should mum be allowed to deny dad contact ?

In article dXMub.188229$9E1.1005514@attbi_s52, Byron Canfield says...

"ChrisScaife" wrote in message

::snip::


I know that almost any woman who accuses her husband of violence when
there
has been none has some other reason for wanting that person out of the
house. What could that be?

Perhaps she wants the house for herself. !?

And why would that be? You do have a penchant for settling on the symptom
and calling it the cause.

Why have an inconvenient husband around when you can chuck him out and, as
someone suggested "get on with your own life".

Which would indicate that the partner was too self-absorbed to be a part of
that life.

Raise your children the way you want without having to care what 'he'
thinks.

Which indicates that the partner was too self-absorbed to communicate about
issues such as child-rearing.

No need to do his washing or cook for him (assuming one has such a stayed
domestic pattern).

Again indicates a presumption by the partner that the other would do the
entirety of the domestic chores, and failed in the communication arena
again.

No need to relocate for his work.

Again, points to self-absorbtion on his part, assuming that she would be
willing to move, instead of discussing it and arriving at an agreeable
solution.

Have whatever friends and lovers you like come round.

The former is an issue requiring communication; the latter is a symptom of
lack of intimacy and communication.

All these things you point out are merely symptoms of an underlying problem,
usually communication. It is also notably diifficult, if not impossible, for
those who have those very communication problems to realize the underlying
problem and often results in just such a situaton as yours where you attempt
to absolve yourself of any responsibility, putting all the blame on your
partner.


Yes, this stuff bespeaks one-sided expectations for a marriage. Relocation
would be a joint decision. Marriage shouldn't end friendships or prevent new
ones from forming. How to handle household maintenance tasks would also be
something agreed upon (there are many models which work).

I see many marriages which work. My siblings', just about all my friends'
marriages. Talking 20+ years. Some from the outside would appear to be
following very traditional lines; some not. But all have an underlying
mutuality, and I've noted that they also have both partners to be fairly stable
people to begin with. (My theory - much of this experience of mine comes from
that I don't have much tolerance for a certain 'flightiness' I see in many
acquaintances who have later turned to divorce. But I don't mean to say any
divorced person is that kind of person.)

Where I've seen, in acquainntances, post-marriage childrearing arrangements
work, it comes from a strict focus on what's good for the kids, and a turning
away from who-did-what-how-where during the marriage type baggage.

That goes for both genders for sure.

Banty

You still have not answered the question and I'm will keep asking it until
you do -- what's the motiviation for acting out of spite?

Since the guy hung himself I am not in a position to go and ask him what he
had done.
Regarding the case that started this thread. The woman claims the man is an
abuser.
Is this a genuine complaint? Is it vastly exagerated? Is it totally
fictitious ?
Having been accused in a similar way once I KNOW what happens. I KNEW I was
innocent and so did the accuser.
I don't know in the other cases, but having been there and done that,b I am
not going to accept such an accusation at face value.
It can't be easy for the courts to decide who is lying, but in any case
Keely did not come back to insist on her appology.

You are still trying to 'prove' that whatever the circumstances the man must
have been guilty of something.
You have given no indication as to why you think this guilt should justify
depriving the man of contact with his child. For the simple reason that it
rarely does.


A new mum suffering from severe post natal depression can have a very
distorted view of reality, especially if she joins up with other women
who
are having marital difficulties and they all sit round bitching about
their
husbands, jumping to conclusions and making devious plans to do things
their
own way without involving their husbands in the decisions. Such cliques
are
poison to society. If your wife joins one, go get yourself a good lawyer
because there is only one outcome. IMHO if the founders of the women's
movement could see what it has degenerated into today I think they would
be
ashamed of what they started.

You say this happens, but it's only your say so. Sounds like you have some
general issues with women.

If I say the sky is blue you will probably take issue with that, because
it's only my say so.
If I send you a photo of the blue sky what will you say then ? Do you want
tape recordings of such cases ? If I could provide them you would say that
it was only evidence of a few isolated cases or probably even denounce them
as fakes!

I have no issues with women.

I have issues with sick feminism that spreads like a cancer in society.
How many ladies here can honestly say they have never whitnessed it or even
been a party to it ?


Whether it is justified or not, nobody should be using their
children
to
get
at each other.
What would king Solomon have said ?

In my experience a lot of the resentment is built up when women get
together
to bitch about their husbands/ex's and exchange tips on how to get
their
own
way.

And you are doing what? Looks to me like all your posts are doing
exactly
the same thing, but to people on a world-wide basis, instead of in a
small
room with a select group.

I am trying to stick to hypothetical and annonymous cases but there are
some
who keep trying to make it a personal issue.
Clearly I am not the one who hung himself now am I ?

I think you have. You've turned this into a "hate women" thread.

No, you've turned it into a 'men are always guilty of something' thread.
It started as a 'dad loves his daughter and would like to see her' thread.
It is way off topic on this forum, so I am posting it to alt.mens-rights
where I think it is more appropriate.
If you want to continue the discussion go join it there. Where I shall
rename it 'into the cow shed'.
For readers on mens-rights, this comes from misc.kids where it was called
"should mum be allowed to deny dad contact?".


And for the record,
neither was there any infidelity involved in my marital breakdown.

Either way, do you think a secret gathering of unidentified conspiritors
with a hidden agenda to take you personally to the cleaners is more
laudible
than an open campaign to tell people that what is happening is wrong ?

So far, you have not established your premise that "what is happening is
wrong". So far, nothing is happening except to you.

And to all the other dads who are protesting.
But you can see no evil,
hear no evil
speak not of the evil
because you are deaf dumb and blind to the world around you.


An accusation of domestic violence can often be made simply to have
the
man
thrown out of his house.
Accusing the woman of violence also results in the man being thrown
out,
because the mother needs to be there to look after the child and the
police
don't care who is to blame they just want to separate the trouble
makers.

You really have no idea of what goes on have you ?!

I know that almost any woman who accuses her husband of violence when
there
has been none has some other reason for wanting that person out of the
house. What could that be?

Perhaps she wants the house for herself. !?

And why would that be? You do have a penchant for settling on the symptom
and calling it the cause.

Firstly I have given you several reasons why, but you were obviously not
paying attention.
Secondly the reason why she wants it is irrelevant. She wants it.
Thirdly it is an injustice that she can take it and throw her husband out
(with a suit case of clothes if he is lucky),
By claiming it is in the interests of his very own children.

Who is to say it would not be more in their interest to chuck her out ?

An impartial person will see that is in the childrens best interest for BOTH
parents to have a home that they can stay in.

So called feminsist will focus on cases where there is genuine abuse by the
man and thereby justify that all men are treated as if they were guilty.
They aditionally conveniently turn a blind eye to the cases where women are
the abusive ones.


Why have an inconvenient husband around when you can chuck him out and,
as
someone suggested "get on with your own life".

Which would indicate that the partner was too self-absorbed to be a part
of
that life.

The guy is guilty again eh ?


Raise your children the way you want without having to care what 'he'
thinks.

Which indicates that the partner was too self-absorbed to communicate
about
issues such as child-rearing.

There we go, guilty again!
FYI It takes two to communicate.

If your partner discusses the issues with her friends and makes her own
decisions but won't discuss them with you because she simply believes that
women should be in charge of the whole child-raising thing then is that your
fault for not communicating ?

No need to do his washing or cook for him (assuming one has such a
stayed
domestic pattern).

Again indicates a presumption by the partner that the other would do the
entirety of the domestic chores, and failed in the communication arena
again.

Actually a very large number of women WANT to give up work and become full
time mums and run the house. Their husbands might well PREFER that they
share the duties in the home and both contribute to the finances, but the
man loves his wife so he lets her do what she wants to do. Sadly she don't
care what he wants. To her he is just a kind of robot that goes out to earn
the money and gets treated like an unwanted guest in his own home.

You on the other hand are trying to stereo-type the man as a control freak.
Pin blame on him for forcing his wife into the role of a domestic. That is a
complete falacy. Perhaps it is the bull**** you were talking about, although
I prefer to think of it as cow ****.

No need to relocate for his work.

Again, points to self-absorbtion on his part, assuming that she would be
willing to move, instead of discussing it and arriving at an agreeable
solution.

It goes like this: you discuss it, and agree and make all the preparations
to move and you start the job and suddenly she says 'No I've decided to stay
here' without even giving it a try or you any warning. She slaps a
matrimonial homes notice on your house so the sale can't go through and what
do you do then? Not a lot you can do, but resign the new job and go get
whatever you can find near your old home. At one time a family would go
where they could earn a living and it would be that or starve!

A situation where clandestine feminist cliques are making all the decisions
for your house hold is not tenable. Regarding communication, there isn't
even any point in trying to suggest anything because you are immediatly
branded as a control-freak. It is much better to be the humble servant and
butler to your wife, and support her in doing everything she wants. To let
her spend all the money you earn whatever way she wants, while the debts
mount up, and it is your duty to find someway to provide because as the mum
you can't expect her to contribute ?!??!

Do you have a T shirt that says DOORMAT ?

Have whatever friends and lovers you like come round.

The former is an issue requiring communication; the latter is a symptom of
lack of intimacy and communication.

All these things you point out are merely symptoms of an underlying
problem,
usually communication. It is also notably diifficult, if not impossible,
for
those who have those very communication problems to realize the underlying
problem and often results in just such a situaton as yours where you
attempt
to absolve yourself of any responsibility, putting all the blame on your
partner.

When it comes to communication you are a waste of time because you do not
know what you are talking about.

Where I've seen, in acquainntances, post-marriage childrearing
arrangements
work, it comes from a strict focus on what's good for the kids, and a
turning
away from who-did-what-how-where during the marriage type baggage.

Thank you Banty, you are making sense now.
All this ''who is guilty witch hunt is the wrong thing to focus on.

In article , ChrisScaife says...


Where I've seen, in acquainntances, post-marriage childrearing
arrangements
work, it comes from a strict focus on what's good for the kids, and a
turning
away from who-did-what-how-where during the marriage type baggage.

Thank you Banty, you are making sense now.
All this ''who is guilty witch hunt is the wrong thing to focus on.



Absolutely. And I think the case where at least supervised visitation wouldn't
be allowed should be rare. And in the overwhelming proportion of case the
child's parents can do better than that.

Banty

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:53:47 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
wrote:


Where I've seen, in acquainntances, post-marriage childrearing
arrangements
work, it comes from a strict focus on what's good for the kids, and a
turning
away from who-did-what-how-where during the marriage type baggage.

Thank you Banty, you are making sense now.
All this ''who is guilty witch hunt is the wrong thing to focus on.

Well, I am glad you agree with that.

To me, it seems that many of the men from soc.men and alt.dads-rights
are focused on blame and guilt and that is never productive for the
children and probably not helpful to them in the long run either.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:33:13 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
wrote:

You still have not answered the question and I'm will keep
asking it until you do -- what's the motiviation for acting out
of spite?

Are you seriously so lacking in imagination that you can't come up with
numerous examples? A dad or mom angry at their former partner is
certainly capable of encouraging the child to disparage their other
parent, as a (clearly wrong-headed) means of punishing the former
partner by the children saying mean and hurtful things.

That's just one example of spiteful behavior, without even giving it
much thought; I can no doubt come up with additional examples, if you
can't think of any.

"Kathy Cole" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:33:13 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
wrote:

You still have not answered the question and I'm will keep
asking it until you do -- what's the motiviation for acting out
of spite?

Are you seriously so lacking in imagination that you can't come up with
numerous examples? A dad or mom angry at their former partner is
certainly capable of encouraging the child to disparage their other
parent, as a (clearly wrong-headed) means of punishing the former
partner by the children saying mean and hurtful things.

That's just one example of spiteful behavior, without even giving it
much thought; I can no doubt come up with additional examples, if you
can't think of any.

If you had bothered to read my question, you'd see that I didn't ask for
examples of spiteful behavior. I asked for the motivation. There's always a
reason, whether it be real or imagined. And even when imagined, it is often
due to some other underlying cause.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield
http://www.headsprout.com
Flash examples: http://www.canfieldstudios.com/flash5
[I do not respond to private emails regarding issues for which the
appropriate venue is this newsgroup, nor do I reply to posts by email.]

"ChrisScaife" wrote in message
...
You still have not answered the question and I'm will keep asking it
until
you do -- what's the motiviation for acting out of spite?

Since the guy hung himself I am not in a position to go and ask him what
he
had done.
Regarding the case that started this thread. The woman claims the man is
an
abuser.
Is this a genuine complaint? Is it vastly exagerated? Is it totally
fictitious ?
Having been accused in a similar way once I KNOW what happens. I KNEW I
was
innocent and so did the accuser.
I don't know in the other cases, but having been there and done that,b I
am
not going to accept such an accusation at face value.
It can't be easy for the courts to decide who is lying, but in any case
Keely did not come back to insist on her appology.

You are still trying to 'prove' that whatever the circumstances the man
must
have been guilty of something.
You have given no indication as to why you think this guilt should justify
depriving the man of contact with his child. For the simple reason that it
rarely does.

In fact, I made no statement at all regarding deprivation of contact rights.
I was speaking only to the self-righteous declaration of blamelessness for
the original dissolution.


A new mum suffering from severe post natal depression can have a very
distorted view of reality, especially if she joins up with other women
who
are having marital difficulties and they all sit round bitching about
their
husbands, jumping to conclusions and making devious plans to do things
their
own way without involving their husbands in the decisions. Such
cliques
are
poison to society. If your wife joins one, go get yourself a good
lawyer
because there is only one outcome. IMHO if the founders of the women's
movement could see what it has degenerated into today I think they
would
be
ashamed of what they started.

You say this happens, but it's only your say so. Sounds like you have
some
general issues with women.

If I say the sky is blue you will probably take issue with that, because
it's only my say so.

Not likely, but by the same token, I will not accept your say so that the
sky is beige with purple polkadots.

If I send you a photo of the blue sky what will you say then ? Do you want
tape recordings of such cases ? If I could provide them you would say that
it was only evidence of a few isolated cases or probably even denounce
them
as fakes!

I have no issues with women.

I have issues with sick feminism that spreads like a cancer in society.
How many ladies here can honestly say they have never whitnessed it or
even
been a party to it ?

It is evident to me that you don't even know the definition of feminism.
What you are decrying is the same gender hatred found in a select minority
of women that you exhibit yourself. Funny how some people profess to hate
those very qualities that they themselves possess in such great abundance.


Whether it is justified or not, nobody should be using their
children
to
get
at each other.
What would king Solomon have said ?

In my experience a lot of the resentment is built up when women
get
together
to bitch about their husbands/ex's and exchange tips on how to get
their
own
way.

And you are doing what? Looks to me like all your posts are doing
exactly
the same thing, but to people on a world-wide basis, instead of in a
small
room with a select group.

I am trying to stick to hypothetical and annonymous cases but there
are
some
who keep trying to make it a personal issue.
Clearly I am not the one who hung himself now am I ?

I think you have. You've turned this into a "hate women" thread.

No, you've turned it into a 'men are always guilty of something' thread.

Not so. You're putting words in my mouth. I stated that you cannot absolve
yourself of responsbility when you are part of a relationship. You're the
only one spewing messages of hate.

It started as a 'dad loves his daughter and would like to see her' thread.
It is way off topic on this forum, so I am posting it to alt.mens-rights
where I think it is more appropriate.
If you want to continue the discussion go join it there. Where I shall
rename it 'into the cow shed'.
For readers on mens-rights, this comes from misc.kids where it was called
"should mum be allowed to deny dad contact?".


And for the record,
neither was there any infidelity involved in my marital breakdown.

Either way, do you think a secret gathering of unidentified
conspiritors
with a hidden agenda to take you personally to the cleaners is more
laudible
than an open campaign to tell people that what is happening is wrong ?

So far, you have not established your premise that "what is happening is
wrong". So far, nothing is happening except to you.

And to all the other dads who are protesting.
But you can see no evil,
hear no evil
speak not of the evil
because you are deaf dumb and blind to the world around you.

What's that gibberish all about? Speaking in tongues, now?


An accusation of domestic violence can often be made simply to
have
the
man
thrown out of his house.
Accusing the woman of violence also results in the man being
thrown
out,
because the mother needs to be there to look after the child and
the
police
don't care who is to blame they just want to separate the trouble
makers.

You really have no idea of what goes on have you ?!

I know that almost any woman who accuses her husband of violence
when
there
has been none has some other reason for wanting that person out of
the
house. What could that be?

Perhaps she wants the house for herself. !?

And why would that be? You do have a penchant for settling on the
symptom
and calling it the cause.

Firstly I have given you several reasons why, but you were obviously not
paying attention.

You did not--you gave symptoms.

Secondly the reason why she wants it is irrelevant.

That is further evidence of your inability to communicate. The "why" is the
ONLY thing that is relevant.

She wants it.
Thirdly it is an injustice that she can take it and throw her husband out
(with a suit case of clothes if he is lucky),
By claiming it is in the interests of his very own children.

Who is to say it would not be more in their interest to chuck her out ?

An impartial person will see that is in the childrens best interest for
BOTH
parents to have a home that they can stay in.

So called feminsist will focus on cases where there is genuine abuse by
the
man and thereby justify that all men are treated as if they were guilty.
They aditionally conveniently turn a blind eye to the cases where women
are
the abusive ones.

You have cites to prove that assertion, or is this just more blowing smoke?


Why have an inconvenient husband around when you can chuck him out
and,
as
someone suggested "get on with your own life".

And why is it that the husband is inconvenient, when most WORKING
relationships would indicate that women do NOT find their husbands
"inconvenient"? Look to the cause, instead of the symptom -- open your mind.

Which would indicate that the partner was too self-absorbed to be a part
of
that life.

The guy is guilty again eh ?

Can't put those words in my mouth -- I've denounced that before.

Guy or girl, makes no difference. Either one, through the same
self-absorbtion you apparently practice, could be the underlying cause
behind the spousal dissatisfaction.


Raise your children the way you want without having to care what 'he'
thinks.

Which indicates that the partner was too self-absorbed to communicate
about
issues such as child-rearing.

There we go, guilty again!

Your every breath exudes self-absorbtion -- everything you've stated -- it's
all about you.

FYI It takes two to communicate.

That's exactly what I've been saying, and if you've been communicating, how
did it suddenly end up in a divorce? I'd say you weren't communicating.
Probably you were just too busy talking about yourself to listen.

If your partner discusses the issues with her friends and makes her own
decisions but won't discuss them with you because she simply believes that
women should be in charge of the whole child-raising thing then is that
your
fault for not communicating ?

Again, that is symptomatic of failure to communicate a lot earlier in the
relationship. Like, did you and she even talk before you got married? Before
you had children?

No need to do his washing or cook for him (assuming one has such a
stayed
domestic pattern).

Again indicates a presumption by the partner that the other would do the
entirety of the domestic chores, and failed in the communication arena
again.

Actually a very large number of women WANT to give up work and become full
time mums and run the house. Their husbands might well PREFER that they
share the duties in the home and both contribute to the finances, but the
man loves his wife so he lets her do what she wants to do. Sadly she don't
care what he wants. To her he is just a kind of robot that goes out to
earn
the money and gets treated like an unwanted guest in his own home.

Ah, but by not communicating, perhaps you missed some telltale signs that
the Suzy-Homemaker thing turned out to be not all it was cracked up to be?

You on the other hand are trying to stereo-type the man as a control
freak.
Pin blame on him for forcing his wife into the role of a domestic. That is
a
complete falacy. Perhaps it is the bull**** you were talking about,
although
I prefer to think of it as cow ****.

I made no such statement. Again you attempt to put words in my mouth.
Irrelevant argument and not even worthy of response.

No need to relocate for his work.

Again, points to self-absorbtion on his part, assuming that she would be
willing to move, instead of discussing it and arriving at an agreeable
solution.

It goes like this: you discuss it, and agree and make all the preparations
to move and you start the job and suddenly she says 'No I've decided to
stay
here' without even giving it a try or you any warning. She slaps a
matrimonial homes notice on your house so the sale can't go through and
what
do you do then? Not a lot you can do, but resign the new job and go get
whatever you can find near your old home. At one time a family would go
where they could earn a living and it would be that or starve!

Sounds like another case of communication having failed a lot earlier in the
relationship.

A situation where clandestine feminist cliques are making all the
decisions
for your house hold is not tenable. Regarding communication, there isn't
even any point in trying to suggest anything because you are immediatly
branded as a control-freak. It is much better to be the humble servant and
butler to your wife, and support her in doing everything she wants. To let
her spend all the money you earn whatever way she wants, while the debts
mount up, and it is your duty to find someway to provide because as the
mum
you can't expect her to contribute ?!??!

Do you have a T shirt that says DOORMAT ?

Nope -- don't need one. I talk to my wife, and, more importantly, unlike
you, I listen to her, as well.


Have whatever friends and lovers you like come round.

The former is an issue requiring communication; the latter is a symptom
of
lack of intimacy and communication.

All these things you point out are merely symptoms of an underlying
problem,
usually communication. It is also notably diifficult, if not impossible,
for
those who have those very communication problems to realize the
underlying
problem and often results in just such a situaton as yours where you
attempt
to absolve yourself of any responsibility, putting all the blame on your
partner.

When it comes to communication you are a waste of time because you do not
know what you are talking about.

And that is a typical dismissal by a non-communicative control freak.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:05:39 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
wrote:

If you had bothered to read my question, you'd see that I didn't ask
for examples of spiteful behavior. I asked for the motivation. There's
always a reason, whether it be real or imagined. And even when imagined,
it is often due to some other underlying cause.

The motivation is that the man or woman is still so ****ed off at the
former partner that whatever they do to get back at them is justified in
their eyes. For the parents who are far gone enough to exhibit spiteful
behavior, they're Just Right, so nothing they do can by definition be
wrong, and it likely doesn't even occur to them they're being unfair to
their children to involve them in their anger and adult dispute. Or
they're cloaked in righteousness for Protecting Their Children From The
Evil ******* Who Hurt Them, regardless of whether the former partner's
actions toward the spiteful parent mean that the former partner will
actually hurt the kids.

(Actual protective behavior from a molester or similar actual abuser is
different, and still does not mean that the protector gets a free pass
to denigrate the abuser.)

Spiteful behavior, irrespective of the motivation, has no business in
parenting the kids. Counseling is the place to work that stuff out. If
you (generic) do repeatedly take your anger at your former partner out
on your kids by telling them their other parent is scum or similarly
intrusive and unfair actions, you shouldn't have access to them until
you can calm the **** down and consider their need to have permission to
love both parents. It's wrong to rationalize away involving your
children in your recovery from your split.

I'm glad you clearly don't know anyone who can't manage appropriate
boundaries between letting the kid be a kid and being ****ed off at
their former partner.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:05:39 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
wrote:

If your partner discusses the issues with her friends and
makes her own decisions but won't discuss them with you
because she simply believes that women should be in
charge of the whole child-raising thing then is that your fault
for not communicating ?

Again, that is symptomatic of failure to communicate a lot
earlier in the relationship. Like, did you and she even talk
before you got married? Before you had children?

This is key. I think that if a couple is thinking about marrying
and having children, they need to sit down and talk about this
before entering into the union. But people don't. And it is
difficult to see how we can change this given that most people
who are marrying begin with assumptions about how the
relationship will go that they have acquired along the way from
society.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits