If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A debate, please
The Real Love that Dare not Speak its Name
The Sunday Times (UK) - Sunday, 7th September 2003 By Bob Geldof http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...6406_1,00.html This is an abridged version of a chapter entitled The Real Love that Dare not Speak its Name by Bob Geldof, from Children and their Families, Hart Publishing, Oxford, £31 Review The father love that dare not speak its name By Bob Geldof When it comes to access to children, divorced men haven't a chance, writes Bob Geldof. In a world of dual-career couples, the law needs to recognise the hands-on parenting role played by many fathers Family law as it currently stands does not work. It is rarely of benefit to the child and promotes injustice, conflict and unhappiness on a massive scale. Most custody rulings show no understanding of contemporary society. The contention that women are inherently better nurturers is wrong. Custody rulings appear to be based on the "sugar and spice and all things nice" school of biological determination rather than on anything more significant. If a woman "mothers" a child, a warm universe of nurturing is conjured. If a man "fathers" a child it simply implies nothing more than the swift biological function involved in the procreative act. If the later 20th century saw the transformation of women's lives, then the 21st century is seeing the transformation of men's lives, and by definition the lives of their children. Nearly half the workforce is female and men now hold a different view of parenting. There are no studies which suggest that a child brought up by a man (as I was) displays any psychological or emotional characteristics different to one raised by a woman. My complaints are not the moans of the unsuccessful litigant at the hands of family law. I, in fact, was "successful". This is someone dismayed by the inappropriateness of the law to the everyday. Nor is this the complaint of the proto-misogynist - indeed the law is so inept that it produces misandrists in equal measure - but rather the irritation and anger of someone who sees exact parallels with women's struggle against bias and prejudice. What's sauce for the goose, as they say, is sauce for the gander - except, of course, in the eyes of family law, where the man ceases to be an equal partner in anything but name. A husband had better hang on to his marriage or risk losing everything he has had and be forced under pain of pursuit, prosecution and imprisonment to be a wage slave for life. There is grave injustice here. Many may read Bob the embittered, abandoned husband in this. They would be quite wrong. My personal response to my situation was shock and dismay, pain, emptiness and loss. I was embittered only with the law and my consequent lack of rights as a man. I am only too aware of the pain that women suffer in divorce, but it is equally true that it is as nothing compared with the financial and emotional loss suffered by men. She may lose her man, he loses the lot. If he is the offending party, people believe that it's right that he should leave the house and kids and pay for them. He even half-thinks this in his guilt. But rarely does he think: I've got a new woman, I'm happier, so I'll just take the kids and go off to this new life. Indeed, society would view it askance if he took the kids. Why? We don't if she does precisely the same. Why? It is this type of confused thinking, lying at the heart of family law, that allows it to be unjustly weighted in favour of women. This is acknowledged by most commentators and lawyers when they are being honest. I can accept that this was not the intent. The intent is that the law should always act in the best interests of the child. We all agree with that. But the unspoken assumption is that the interests of the child are nearly always best served by the presence of the mother. This is simply wrong. Only in exceptional circumstances will a man be allowed to raise his children - something that outside the justice system and within society is assumed to be inalienable upon his child's birth. The law is creating vast wells of misery, massive discontent, an unstable society of feral children and feckless adolescents who have no understanding of authority, no knowledge of a man's love and how different but equal it is to a woman's. It also creates irresponsible mothers, drifting, hopeless fathers, problem, violent and ill-educated sons and daughters, a disconnection from the extended family and society at large. So many of us are hurting and yet the law will treat the man in court (if my case is typical) with contempt, suspicion, disdain and hostility. He is a father who has already lost his wife, his children, his home and, of course, his money, often his health and frequently his job. Good, eh? No doubt professionals will decry this view. But it is a commonly held one. Everything can be tolerable until the children are taken from you. I cannot begin to describe the awful pain of being handed a note, sanctioned by your (still) wife with whom you had made these little things and had felt them grow and kick and felt intense pride and profound love for before they were even born. You had changed their nappies, taught them to talk and read, wrestled and played with them, walked them to school, picked them up, made tea with them, bathed and dressed them, put them to bed, cuddled them and lain with them in your arms and sung them to sleep. You have felt them and smelt them around you at all times, alert even in sleep to the slightest shift in their breathing. And then you're handed a note that will "allow" you "access" to these things who are the best of you. What have you done? Why are you being punished? When did she assume control? She wants to leave. What's that got to do with the kids and me? Were I to issue her a similar note, what would happen? I still ask these questions. Why is the language that of the prison visit? Why is the person (and I'm being restrained because it is nearly always the woman, but we're actually not meant to say that for fear of being labelled misogynist) who has taken the children, or been left with them, given immense emotional, legal and financial power over the other party? It is at this juncture that things spiral into acrimony, bitterness and hate. Losing control of one's life is a desperate experience - having someone else being able to exert control over it is worse. Some readers will know better than I the incidence of serious illness and alcoholism in men arising from divorce. Isn't this serious enough to insist on change? Count the economic and social cost if that means more to you than the human. What more is required to make men the same in the eyes of the law as they are in the eyes of their children? Both parents must have equal status after separation. There must be an immediate presumption, as there has been in Denmark since January 2002, that the children, where possible, will live with the father 50% of the time. Isn't that eminently civilised? The principle of 50% of everything must pertain. Children are genetically 50% of the man and that selfish gene which drove him to express genetic infinity with his partner through their children cannot just conveniently disappear in some legalistic, Stalinist coup de théâtre. We have seen the rise of dual-career couples; now we need dual-carer couples. An equal child-sharing arrangement would be advantageous in many ways, not least because it would help both parents to be free to earn a living and pursue their independent lives, and thereby achieve and maintain greater amicability between them, which will in turn benefit their children. As to those who can't or won't participate in this arrangement, then the parties can work out something of mutual convenience and benefit to the children. The implication of any order determining the father's allotted time with his children is that he was always of secondary importance. Reasonable contact is an oxymoron. The fact that as a father you are forbidden from seeing your children except at state-appointed moments is by definition unreasonable. The fact that you must visit your family as opposed to live with them is unreasonable. "Contact" with your children should not be infrequent and odd. In public parks on Sundays you can watch the single men with children drag themselves through the false hours in a frantic panic of activity, every second measured and weighed in a moment of state-sanctioned time. I know that what I have written spills from coherent thought into pain and anger. The problem is that this issue is bound up with pain. The law is profoundly flawed. Its laughable pretext of gender neutrality and impartiality must be removed and the true face of bias, discrimination and prejudice fully displayed. There is no harm in being radical when the status quo breeds injustice. I am suggesting: Education in schools that would lead to an understanding of relationships and "familial responsibility". Marriage classes which outline the consequences of having children and their impact upon that contractual agreement. At separation, and before divorce can be contemplated, a mandatory arbitrator who could insist on a staged withdrawal or conciliation before the dispute may be permitted to go to court. And should proceedings move to divorce, a presumption of equal parenting, implying shared responsibility and equal residency. My "50%" proposition has already begun to be assimilated into the mainstream in Denmark and frequently in the United States. I fought for it myself. I had always worked from home. I had money. I took care of the children. I had ample accommodation and a stable relationship with a woman they knew and liked. My former wife worked. Why couldn't the children be with me for 50% of the time? I could not and still don't understand why there was so much opposition. Eventually I succeeded, but I had nearly to bankrupt myself in the process simply to be able to live with my children. How is that in their interests? Finally I was granted full custody. But I never wanted or asked for that. My former wife was not a criminal, so why this punitive measure of taking our children from her? If I disagree with it happening to men, equally so with women. I was given full custody because the professionals involved would not agree that split residence was acceptable, despite the urging of the judge in the case who had sat on international benches making those judgments daily. As I entered court on my first day someone leant over who felt he was doing me a favour. "Whatever you do," he said, "for Chrissakes never say you love your children." Bewildered, I asked: "Why not?" "The court thinks you're being unhealthily extreme if, being a man, you express your love for a child." For two years I shut up while I heard the presumptions in favour of a mother's love. Finally I began articulating the real love that dare not speak its name - that of a father for his child. No law should stand that serves to stifle this. This is an abridged version of a chapter entitled The Real Love that Dare not Speak its Name by Bob Geldof, from Children and their Families, Hart Publishing, Oxford, £31 © Bob Geldof |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A debate, please
What do you want to debate about? I feel this is a good article, though I
admit (as always) that I read very quickly. I am sure I could pick it apart if I had time. I do want to add that I am sure the percentage is high as far as divorce and women taking it all from the husband but I know a lot of folks that divorced and that just didn't happen. My parents for one. They didn't divorce until me and my siblings were almost adults.... I was the youngest at 16-17. There was no 'I want the kids', We stayed where we were without thought. Why move school districts and stuff when we were at an age of moving on our own. Actually, now that I think about it, my Mom didn't offer for us to live with her. Hmm...... well, I might have to bring that up at Christmas. lol She took NOTHING from my father. She got no money, nothing from the retirement funds they saved, no properties that she also helped pay for. No all divorce ends bad. Maybe I should read the article as this might be totally irreverent...... nah, screw it. Tiffany Dennis Here youreply wrote in message ... The Real Love that Dare not Speak its Name The Sunday Times (UK) - Sunday, 7th September 2003 By Bob Geldof http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...6406_1,00.html This is an abridged version of a chapter entitled The Real Love that Dare not Speak its Name by Bob Geldof, from Children and their Families, Hart Publishing, Oxford, £31 Review The father love that dare not speak its name By Bob Geldof When it comes to access to children, divorced men haven't a chance, writes Bob Geldof. In a world of dual-career couples, the law needs to recognise the hands-on parenting role played by many fathers Family law as it currently stands does not work. It is rarely of benefit to the child and promotes injustice, conflict and unhappiness on a massive scale. Most custody rulings show no understanding of contemporary society. The contention that women are inherently better nurturers is wrong. Custody rulings appear to be based on the "sugar and spice and all things nice" school of biological determination rather than on anything more significant. If a woman "mothers" a child, a warm universe of nurturing is conjured. If a man "fathers" a child it simply implies nothing more than the swift biological function involved in the procreative act. If the later 20th century saw the transformation of women's lives, then the 21st century is seeing the transformation of men's lives, and by definition the lives of their children. Nearly half the workforce is female and men now hold a different view of parenting. There are no studies which suggest that a child brought up by a man (as I was) displays any psychological or emotional characteristics different to one raised by a woman. My complaints are not the moans of the unsuccessful litigant at the hands of family law. I, in fact, was "successful". This is someone dismayed by the inappropriateness of the law to the everyday. Nor is this the complaint of the proto-misogynist - indeed the law is so inept that it produces misandrists in equal measure - but rather the irritation and anger of someone who sees exact parallels with women's struggle against bias and prejudice. What's sauce for the goose, as they say, is sauce for the gander - except, of course, in the eyes of family law, where the man ceases to be an equal partner in anything but name. A husband had better hang on to his marriage or risk losing everything he has had and be forced under pain of pursuit, prosecution and imprisonment to be a wage slave for life. There is grave injustice here. Many may read Bob the embittered, abandoned husband in this. They would be quite wrong. My personal response to my situation was shock and dismay, pain, emptiness and loss. I was embittered only with the law and my consequent lack of rights as a man. I am only too aware of the pain that women suffer in divorce, but it is equally true that it is as nothing compared with the financial and emotional loss suffered by men. She may lose her man, he loses the lot. If he is the offending party, people believe that it's right that he should leave the house and kids and pay for them. He even half-thinks this in his guilt. But rarely does he think: I've got a new woman, I'm happier, so I'll just take the kids and go off to this new life. Indeed, society would view it askance if he took the kids. Why? We don't if she does precisely the same. Why? It is this type of confused thinking, lying at the heart of family law, that allows it to be unjustly weighted in favour of women. This is acknowledged by most commentators and lawyers when they are being honest. I can accept that this was not the intent. The intent is that the law should always act in the best interests of the child. We all agree with that. But the unspoken assumption is that the interests of the child are nearly always best served by the presence of the mother. This is simply wrong. Only in exceptional circumstances will a man be allowed to raise his children - something that outside the justice system and within society is assumed to be inalienable upon his child's birth. The law is creating vast wells of misery, massive discontent, an unstable society of feral children and feckless adolescents who have no understanding of authority, no knowledge of a man's love and how different but equal it is to a woman's. It also creates irresponsible mothers, drifting, hopeless fathers, problem, violent and ill-educated sons and daughters, a disconnection from the extended family and society at large. So many of us are hurting and yet the law will treat the man in court (if my case is typical) with contempt, suspicion, disdain and hostility. He is a father who has already lost his wife, his children, his home and, of course, his money, often his health and frequently his job. Good, eh? No doubt professionals will decry this view. But it is a commonly held one. Everything can be tolerable until the children are taken from you. I cannot begin to describe the awful pain of being handed a note, sanctioned by your (still) wife with whom you had made these little things and had felt them grow and kick and felt intense pride and profound love for before they were even born. You had changed their nappies, taught them to talk and read, wrestled and played with them, walked them to school, picked them up, made tea with them, bathed and dressed them, put them to bed, cuddled them and lain with them in your arms and sung them to sleep. You have felt them and smelt them around you at all times, alert even in sleep to the slightest shift in their breathing. And then you're handed a note that will "allow" you "access" to these things who are the best of you. What have you done? Why are you being punished? When did she assume control? She wants to leave. What's that got to do with the kids and me? Were I to issue her a similar note, what would happen? I still ask these questions. Why is the language that of the prison visit? Why is the person (and I'm being restrained because it is nearly always the woman, but we're actually not meant to say that for fear of being labelled misogynist) who has taken the children, or been left with them, given immense emotional, legal and financial power over the other party? It is at this juncture that things spiral into acrimony, bitterness and hate. Losing control of one's life is a desperate experience - having someone else being able to exert control over it is worse. Some readers will know better than I the incidence of serious illness and alcoholism in men arising from divorce. Isn't this serious enough to insist on change? Count the economic and social cost if that means more to you than the human. What more is required to make men the same in the eyes of the law as they are in the eyes of their children? Both parents must have equal status after separation. There must be an immediate presumption, as there has been in Denmark since January 2002, that the children, where possible, will live with the father 50% of the time. Isn't that eminently civilised? The principle of 50% of everything must pertain. Children are genetically 50% of the man and that selfish gene which drove him to express genetic infinity with his partner through their children cannot just conveniently disappear in some legalistic, Stalinist coup de théâtre. We have seen the rise of dual-career couples; now we need dual-carer couples. An equal child-sharing arrangement would be advantageous in many ways, not least because it would help both parents to be free to earn a living and pursue their independent lives, and thereby achieve and maintain greater amicability between them, which will in turn benefit their children. As to those who can't or won't participate in this arrangement, then the parties can work out something of mutual convenience and benefit to the children. The implication of any order determining the father's allotted time with his children is that he was always of secondary importance. Reasonable contact is an oxymoron. The fact that as a father you are forbidden from seeing your children except at state-appointed moments is by definition unreasonable. The fact that you must visit your family as opposed to live with them is unreasonable. "Contact" with your children should not be infrequent and odd. In public parks on Sundays you can watch the single men with children drag themselves through the false hours in a frantic panic of activity, every second measured and weighed in a moment of state-sanctioned time. I know that what I have written spills from coherent thought into pain and anger. The problem is that this issue is bound up with pain. The law is profoundly flawed. Its laughable pretext of gender neutrality and impartiality must be removed and the true face of bias, discrimination and prejudice fully displayed. There is no harm in being radical when the status quo breeds injustice. I am suggesting: Education in schools that would lead to an understanding of relationships and "familial responsibility". Marriage classes which outline the consequences of having children and their impact upon that contractual agreement. At separation, and before divorce can be contemplated, a mandatory arbitrator who could insist on a staged withdrawal or conciliation before the dispute may be permitted to go to court. And should proceedings move to divorce, a presumption of equal parenting, implying shared responsibility and equal residency. My "50%" proposition has already begun to be assimilated into the mainstream in Denmark and frequently in the United States. I fought for it myself. I had always worked from home. I had money. I took care of the children. I had ample accommodation and a stable relationship with a woman they knew and liked. My former wife worked. Why couldn't the children be with me for 50% of the time? I could not and still don't understand why there was so much opposition. Eventually I succeeded, but I had nearly to bankrupt myself in the process simply to be able to live with my children. How is that in their interests? Finally I was granted full custody. But I never wanted or asked for that. My former wife was not a criminal, so why this punitive measure of taking our children from her? If I disagree with it happening to men, equally so with women. I was given full custody because the professionals involved would not agree that split residence was acceptable, despite the urging of the judge in the case who had sat on international benches making those judgments daily. As I entered court on my first day someone leant over who felt he was doing me a favour. "Whatever you do," he said, "for Chrissakes never say you love your children." Bewildered, I asked: "Why not?" "The court thinks you're being unhealthily extreme if, being a man, you express your love for a child." For two years I shut up while I heard the presumptions in favour of a mother's love. Finally I began articulating the real love that dare not speak its name - that of a father for his child. No law should stand that serves to stifle this. This is an abridged version of a chapter entitled The Real Love that Dare not Speak its Name by Bob Geldof, from Children and their Families, Hart Publishing, Oxford, £31 © Bob Geldof |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A debate, please
I'm not debating anything other than to say, divorce hurts everyone and I've
never found that debates over who suffers more to be of any use whatsover. Often the problems that the system cause some are an unintended result of "fixing" the system. Could it be improved? Yes. Can the law ever make it so someone doesn't get hurt when a man and a woman don't, won't, can't stick together to raise their children? I doubt it. Joelle |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A debate, please
"Dennis Here" wrote in message ... The father love that dare not speak its name By Bob Geldof snipped the article That was just way too many words for me to read... Is anyone able to sum it all up? Or nevermind... I'll read it a few paragraphs at a time... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A debate, please
Is anyone able to sum it all up?
Men suffer more than women in divorce and custody. Joelle |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A debate, please
"Tiffany" wrote in message ... delurk She took NOTHING from my father. She got no money, nothing from the retirement funds they saved, no properties that she also helped pay for. No all divorce ends bad. Did you mean to say not all divorce ends bad for *men*, or not all divorce ends bad? In this case, it sounds like it ended bad for your mom. She helped save for retirement, and helped pay for the properties - it seems like they should have split the assets fairly. It is just as wrong for the man to keep everything and the wife get nothing as it is in the reverse case. Things have to be fair for *both* genders, or they aren't fair for *either*. Unless there is more to the story that I'm unaware of, the case of your parents doesn't sound like it ended well at all.... relurk Maybe I should read the article as this might be totally irreverent...... nah, screw it. Tiffany |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A debate, please
being a Dad with custody... here are my 2 cents
the non-custodial parent suffers, unless both parents work together to keep the parenting partnership alive. having said that .... history has proven the courts crucify the fathers and coddle the mothers. hell, I receive $21/mo child support while my x has a good job and does not report her earnings. what I find more disturbing is that she is now divorced from the man she left me for and He pays a bucket load of money a month for the two children they have together. I don't think this is an unusual situation. i often think about the equal rights amendment when I think about Dads and custody. don't get me wrong, I am not bitter about the finances. I worked three jobs after my divorce without seeing a dime for years. The few times I officially questioned the process and was swiftly swept under the rug put me in my place (the single dad bin). I am just happy and thankful being a Dad and praise God that I can spend every day with my Son, damn the rest- Scott "Joelle" wrote in message ... Is anyone able to sum it all up? Men suffer more than women in divorce and custody. Joelle |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A debate, please
fairly_happy wrote in message ... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... delurk She took NOTHING from my father. She got no money, nothing from the retirement funds they saved, no properties that she also helped pay for. No all divorce ends bad. Did you mean to say not all divorce ends bad for *men*, or not all divorce ends bad? In this case, it sounds like it ended bad for your mom. She helped save for retirement, and helped pay for the properties - it seems like they should have split the assets fairly. It is just as wrong for the man to keep everything and the wife get nothing as it is in the reverse case. Things have to be fair for *both* genders, or they aren't fair for *either*. Unless there is more to the story that I'm unaware of, the case of your parents doesn't sound like it ended well at all.... relurk Her thinking was she was leaving, for another man at that, so she didn't think it was right to take anything. She didn't contribute equally to the assets, also. She definitely didn't make enough money for it to be equal. In the eyes of the judge though, she would have still gotten half. I mean that not all divorce ends bad for men. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A debate, please
"Scott" wrote in message nk.net... I am just happy and thankful being a Dad and praise God that I can spend every day with my Son, damn the rest- Scott It's all that matters anyways Scott. Wether it's woman getting an unfair shake in some aspects, or men in others, at the end of the day, just be glad you actually have custody, and enjoy your son |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A debate, please
Another lurker's 2 cents......................In my divorce they gave me the
max cs of 450 a month for one child. When circumstances changed and I was able to gain custody my ex;s cs was supposed to be 200 but the judge said in light of her personal circumstances the court will adjust it to 150. Simply because she chose to not work everyday........going on 5 years and I've seen a grand total of 250 dollars. "Scott" wrote in message nk.net... being a Dad with custody... here are my 2 cents the non-custodial parent suffers, unless both parents work together to keep the parenting partnership alive. having said that .... history has proven the courts crucify the fathers and coddle the mothers. hell, I receive $21/mo child support while my x has a good job and does not report her earnings. what I find more disturbing is that she is now divorced from the man she left me for and He pays a bucket load of money a month for the two children they have together. I don't think this is an unusual situation. i often think about the equal rights amendment when I think about Dads and custody. don't get me wrong, I am not bitter about the finances. I worked three jobs after my divorce without seeing a dime for years. The few times I officially questioned the process and was swiftly swept under the rug put me in my place (the single dad bin). I am just happy and thankful being a Dad and praise God that I can spend every day with my Son, damn the rest- Scott "Joelle" wrote in message ... Is anyone able to sum it all up? Men suffer more than women in divorce and custody. Joelle |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chemically beating children: Pinellas Poisoners Heilman and Talley | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 4th 04 11:26 PM |
Doan's phony offer to "debate" | Kane | Spanking | 35 | May 19th 04 08:18 AM |
Doan lies yet again..was.. Kane0 lies again Doan's phony offer to "debate" | Kane | Spanking | 6 | May 14th 04 02:10 AM |
Classic Droan was R R R R, should I DOUBLE DARE HIM? ..was... LaVonne | Kane | Spanking | 0 | April 17th 04 07:13 PM |
Lavoone's own parents beat her unmercifully | Doan | General | 5 | April 4th 04 06:52 AM |