearing age in hiring because it could just as easily be a male candidate that ends up taking maternity leave.

Then when it comes to a separating couple, neither are assumed to be the caregiver because either one could have been the caregiver in the early days. Our thinking is still pretty much based on the 50's housewife-single-income family model when the vast majority of today's families are composed of two full time working parents who equally share child rearing and household chores and our state supports should reflect that.

I agree that the leave should be shareable for those that want to. I really don't think that the majority of fathers would avail of half of it though. They brought that in the UK and only 1% of dads have taken it.

Plus, if the child is being breastfed it makes sense for the mother to be home with the child, in the early days at least.

Also, It's not the case that the majority of households equally share chores and child rearing, women still do the bulk of that, even when both parents work.