Great article in yesterday’s Guardian from Sandra Horley of Refuge:

In an ideal world, children would be able to have contact with both parents. But this is not an ideal world, and in many cases domestic violence is behind the denial of contact. At Refuge, we see many victims of such violence; and an automatic presumption that it is in “the best interests of the child” to have contact with both parents, ignores the courts’ responsibility to protect that child.
The women I speak to are not bitter exes vengefully preventing separated fathers from seeing their children. In fact, less than 1% of fathers’ contact applications are denied, in spite of the fact that domestic violence has occurred in over a third of cases. [...]
It is a sad reality that many women face a stark choice: expose their children to danger or defy court orders. So if “a mother adamantly refuses to let the child have anything to do with the father”, instead of removing and possibly placing a child in danger, judges should be taking a closer look and asking why.

The Rights of Man blog has published its key priorities for a minister for men (hat tip to Iain Dale, who really should exercise greater critical faculty about what he appears to endorse if he’s serious about becoming an elected pol):

Make improving the educational attainment of boys a political priority
Make the state recognise/support male domestic violence victims
Improve care and funding for prostate/testicular cancer sufferers
Make judges enforce child contact orders
Support equal parenting laws
Provide better help and retraining for unemployed men
Force a review of maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, remarried or simply walked out with the children
Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty
Improve care and support for men suffering from depression
Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media
Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women
Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-women shortlists and priority lists

Now, before I start taking the nonsense bits apart, some of these points are right: improving boy’s achievement in schools; better treatment for male-specific cancers and depression; support to get long-term unemployed men, usually in former heavy-industrial areas, back to work. If I were to write a manifesto for things that need to be better for men, I’d add a few more points - about the corrosive effect of male violence and macho culture on men themselves, about the latent homophobia that limits men’s career choice and proscribes young men from entering child care and other caring professions, about the need to increase paid parental leave and massively decrease the hours that men are expected to work so that they get time to spend with their families or on leisure pursuits, and about the hideous health problems caused to men by alcohol.

Of course, the big difference between the manifesto to make things better for men that I’d write and this one, is that I’d write mine with the aim of making society better, the lives of women and men better. By contrast, these twelve key points (and I’m still surprised, given the usual intellectual standards of the men’s rights movement that it wasn’t entitled a MANifesto) seek redress, even vengeance, for the perceived slights to men. With supreme inconsistency, it recognises that women and men are different and have different needs, and yet proceeds to demand absolute parity in treatment for women and men - to the extent of calling for a minister for men just because there’s one for women. And this is the complete misunderstanding at the root of it: the author just can’t get his head round that trying to make sure that men and women aren’t massively disadvantaged vis-a-vis one another demands, occasionally and with clear evidence to justify it, treating them differently.

So, to the text.

Make the state recognise/support male domestic violence victims
Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty

These two points are about denying the reality of men’s violence against women, by on the one hand belittling it by claiming that men suffer just as badly, and on the other hand, not recognising the scale of it, by claiming that women make false allegations of abuse.

The state does recognise male victims of domestic violence: they are mentioned in each policy paper on the subject, and men who flee their home in an emergency would be entitled to emergency housing and to housing benefit dependent on their individual circumstances just as are female survivors of DV. What the author of the paper is complaining about is that in the 70s, 80s and 90s women’s organisations, recognising that many women are financially-dependent on their violent husbands and partners, opened refuges for women to flee to. These are usually supported by women residents claiming housing benefit, and through grant or in-kind support from local authorities who recognise that violence against women is wrong. If the men’s movement thinks that there should be a refuge for male victims of DV in every local authority area, let them go out and prove the scale and impact of violence against men justifies it and then get organised and set them up themselves, as the women’s movement did, rather than bleating that the men must have everything the women do, no matter how unsupported by the evidence.

And no, you wouldn’t expect me to support the idea that every woman who incredibly bravely reports her rape to the police should be institutionally considered to be a liar. And it’s an interesting and illustrative choice of priorities, isn’t it, to put this in rather than attempting to increase the 15% reporting rate and the 6% conviction rate or decrease the horrific number of rapes in this country.

Make judges enforce child contact orders
Support equal parenting laws
Force a review of maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, remarried or simply walked out with the children

These three points reveal the unpleasant misogynist views lingering in the background of this document, about the rights of men to control women who had the misfortune to marry or partner them, even after the relationship is over. It’s most clear in the final point, which is about the vengeance of the spurned husband on the wife who dared to leave him and reflects incredibly badly on its proponents. Making judges enforce child contact is similar: it feeds a view that all women are out to keep their children from seeing their fathers, which just isn’t the case. Judges can and do enforce contact of children with their fathers, even at times when there is evidence of domestic violence and when doing so makes the children distraught. Equally, equal parenting laws appearing in a manifesto about men’s rights shows it exactly for what it is: a demand that is about the father, and the father’s rights, and not wanting the woman to have something they don’t, rather than about the children’s needs. I strongly believe that both parents should continue to be involved in their children’s lives after relationship breakdown, but that inserting a second overriding presumption in child custody proceedings fatally undermines the other overriding presumption - that the needs of the child are paramount.

Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media

Forgive me, I’m not sure what the author means by this. If they mean combatting gender stereotypes in TV and encouraging young men to consider non-traditional careers and to move away from the notion that violence and machismo are intrinsic to being a man, then I might agree, but I’m not sure that is particularly likely.

Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women

Actually, I could support this, but I doubt for the reason the author does: twice as many women as men receive prison sentences for a first-time offence, yet women’s offending is much less serious than men’s, with most women being in prison for theft and handling stolen goods. And given the impact on children of women being gaoled and the huge number of women who have responsibility for children who are imprisoned, there is a case for using non-custodial sentences wherever possible for women. Once again, the author of the manifesto seems to think that absolute parity of treatment is more important than actual outcomes, whatever the devastating effect.

Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-women shortlists and priority lists

Finally, we get to this old chestnut. It’s one point on which reasonable people may reasonably differ - and those who differ should vote for parties that don’t believe in guaranteeing women’s representation, like the Tories and Liberals.

You know, reading this, I worry about the women in this author’s life. There are lots of men in my life who I love deeply, and I strongly believe that my feminism is part of buiding a society that’s better for my brothers, father and grandfather, for my male friends and colleagues, as well as for the women I love and care about. I reckon that women getting paid more is a good thing if you’re married to one, for example. I reckon that flexible working makes it possible to be a good dad and a good employee. I reckon that reducing domestic violence and rape means that fewer fathers have to pick up the pieces after their daughters and granddaughters are abused. I reckon that abortion and contraception and divorce mean that couples get to make choices that are right for them rather than having their hand forced by biology or law. I reckon that paid parental leave gives lots of dads a wonderful chance to concentrate on their family rather than rushing back to work. I reckon that breaking down stereotypes about what women and men can do opens up opportunities for men as well as women, whether they want to play with dolls, enter the caring professions or become a ballet dancer. I reckon that feminism is good for men; why aren’t more men pro-feminist?

Thanks to the Don, I’ve come across a new campaigning group to support: Take a Break magazine’s Mums for Justice.

We’re sick of hearing about the plight of hard-done-by dads who are being denied access to their beloved kids. These men dump all the blame on their ex-partners. But their sob stories have not gone down well with single mothers across the UK.
They say that while these men pose as superheroes, some of them are just the opposite. They’re men who don’t even put food on the table for their kids. According to figures from the now defunct Child Support Agency (CSA), almost one in three absent parents has failed to pay child support. One in three!
No wonder mothers are angry especially when dads who don’t pay a penny turn up on the doorstep demanding to see their kids. They’ve had enough of such men wanting to play happy families.

We want the government to change the law to make sure that men do the following:
* Pay child support in full every month and on time.
* Don’t get away with lying about their earnings and pretending to be unemployed to wriggle out of paying up.
* Stick to visiting arrangements organised either by family courts or with their ex-partners.

Good for them, and their four million readers, and about time someone started to make this point.

I like Tom Hamilton’s becoming-annual series on crass (and crap) political communication. (See here for the 2006 and 2005 editions). My favourite from this conference? Well, it’s our old friends F4J, now trading under the name “The Real Fathers for Justice”:

It’s time for Labour to listen!
The Real Social Exclusion
Fatherlessness
Social Decay
Criminalised Children
100 Children a day lose a father
ASBO KIDS
The existence of lone parenting! When it takes two to create and raise a child.
Highest Depressed Childhood rate in Europe
The bad taste that all these problems stem from is a poor foundation of Family and Family Values and ultimately respect for parents in the UK.

On the overleaf was a densely-printed 8pt font 16-paragraph rant about why there should be a legal presumption of “shared parenting”. These F4J types seem to have fooled some people (I spotted one female Tory commentator who should know better comparing them to the suffragettes earlier) that they’re some sort of progressive movement. In fact, they’re just another regressive bunch fuelled by personal antagonism to their former partners and furious that the advent of some limited recognition of the rights of women and children has undermined the right of husbands and fathers to do whatever they want. Oh, and I should say this more often - they don’t represent the majority of divorced or separated fathers in the UK, who come to agreements about child custody that they are reasonably happy with, often during a difficult and upsetting time.

Of course, bringing in their current demand - a “shared presumption of parenting” - would fatally undermine the only current presumption that applies: that what’s done is in the best interests of the child/ren involved. Here’s a tip for free, fellas. You want to position yourself as mainstream, sensible, right? So refresh your knowledge of the accepted usage of capitalisation (cheap shot, I know!); think about presentation; think about evidencing your preposterous assertions; think about your audience (it’s a LABOUR conference, muppets - we LIKE ASBOs!). Oh, and if your public positioning is that it’s all about the kids, try hard to think up a campaign call that doesn’t undermine that.

Gendergeek pointed me in the direction of this Guardian article about a new Women’s Aid investigation into post-separation violence by fathers against children.

In the past decade, family courts have ordered 11 children to have contact with fathers who subsequently murdered them. A Women’s Aid report, Failure to Protect, found 18 cases of children ordered to have contact with fathers who had been convicted of schedule one offences - meaning violent crimes against children. It found that 64 children had been ordered to have contact with a parent whose behaviour had previously caused children to be placed on the child protection register. Of those, 21 had been ordered to have unsupervised contact with the abusive parent.
Fathers4Justice, in its colourful three-year campaign, helped create the impression of an unjust legal bias against fathers in the family courts. And, because family court hearings cannot be reported, the myth was allowed to flourish.

Gendergeek makes a salient point when she says:

I am just perturbed that it has taken so long for the claims of a woman-focused family court to be dispelled. It would seem that media-darling F4J’s rancorous implosion amid embarrassing allegations of a kidnap plot has meant that articles such as Decca Aitkenhead’s are now possible.

Exactly. Free from harassment from fathers’ rights activists and free from the presumption that any group so photo-friendly could possibly be dodgy, journalists can now write the truth about contact between fathers and children after relationships break down.

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!

More trouble for the CSA:

Ms Formescue said yesterday: “The whole thing has been a complete nightmare. I was so angry that I wrote to Mr Blair returning my Labour party card. I now want to form a charity, Voices4Mothers, so that women can put a lot of pressure on ministers. These men should face criminal prosecutions if they fail to pay and be ‘named and shamed’ with pictures on websites if they disappear. We need a group like Fathers4Justice, though we should not do the daft things they did.”

I reckon it’s about time there was a pressure group for mothers left holding the baby.

Great ways to make a political point, #356

From the Guardian:

Detectives have investigated a plot to kidnap Tony Blair’s son, Leo, after it emerged that extremists linked to the fathers’ rights group Fathers4Justice were allegedly intending to snatch the Blairs’ youngest child as a form of direct action.

Fathers4Justice have disassociated themselves from the supposed plot, but then, why are we surprised that some “former members” might consider such a dangerous and counterproductive ploy? They’ve sent bomb threats to courts, which led to their first investigation by “elite anti-terrorist police group SO13″ and terrorised lawyers and family court staff, in one case dousing a family lawyer’s car in petrol.

Update: It seems Fathers4Justice is no more. Matt O’Connor said last night:

“We will cease all operations and bring the campaign to a close.”

I try not to be the sort of blogger who puts up a link to the Guardian and says “read this great article”, but today, seriously, read this great article.

Politicians good at demonising boys in hoodies - who probably have won’t-pay fathers - say nothing much about derelict dads. Revolting fathers wearing outsize Batman pyjamas dangle off buildings for their supposed rights. (Many turn out to be deadbeat non-payers themselves.) But where is the protest against this shocking non-payment by fathers? It should be Mothers 4 Justice making the noise.

[...] From newsrooms packed with well-off divorced men resentful of paying maintenance, there came pages of tales of wicked mothers living the life of Riley on maintenance cheques.

[...] Single mothers were silent, as they always are, too busy surviving to organise rallies. (Yes, almost all “parents with care” are, of course, mothers.) Politicians have been paralysed ever since, just as they were by a handful of macho fuel protesters.

[...] Mothers keep the welfare state going in low-paid jobs and mothers suffer most from its deficits. So, 30 years on, where is the women’s campaign? Where is the ancient music of mothers clattering their saucepan lids down Whitehall for their rights?

It’s Polly, who else?