Then you understand incorrectly. It’s two women a week who are murdered by a male (ex)partner. Yes, one man a month is also killed by a family member – half of them male family members.

“Although there are an ‘estimated’ 635,000 incidents of domestic violence in England and Wales”

Again, you understand incorrectly. Try 12.9 million incidents aginst women and 2.5 against men. (2004 figures) Source:
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/sociology/papers/walby-hors.pdf

“I feel the women’s movement has to do a lot more to catch up with the accuracy of statistics produced by the fathers movement.”

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I just wondered something. If I go through all of the trouble of reducing the claims made in your post about domestic violence and feminism to rubble, will you post it? It is likely to be a long post. Do you have the courage to challenge your own assumptions or, will you resort to the usual feminist tricks of name calling and bringing in back up to howl me down? (I call it “mobbing”).

George

Quite frankly I would much rather be watching one of the offensive and loony characters on Little Britain that reading this claptrap. Joke or not.

This comment is clearly made by someone who only understands this issue insofar as her statistics go. Legally speaking, even if a court order is granted, women can stop fathers seeing their children [in Scotland]. Because the number of men refused contact is small, does not give the author licence to assume and intimate that these fathers are abusing their children. ANY number of men refused access to see their children without any reason beyond what the mother says is completely unreasonable. If men are not to be believed, then women’s reasons should be questioned also.

It is unfair of the author to bring rape and domestic violence statistics into her argument as they A) are not directly linked to all single parent families - she is using these statistics to somehow ‘prove’ women only keep their children from fathers for their benefit and safety.

(B) NOT ALL women who leave their husbands and keep the kids from them were abused. To intimate from “lies, damned lies and statistics” that the only reason women would keep their children from their fathers would be because the women feared for their safety is not only naive, but unbelieveable from a woman - who understands the vindictiveness and selfishness that can just as easily come from a woman as a man.

F4J may not have been run by the most desireable of people but their cause is REAL - this author does not know the spiritual agony of not being able to see your child because the mother will not allow it, because of mental health reasons, or perhaps simply moving to Australia with her new boyfriend for “a new life”. There are many reasons fathers cannot see their children apart from abuse [often an excuse used - once this word is uttered, legally the accused can no longer see the child. an ACCUSATION can damn a man, but not a woman, and we are told women are not part of a positive discriminatory move].

As with ALL political protests, there are a few ‘bad eggs’. The author should surely realise this.

Clearly, the author has absolutely NO empathy for the true cause of F4J and only understands this highly emotional and unfair situation from a bland, feminist point of view, supported by near-unrelated statistics twisted to suit herself. [a typical labour pursuit]. What a disappointment to see a fellow woman of such intelligence displaying such societally - imposed, narrow -minded “feminazi” viewpoints.

This is an unbeleivable statement made by an individual who has not looked at the facts, but then again in doing so may not be able to carry out their agenda.

It is a sign of the times that “everyone in politics” wants to identify with the victim.

I believe it is due a sentimentalisation of modern society as some “thinkers” suggest.

You picked out this quote from my post:-
“However, those mothers did choose their abusive partners, albeit (obviously) very unwisely, but although they are the “victims” should they carry no responsibility for their choice of partner?”

No, they shouldn’t. Victims are never responsible for violence and abuse, which is an unacceptable reaction. Thanks for your thoughtful quote, however I still disagree.”

Lets put this another way. Do I carry no responsibility for the fact that my ex. chose to leave me for someone else? Do I carry no responsibility for the fact that her personality meant she tried to deny me contact with my daughter almost from the split up?

I believe I do carry some of the responsibility. My father wanted to warn me what I should expect on my wedding day and tried to do so in a rather confusing way (all he said was “Don’t let me down” although he’d been telling my mother all night he feared the marriage wouldn’t work).

I’m not to blame for my wife’s actions but I do carry some responsibility. I could have seen the warning signs, and I could have listened more carefully to my father.

Some of the victims of violence you refer to return to their abusers over and over again as you probably know. When does it become time for them to face up to the fact that staying away is their responsibility?

I know how difficult it can be to refuse to be used by someone you’re attracted to or whatever, having allowed it to happen again in my life (at least once) but it is no use me always claiming I’m the victim who couldn’t look after himself.

I haven’t read everything you’ve written in your latest response so apologies if I’ve ignored your reply in some ways but to sum up if you want to keep a law which denies decent people rights as parents because of the poor/irresponsible parents who can’t be trusted then I think that is a sad endorsement of our society.

There are a few MPs in your party who would support a change in the Family law I suspect, including Mr Taylor from Nottingham who spoke so well to a group of father’s rights campaigners in a cross party forum at Westminster last year. I hope you try to find out their views on this subject.
ATB, Graham

Paul Rubert - you don’t have my permission to repost my contributions elsewhere. I haven’t replied because I have been moving house, as I have pointed out elsewhere on the blog. However, I feel I have answered all your questions sufficiently.

Graham:
“However, those mothers did choose their abusive partners, albeit (obviously) very unwisely, but although they are the “victims” should they carry no responsibility for their choice of partner?”

No, they shouldn’t. Victims are never responsible for violence and abuse, which is an unacceptable reaction. Thanks for your thoughtful quote, however I still disagree.

A_UK-Father:
“What these people basically are saying is that fathers are useless and their involment in a child upbringing is negligable. Therefore showing bias, and blatant discrimination of the highest order. Why not come out and admit it, and just say that you think a child doesn’t need a father beyond the donation of sperm?”

It is preferable that fathers are involved in their children’s lives, where there is no risk of violence or intimidation, but I refuse to stigmatise those families with only one parent or with two dads or two mums out there by making a league table of “acceptable” parents. I think the most important things are love and affection, not your family circumstances.

Dadalone:
“As to my ‘insulting’ comments: Gay and lesbians (who sound like they make up a decent chunk of the users of this blog) cannot have children (unless of course they adopt some poor bloke’s kids without his knowledge- which happens, and has happened in Chester just lately). Why is that insulting to them? Its their choice…”

Many lesbians have children from previous relationships, and there are many ways that lesbian and gay people become parents - adoption as you have identified, sperm donation, as step parents and through surrogacy. And I don’t understand your point about “it’s their choice” - did you wake up one morning and decide to fancy women for the rest of your life?

“Half the people on the blog sound like they couldn’t give a toss about fathers, so I imagine that they have never had a loving relationship with their father, so probably have no idea who the fellow is…”

I have a wonderful relationship with my father - perhaps because he never called my mother a self-interested harlot.

i shall assume that unless i read otherwise within one week of today (ie., by sunday july 3) then i have your permission to do this.

Antonia, I would suggest you say NO to this anonymous troll unless you know where he is posting this blog and who the audience is and if you will have access to it and the right of reply.

Best wishes,
Max