Planet Dadulon
You don’t win any popularity contests writing about father4justice, do you?
I’ve got a lot of links from “men’s rights” sites, mainly urging their members to come see me and throw inarticulate verbiage at me. I don’t normally look at them, but “Planet Dadulon” (funny name, funny guys) made me laugh:
You may wish to look at this site (link to me).
Written by a “feminazi” [you'll see why I chose this term] who WORKS for our government. You will see why it is SO important to get a true voice for fathers who cannot see their children. This inequity MUST end.
I must remember to tell my voluntary sector employers that it’s okay, we can sack the fundraising team and stop sending out the chuggers, cos WE’RE ALL FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT!
May I point out that from that whole body of text you decided to take from the site, you decided to conclude from nothing that was said that I was implying you were PAID.
I notice you did not mention anything on the inequity, or the fact that fathers DO require a voice to speak for them.
I have been liasing with Hugh Henry - Scottish Labour Deputy Justice minister to Cathy Jamieson, and he seems to think that by the end of spring, ALL new fathers MARRIED, SEPERATED, or UNMARRIED WILL be granted automatic parental rights so long as their names are on the birth certificate. Looks like an improvement- OH, and the introduction of a CCO, [Contact Compliance Officer]to make sure that mothers cannot stop fathers seeing their children should a court deem it appropriate. Not to mention ongoing support and research in Scotland to support fathers who’s ex partners do not allow them to see their children for whatever reasons they have.
I have a copy of the letter if you would like me to forward it to you? Same goes for anyone else who would like to see the amount of support for fathers that is in the pipeline.
As for “inarticulate Verbiage”, try to make sure that your semantics are at least based on SOME truth before launching a diatribe about a site trying to do some good. There was no admission or allusion that you were PAID, merely that you WORKED for our government. I am however, glad that the only thing you could attack in that body of text [apart from our funny name!] was whether or not Planet Dadulon implied or said that you were paid for what you do.
Yeah yeah yeah, mate - gave up listening a while ago
Two ears…one mouth…
If more people listened in this world there would not be so much strife. It’s a REAL shame that was your comeback. Dadulon hoped that you would have supported your party’s policies regarding father’s contact issues. We hoped that someone of your intellectual calibre would not allow some kind of chip on their shoulder to affect the way they portay themselves and their party. After all, there is clearly much traffic across this site and you have chosen, for whatever personal reasons, not to tell your readers about the new policies being implemented - unless of course, you were unaware of them?
You say you are interested in equality and young people’s issues, yet you condemn all men under the umbrella of feminism and seem not to care about the thousands of children growing up without knowing daddy.
You may have given up listening, but you will see, and continue to see the uprising of those who have been wronged by a flawed system. You may condemn all fathers who do not see their children indiscriminately, but you will continue to see that your reasons for doing so are flawed - indeed, not even supported by the political party you so love.
Fathers who deserve rights will continue fighting, and this topic of which you are so clearly bored will not be swept under the carpet, conversely, more and more people are beginning to speak out against this.
As the social awareness of a lack of fathers rights grows, so will the awareness of those who have chosen to peddle stigma, instead of using their influence to help the cause. Planet Dadulon hopes that your public are not too harsh on you for your misguided views and what seems to be genuine ignorance over an issue so integral to us all, as family.
yet you condemn all men under the umbrella of feminism
D’uh! That’s not feminism! Men who are sexists deserve to be “condemned” for it but that’s not the same as condemning all men because they are, you know, men.
Either learn about feminism and the women’s movement or expect people to point out your anti-feminist (and therefore sexist) rhetoric.
Feminism - born in the 19th century, a social and political movement spearheaded by women, with the intention of gaining GENDER EQUALITY, in all areas of life. Many women died for this cause - the most famous being the lady who threw herself under the king’s horse on the racing turf, killing herself. Eventually, success began to be seen, with women gaining the rights to vote and work etc, and since then the movement has seen great advancement in the equality of women, with women having the choice to work, have familes, go to university travel, live independantly and very much have the same rights as men.
However, you seem to subscribe to the Animal farm version of equality, “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.
It is evident from your previous posts on F4J etc that you do not believe in EQUAL rights, but that women should be more equal than men.
MEN should have every bit as much right to see their children as women. A child is the biological result of a woman AND a man having sex.
Who says that after the child is born that father’s role stops there just because the mother says so? That’s not feminism that’s SEXISM agains MEN, which by your own admission, you should be condemned for.
Female ex partners should not be allowed to be the judges of whether or not their former male counterparts will be good fathers, just as men should not be able to be the judges of whether a woman is capable of being a bricklayer (or whatever, I’m using a typically masculine job as an EXAMPLE, I believe women can lay bricks every bit as well as men!)
The feminism movement was sparked by gender inequalities - something men are now at the recieving end of at the hands of the family courts, and as I mentioned before, some very militant women under the unbrella of feminism.
When women fought for their rights to be treated equally alongside men, it was a historical movement, something mothers and grandmothers tell their children about with pride.
When men try to fight for the rights to be treated as equal parents [albeit in a bit of a clumsy manner sometimes, as with hindsight throwing yourself under a horse might be] they are slated by the papers and angry women [who admittedly may have been treated badly by their ex partners] - but the bottom line still remains. FATHERS are now the inferior, and under the very essence of all that is feminism, this imbalance needs to be restored.
I have always and will always belive one thing about the family courts - the rights of the CHILD must come first. I do not subscribe to any political movement that seeks to put parents “rights” above those of children.
We’re not going to agree on F4J etc and we’re certainly not going to agree on the role of feminism in building a society that is fair and equal for all. I’ve never met any feminist who seeks to replace the patriarchy with anything but a just society — but you caryr on with your make believe conspiracies while the rest of us get on and make this a better world.
You see, maybe, just maybe, if you got off your high horse and worked WITH women instead of against us, you might find that the job of making the world a better place gets easier.
Planet Dadulon DOES work with women? It was yourself that implied we were all men.
There are many Scottish women who subscribe to the same belief as us, that the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD are for them to have contact with both parents, not just one. There is no make believe conspiracy, in fact there was no mention of a conspiracy - only the FACT that men are not represented fairly within the (Scottish) Family Courts System.
as for the ‘high horse’ - apologies if we seemed condescending, or arrogant, we were merely trying to highlight and represent, as I said before, the Gender inequalities associated with Equal parenting issues. If you want to help us get that message across as well, we would be more than happy to have you aboard Antonia?
Erm, I’m not Antonia!!
Ah- I thought the intellectual level of the debate took a downturn a while back - apologies jo, didn’t realise you’d picked up the debate for your friend; Planet Dadulon gives you full credit for your part in the ignorant BS above.Our Point still remains, and if you’re happy to help us on our quest for equality, you can too - hey, bring all your friends, remember, it’s for a good cause!
You’re a bit rude really, aren’t you?
I think the point that Jo was stressing above is not that the best interests of the child is to have access to both parents, the best interests of the child are what the child needs to be safe and develop into adulthood as a “well-rounded” individual. Is it in the best interests of a child to allow an abusive parent (whether its mother or father) to have access to the child? However by subscribing to the belief that contact with both parents is the only thing that is in the child’s best interest is actually dangerous. It is fine to sign up to the principle as I do that a child should have access to both their parents. But you have to realise that in practice this may not be possible. Holding on to this as a belief could end up putting a child in danger, is that what you hope for? I don’t think it is. Furthermore when this issue is discussed it is always argued in terms of parent’s access. Maybe we should look at it from the view of the child’s access. Would you let a child access something that could cause him/her harm? I think not. So would you give the child access to a parent that would cause him/her harm?
Obviously we don’t advocate access to abusive parents, female or male!
What we do believe is that the family courts system should be there to STOP abusive parents seeing their children (with contact suspended meantime if required) NOT to GIVE parents the right to see their child.
As it stands now, women are legally able to give no reason whatsoever to fathers or courts for keeping their children from them. Whilst we understand that some women DO do this for the sake of their children, some do it out of spite to hurt their ex spouse or partner. In turn they tell the child that daddy did this or daddy did that, and if daddy gets a court warrant, they up the ante and begin to poison the child against the parent in an attempt to ‘win’ the child over thus vindicating their spiteful behaviour.
There should be measures in place to STOP this.
The issue of abuse comes up in these arguments time and again, as if all fathers who aren’t allowed to see their children because of the mother’s wishes are abusive. This is a ridiculous assumption to make, as many are NOT abusive, and simply give up trying in favour of the child’s mental wellbeing, that is, constantly fighting with the mother can upset the child, especially if there has been a step parent in place for some time.
When they do this, they are labelled as deadbeat dads who don’t care, when in fact it is a no win situation.
And you’re quite right Lee - most fathers would NEVER allow their child to come to harm, but if their partner took their child from them and never allowed them to see him/her for no reason [which IS abnormal parenting, unless as was mentioned before, the parent was or is abusive] , how could they ensure the child was being brought up properly? for all they know the mother could have post natal depression and really be struggling, or she could lose the plot and join a cult, whatever - there should be provisions for both parents to share the burden so that they can ensure TOGETHER that the child grows up a “well rounded individual”.
But what if the child does have two parents? What if the parent with custody enters another relationship, the child then has two parents. Your argument above is based on the mother staying single, but what if she doesn’t? If you were arguing for two parent families then this should be satisfactory, however you are arguing for the biological father to have access to his child.
There may also be women who do turn their child against the father but this could be due to fear of the father and not because they want to get some sort of revenge. There is also the other side of the coin where it is the father who is being threatening and abusive towards the mother in order to get access to his child - as has been the case for some of the victims of extreme members of F4J. You also point out a number of problems a single mother could be facing and portray the biological father as the only one who can solve these problems. This is not necessarily the case and once again is a situation where the same can be said about the father but never is.
As I have previously said I agree to the idea that a father should have access to his child (although I try to see it as the child having access to the father so that the child’s rights come first). But this is such a complex issue with so many variables I don’t think one can stick to firmly to one side or the other as this will do nothing to correct the problems with the system. One side seems to accept that not all men are the same but has the standard critique that the men are abusive and threatening. Whereas the other side accepts that not all women are the same but sees them all as scheming manipulators using their children to get revenge. The problem is that both sides think they are doing what is right for the child and so neither side will ever make a compromise.
Interesting site..and interesting planet this Dadulon. As a social worker let me remind you all of this:- Parental Rights exist solely in order for parents to fulfil their parental responsibilties. That is the law. So a parent with rights is expected to fulfil their responsbilities to mainatin regular and direct contact amongst a host of other things. And Lees point is well made; if everyone gets parental rights - which would be a morally right thing - they need to be aware that if they are not responsible parents, their rights can be removed through the courts, as the welfare of the child, not the wishes of the parents, is the paramount consideration legally.