Father’s Rights and Violence Against Women
by Dr. Michael Flood
In this talk, I’m going to focus on the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement, and their impact on violence against women.
Introduction: The fathers’ rights movement
The fathers’ rights movement is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as men and fathers, in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists. Fathers’ rights groups overlap with men’s rights groups and both represent an organised backlash to feminism. Fathers’ rights and men’s rights groups can be seen as the anti-feminist wing of the men’s movement, the network of men’s groups and organisations mobilised on gender issues (Flood, 1998).
Two experiences bring most men (and women) to the fathers’ rights movement. The first is deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles. Fathers’ rights groups are characterised by anger and blame directed at ex-partners and the ‘system’ that has deprived men or fathers of their ‘rights’, and such themes are relatively common among men who have undergone separation and divorce. The second experience is non-resident fathers’ dissatisfaction with loss of contact with their children or with regimes of child support.
The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives, on gaining an equality concerned with fathers’ ‘rights’ and status rather than the actual care of children, and on winding back legal and cultural changes which have lessened gender inequalities.
Fathers’ rights groups are well-organised advocates for changes in family law, and vocal opponents of feminist perspectives and achievements on interpersonal violence.
Impact of the fathers’ rights movement on violence against women
The fathers’ rights movement has had four forms of impact on violence against women.
Priviledging contact over safety
Most importantly, the fathers’ rights movement has influenced family law, with damaging consequences for women, children, and indeed men. Above all, fathers’ contact with children has been privileged, over children’s safety from violence. [See The Custody Scam, the story of Dawn Axsom, Child Abuse: When Family Courts Get it Wrong, Letter to Judge from Jury foreman regarding prosecution of mother trying to protect her children from abusive father, or watch the PBS documentary Breaking The Silence; Children’s Stories at the bottom of this post.–Deborrah]
An uncritical assumption that children’s contact with both parents is necessary now pervades the courts and the media. The Family Court’s new principle of the ‘right to contact’ is overriding its principle of the right to ‘safety from violence’. The Court now is more likely to make interim orders for children’s unsupervised contact in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse, to use hand-over arrangements rather than suspend contact until trial, and to make orders for joint residence where there is a high level of conflict between the separated parents and one parent strongly objects to shared residence.
The fathers’ rights movement has been unsuccessful in achieving its key goal of a rebuttable presumption of children’s joint residence after separation. However, other changes in family law and government policy over the last two years have reflected its influence. Recent reforms mean that greater numbers of parents who are the victims of violence will be subject to further violence and harassment by abusive ex-partners, while children will face a greater requirement to have contact with abusive or violent parents.
Current government policy echoes many of the key themes of the fathers’ rights movement. Both government policy and many fathers’ rights groups are guided by two central, and mistaken, assumptions: that all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all (DVIRC, 2005, pp. 5-6). Both bodies talk of ‘conflict’ rather than violence, neglect violence as a legitimate issue for the courts and family services to address, emphasise mediation and counseling as solutions, and focus on punishing women for making false allegations or breaching contact orders.
Discrediting victims
The second impact the fathers’ rights movement has had on violence against women is in discrediting victims. Fathers’ rights groups tell two key lies.
First, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make false accusations of child abuse to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.
Second, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence.
I have written detailed critiques of these first two lies, and they are available both online and in the latest issue of the Australian journal Women Against Violence. I can send copies to anyone who wishes.
Men’s versus women’s violence (Impact on perceptions of intimate violence)
Related to this, the fathers’ rights movement also has had some impact on public perceptions of intimate violence. In particular, it tells the lie that domestic violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral – that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects.
While I’ve called this a lie, this is one claim for which there is some academic support.
To support the claim that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical, advocates draw almost exclusively on studies using a measurement tool called the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS situates domestic violence within the context of “family conflict”. It asks one partner in a relationship whether, in the last year, they or their spouse have ever committed any of a range of violent acts. CTS studies generally find gender symmetries in the use of violence in relationships. There are three problems with the use made of such studies by fathers’ rights activists.
First, men’s rights and fathers’ rights groups make only selective use of this data, as CTS authors themselves reject efforts to argue that women’s violence against men is as common or as harmful as men’s violence against women (Kimmel 2001, p. 22).
Second, there are methodological problems with the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS is widely criticized for not gathering information about the intensity, context, consequences or meaning of the action. The CTS ignores who initiates the violence (when women are more likely to use violence in self-defense), assumes that violence is used expressively (e.g. in anger) and not instrumentally (to ‘do’ power or control), omits violent acts such as sexual abuse, stalking and intimate homicide, ignores the history of violence in the relationship, neglects the question of who is injured, relies on only one partner’s reports despite poor interspousal reliability, and omits incidents after separation and divorce, which is a time of increased danger for women.
Third, a wide range of other data find marked gender asymmetries in domestic violence. For example, crime victimization studies based on large-scale aggregate data, household and crime surveys, police statistics, and hospital data all show that men assault their partners and ex-partners at rates several times the rate at which women assault theirs and that female victims greatly outnumber male victims (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000, pp. 25-26).
Feminist and other scholars have worked to reconcile the conflicting findings of these bodies of data. One important insight is the recognition of different patterns of violent behaviour in couples and relationships. Some heterosexual relationships suffer from occasional outbursts of violence by either husbands or wives during conflicts, what some (Johnson 1995, 284-285) call “common couple violence”.
Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. In situations of “patriarchal terrorism” on the other hand, one partner (usually the man) uses violence and other controlling tactics to assert or restore power and authority. The violence is more severe, it is asymmetrical, it is instrumental in meaning, it tends to escalate, and injuries are more likely.
CTS studies are only a weak measure of levels of minor ‘expressive’ violence in conflicts among heterosexual couples. They are poorer again as a measure of ‘instrumental’ violence, in which one partner uses violence and other tactics to assert power and authority (Johnson 1995, 284–285).
There is no doubt that men are the victims of domestic violence. Men experience domestic violence at the hands of female and male sexual partners, ex-partners, and other family members.
A growing body of research tells us that there are important contrasts in women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. Women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to fear for their lives, and to be sexually assaulted (Kimmel 2001, 19; Bagshaw et al. 2000). Men subjected to domestic violence by women rarely experience post-separation violence and have more financial and social independence. Female perpetrators of domestic violence are less likely and less able than male perpetrators to use nonphysical tactics to maintain control over their partners (Swan & Snow 2002, 291-292).
Women’s physical violence towards intimate male partners is often in self-defense (DeKeseredy et al. 1997; Hamberger et al. 1994; Swan & Snow 2002, 301; Muelleman & Burgess 1998, 866). On the other hand, women’s intimate violence can also be motivated by efforts to show anger, a desire for attention, retaliation for emotional hurt, and so on (Hamberger et al. 1994). It is inadequate to explain women’s violence simply in terms of their own oppression and powerlessness, and naïve to assume that women are immune from using violence to gain or maintain power in relationships (Russo 2001, 16-19).
Men are likely to under-estimate and under-report their subjection to domestic violence by women (George 1994, 149; Stockdale 1998, 63). There is no evidence however that male victims are more likely to under-report than female victims. In fact, men tend to over-estimate their partner’s violence and under-estimate their own, while women do the reverse (Kimmel 2001, 10-11).
The fathers’ rights movement’s attention to domestic violence against men is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victimisation, but by political agendas concerning family law, child custody and divorce (Kaye & Tolmie 1998, pp. 53-57). This is evident in two ways.
First, the fathers’ rights movement focuses on this violence when the great majority of the violence inflicted on men is not by female partners or ex-partners but by other men. Australian crime victimisation surveys find that less than one percent of violent incidents among men is by partners or ex-partners, compared to one-third of incidents among women (Ferrante et al. 1996, 104). Boys and men are most at risk of physical harm from other boys and men.
Second, the fathers rights’ movement seeks to erode the protections available to victims of domestic violence and to bolster the rights and freedoms of alleged perpetrators, and this harms female and male victims of domestic violence alike. I turn to this now.
Protecting perpetrators and undermining supports for victims
The fourth way in which the fathers’ rights movement has had an impact on violence against women is in its efforts to modify responses to the victims and perpetrators of violence.
The fathers’ rights movement has sought to wind back the protections afforded to the fictitious ‘victims’ of violence and to introduce legal penalties for their dishonest and malicious behavior. The Lone Fathers’ Association and other groups argue that claims of violence or abuse should be made on oath, they should require police or hospital records, and people making allegations which are not then substantiated, and those who’ve helped them, should be subject to criminal prosecution. They call for similar limitations to do with protection orders.
Fathers’ rights groups also attempt to undermine the ways in which domestic violence is treated as criminal behavior. They emphasise the need to keep the family together, call for the greater use of mediation and counseling, and reject pro-arrest policies.
Such changes would represent a profound erosion of the protections and legal redress available to the victims of violence and the ease with which they and their advocates can seek justice. This agenda betrays the fact that the concern for male victims of domestic violence often professed by fathers’ rights groups is rhetorical rather than real. While such groups purport to advocate on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, they seek to undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.
Fathers’ rights groups often respond to issues of domestic and sexual violence from the point of view of the perpetrator. And they respond in the same way as actual male perpetrators: they minimise and deny the extent of this violence, blame the victim, and explain the violence as a mutual or reciprocal process (Hearn, 1996, p. 105).
This sympathy for perpetrators is evident in other ways too. Fathers’ rights advocates have expressed sympathy or justification for men who use violence against women and children in the context of family law proceedings. And, ironically, they use men’s violence to demonstrate how victimised men are by the family law system (Kaye & Tolmie, 1998a, pp. 57-58).
Members of fathers’ rights groups also act as direct advocates for alleged perpetrators of violence against women. For example, one group distributes pamphlets for ‘victims of a false AVO’, giving no attention to how to respond to ‘true’ perpetrators of violence nor to the safety of family members.
Fathers’ rights groups also attack media and community campaigns focused on men’s violence against women, call for the de-funding and abolition of what they call the “domestic violence industry”, and engage in the harassment of community sector and women’s organisations which respond to the victims of violence.
Other, positive responses by men: The White Ribbon Campaign
This is all pretty depressing news. In this context, I’ve been especially heartened to see a growing positive response by men, in alliance with women, to help stop violence against women. I will focus on one such response.
White Ribbon Day is the largest effort by men across the world, working in partnership with women, to end men’s violence against women. White ribbons are worn on the day by men to show their concern about violence against women, and by women who are supporting men. It takes place on November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
In Australia, White Ribbon Day is organised in part by UNIFEM, a women’s organisation, but it is conducted in partnership with men and men’s organisations. The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on the positive roles that men can play in helping to stop violence against women.
To find out more, visit the website: http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/
Conclusion
To continue our efforts to prevent violence, several strategies are necessary.
We must continue to respond effectively to those who’ve experienced this violence, the coalface work that some of you already do.
We must continue to keep the issue of violence against women on the public agenda.
We must step up efforts to engage men in positive ways, building partnerships with supportive men and men’s groups. We must confront, or sidestep, the dangerous ambitions and dishonest claims of the men’s and fathers’ rights backlash.
The achievements of the father’s rights movement are already putting women, children and indeed men at greater risk of violence and abuse. The fathers’ rights movement has exacerbated our culture’s systematic silencing and blaming of victims of violence and hampered efforts to respond effectively to the victims and perpetrators of violence.
However, the new politics of fatherhood has not been entirely captured by the fathers’ rights movement. There is potential to foster men’s positive and non-violent involvement in parenting and families. Key resources for realising the progressive potential of contemporary fatherhood politics include the widespread imagery of the nurturing father, community intolerance for violence against women, growing policy interest in addressing divisions of labour in child care and domestic work, and men’s own investments in positive parenting.
However, thwarting the fathers’ rights movement’s backlash requires that we directly confront the movement’s agenda, disseminate critiques of its false accusations, and respond in constructive and accountable ways to the fathers (and mothers) undergoing separation and divorce (Flood, 2004, pp 274-278).
Beating the backlash
The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the fathers’ rights backlash.
Discredit fathers’ rights groups. Emphasise that they;
- Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;
- Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over ex-partners and children.
- Do nothing to increase men’s actual share of childcare / parenting or men’s positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.
- Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.
- Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and accessible.
- Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;
- Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)
- Build on men’s desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.
- Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men’s / fathers’ networks and groups.
‘Speaking as a father…’
Tell women’s stories
Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.
In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.
(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women’s (diverse) experiences of violence, and (c) undermine credibility and support. )
Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic, etc.
More widely, we must continue do the work of violence prevention: to undermine the beliefs and values which support violence, challenge the power relations which sustain and are sustained by violence, and promote alternative constructions of gender and sexuality which foster non-violence and gender justice.
Contact the Author:
Dr Michael Flood
Postdoctoral Fellow
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS)
La Trobe University
E-mail: michael.flood[at]anu.edu.au
PO Box 4026, Ainslie ACT, 2602
Presentation in Panel, “Myths, Misconceptions, and the Men’s Movement”, at Conference, Refocusing Women’s Experiences of Violence, Sydney, 14-16 September.
Sign this petition to stop court ordered child abuse in your Congressional district!
Deborrah
Veteran social researcher, relationship advice columnist, author and radio host. Author of hundreds of articles on American and black culture, gender issues, singles, dating and relationships. Author of "Sucka Free Love!" , "The 24 Types of Suckas to Avoid," "The Black Church - Where Women Pray and Men Pray," and "Why Vegan is the New Black" all available on Amazon.Com. Her unique voice and insightful commentary have delighted fans and riled haters for 20 years. Read her stuff on SurvivingDating.Com and AskHeartBeat.Com.
Follow Me:
Category: Men's Issues
Yet another article that shows Worlwide men commit heinous acts against children and women mostly out of spite against the mother.
This happened in Brazil on Monday.
*************************************************************************************************
Brazil – Stepfather ‘tried to kill’ needle boy
Monday, 21 December 2009
The Brazilian man who pushed dozens of sewing needles into his two-year-old stepson says he wanted to kill him to spite his wife, say media reports.
Roberto Carlos Magalhaes, 30, made his confession in a telephone interview from jail with Globo Television.
The boy is recovering after surgery to remove the needles, which came perilously close to his heart.
Mr Magalhaes said he got the boy drunk on wine before inserting the needles, up to three times in a month.
“It was a crazy idea. I mixed wine with water and had him drink it. He drank it and passed out, then I inserted the needles,” he told Globo’s Fantastico programme.
“It was to get back at the boy’s mother. I thought the needles would work their way through his body and kill the boy. It was a way to kill without anyone discovering.”
‘Ritual killing’
X-rays revealed some 30 needles lodged throughout the child’s body.
Four needles were removed by surgery on Friday, and doctors are planning more operations to extract needles from the boy’s abdomen, intestines and bladder.
Brazilian police said last week the stepfather had confessed to sticking the needles into the toddler with the help of another man and a woman.
Police said Mr Magalhaes, a bricklayer, told them his mistress had urged him to ritually kill the child to take revenge on his wife.
The boy’s mother had taken him to hospital in the north-eastern state of Bahia, suffering from stomach pains and vomiting.
She suspected the child had been the victim of a black magic ritual after she found suspicious objects in the home she shared with Mr Magalhaes – her husband of six months – and her six children.
In response to the poster that wanted acknowledgement that women kill children, no one ever said they didn’t. Where did you ever get that idea from?
All we are saying is that the vast and overwhelming majority of child molestation, rapes and murders are committed by MEN. Either the father, step-father or some other person the child is acquainted with and trusts. Here are just a few of the thousands of recent cases where some unbalanced man with no patience, or who failed to control his lust did things to a child and the child’s mother that he should not have done:
Father Murders Daughter Pregnant With His Child
http://article.wn.com/view/2009/10/13/Father_murders_daughter_pregnant_with_his_child/
Father of Dead Woman’s Child Charged With Murder
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/father-of-dead-woman-s-child-charged-with-murder-1.1644843
Father Murders Former Lover and Child Then Commits Suicide
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-437242/Father-murders-lover-child-flat-commits-suicide.html
Five Children Slaughtered by Father Before Suicide
http://www.kirotv.com/news/19096866/detail.html
Severely Beaten Infant Dies – Father Charged With Murder
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=8778300&nid=148
Fathers Who Kill Their Children
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/ukcrime.lornamartin
Oklahoma Father Murders 9 Year Old Son
http://justice4mothers.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/oklahoma-father-murders-9-year-old-son-mother-injured-trying-to-protect-him/
Family Annilhilators – How Could a Father Murder His Child?
http://womensgrid.freecharity.org.uk/?p=153
Step-Father Charged With Murder of Infant
http://wake.mync.com/site/wake/news/story/44260/raleigh-man-charged-with-murder-of-infant/
Father of Hypothermia Victim, 11, Charged With Murder
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473785,00.html
8 Year Old Arizona Boy Kills Father and Dad’s Friend – Abuse Reported as Motive
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/08/national/main4586103.shtml
Murder Added To Father’s Charges After Child Dies From Apparent Abuse
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/108949/
Father Who Strangled Child’s Mother Then Abandoned 3 Year Old Daughter in Train Station Arrested for Murder
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/father-who-abandoned-child-on-trial-for-murder-1694729.html
Jury selection today for father charged with child abuse, murder
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/photos.aspx?id=383825
Father’s Murder of 5 Children Makes No Sense
http://www.examiner.com/x-257-Seattle-Crime-Examiner~y2009m4d5-Fathers-murder-of-children-makes-no-sense
Child Dead – Father Charged With Murder
http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/child_dead_father_charged_in_shooting_incident/18691/
Father, 3 Children Die in Apparent Murder-Suicide
http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/father-3-children-die-in-apparent-murder-suicide-in-hiroshima
Father Murders Baby Boy to Avoid Child Support
http://www.uslaw.com/library/Family_Law/Father_Allegedly_Murders_Baby_Boy_Intending_Avoid_Child_Support_Arrear.php?item=351499
Molested by Father
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Molestation-1453/Molested-father.htm
Father Murdered Daughter Over X-Box Game
http://www.destructoid.com/father-who-murdered-his-child-over-xbox-360-on-trial-the-media-are-all-bloodthirsty-jackals-28627.phtml
Convicted child killer Couey dies in prison, Florida officials say
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/30/florida.couey.dead/
Convicted Child Murder’s Wife Wants a Divorce
http://www.divorcesaloon.com/south-africa-convicted-child-murder-van-der-westhuizens-wife-wants-a-divorce
Three Year Old Girl Sexually Molested by Father
http://www.theattorneysforum.com/alimony-child-support/781-3-year-old-daughter-sexually-molested-father.html
My Own Father Molested Me
http://www.secrettalk.com/secrets/my-own-father-molested-me/14315405/
Saudis Behead, Crucify Convicted Child Molester, Murderer
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523364,00.html?test=latestnews
Convicted Child Rapist, Murderer Denied Clemency
http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/crime/article/convicted_child_rapist_murderer_asks_2_courts_for_stay/23110/
Convicted Child Murderer
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e9d_1219326296
Man Convicted of Child Murder
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9406E5D91F30E533A25751C1A9679D94679FD7CF
http://crime.about.com/od/history/tp/Child-Killers.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-140246299.html
http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2009/11/12/r_9oupwprjts6fiv6oj4lkqa/index.xml
@Dave
Let’s agree to disagree on this article and leave it at that. You can interpret it the way you want and I’ll read what I see. We don’t HAVE to see things the way you want us to Dave just because you want us to see it.
You wrote:
“I hope that you are intelligent enough to see this and honest enough to admit it.”
Don’t worry about my intellect, worry about your own. I can read and decifer this article for myself. You do realize that 10 people can read the same article and each interpret it based on their own frame of reference which is what you’re doing. You can’t impose where you’re coming from when you read this article on where I’m coming from when I read it.
Get what you want to get out of reading it and leave it at that. NOTHING you’ve written will change what I view when I read this article. So you can stop trying to beat me over the head with YOUR truth and what YOU want me to get out of this article ok? Just be content with what you see and let others read and get out of it what they see.
Raz says:
“You continue to say that this article is biased towards ALL FATHERS and I continue to say that it isn’t.”
Nope. This article clearly focuses on the fathers’ rights movement, period. Once again: “The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives.” The author clearly categorizes all fathers’ rights groups as the enemy of womankind who are intent on getting control of their women and “gaining an equality concerned with fathers’ ‘rights’ and status rather than the actual care of children, and on winding back legal and cultural changes which have lessened gender inequalities.” Those are the author’s own words. Are you not able to see this?
This guy is clearly trying to portray all of those involved in the fathers’ rights group as the enemy to women. What a joke! I can post a whole laundry list of fathers’ rights groups that were either founded by women or have women who hold prominent positions in their organization. I am proud to say that I have worked with a couple of these groups to bring about some much needed reform in my home state.
“People use legitimate platforms with well meaning intentions all the time to push their own agenda and this brings about a bad reputation for the organization as a whole.”
Absolutely! But that is not what this article says. I would have no beef with it if it were worded in that manner, but it isn’t. There are also women who use domestic violence programs and child abuse programs to push their own personal agenda. I hope that you are intelligent enough to see this and honest enough to admit it.
@Mr_Book
wrote
“Hey Raz, explain to me how a male is responsible for this:”
Why don’t you answer your own question. I don’t answer rhetorical questions. Besides don’t even try it. Don’t go there pulling up articles depicting what women do vs men. For every 1 article you find, I could locate 5 depicting men committing violent acts against women and children worlwide! The fact remains whether you and Dave and other men wish to accept it or not is that WORLD WIDE, men commit violent acts against women and children in far greater numbers EVERYDAY!!
@Dave
wrote:
” Absolutely! All people, men and women, who do this should be addressed. But let’s do this by focusing on the people who are committing the abuse, not by trying to generate mass hysteria by making false, unsubstantiated claims on a whole group of people based upon nothing more than gender.’
Dave
You’re the one who needs some perspective. You’re the one who is so defensive against any critique against men that you see only what you want to see in this article. You’re too busy being defensive to get past that barrier to see what the article is actually addressing. Your defensiveness acts as a deflection and keeps you from looking at all sides of the issue.
I see an article addressing the negative impact of the ‘Father’s Right’s movement and the effect it is having on women and children of divorce. You see an article that is simply bashing all males because of their gender.
Read your own last paragraph and see how you took this entire article. It’s written there in your last summation paragraph. You’re the one who can’t separate gender from what this article is really discussing. You’re the one who thinks that any critique of men is male bashing and ALL men are being bashed.
You only want people to focus on the good the Father’s Right movement supposedly does while ignoring the negative fall out of this same group.
You and I must be reading 2 different articles because we are getting two different interpretations from it. You are viewing it through ‘your eyes’ and I am viewing it through mine. You continue to say that this article is biased towards ALL FATHERS and I continue to say that it isn’t. You think that people lack the sense to know the difference. Those to whom this article doesn’t apply then pass it on by. But there are men within the Father’s Rights movement who do use this as a platform to commit revengeful hateful violence against their ex spouses and children and cases have been documented by social workers, courts etc.. where kids have been abused by angry vengeful fathers who use the Father’s Right movement to exact personal revenge against their ex SO out of spite. Again not ALL, (get that through your skull OK?) But a significant number of cases have been documented enough that is is noticable and hence the criticism of what is happening as a result of the Father’s Rights movement and its impact on women and children of divorce.
You may not want to accept this but it is true. People use legitimate platforms with well meaning intentions all the time to push their own agenda and this brings about a bad reputation for the organization as a whole. Accept that this is going on within the Father’s movement. Not every father within that movement is operating from a ‘good place. Some are, but not all. But just because some are, doesn’t mean the ones who aren’t should be ignored or the issue of the negative impact of the Father’s movement caused by those father’s who aren’t operating from a ‘good place’ should go ignored.
There is truth behind what the author has written. You don’t have to like it but it is there. Also accept that people have sense enough to know that this doesn’t apply to ALL fathers within the father’s right movement, but for the percentage that it does apply, it is noticed, and people are going to call them on that shyt. Simple as that.
You just don’t want this group criticized period and you are outraged that people are daring to speak out against the negative flak that is the fall out behind this Father’s right movement. Well too bad.
This group isn’t beyond reproach and people have a right to come on this blog speak out against the negative outcomes that this Father’s right group is generating.
Raz says:
“When I read this article I automatically realize that this article is not talking about ALL Men so no need to bring out the ‘ALL’ police. I know this, but for those men who this applies to then this article is on point.”
I’m glad that you believe this, unfortunately that is not what this article portrays. In the very opening of the article the author sets the tone with the completely false statement: “The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives.” It only goes down hill from there. The author clearly attempts to paint the fathers’ right movement as collection of people intent on helping abusive men. The author is either ignorant of what the fathers’ rights movement is about or he is deliberately attempting to mislead people about it for his own purposes.
Raz says:
“Men violently retaliating against ex spouses SHOULD be addressed.”
Absolutely! All people, men and women, who do this should be addressed. But let’s do this by focusing on the people who are committing the abuse, not by trying to generate mass hysteria by making false, unsubstantiated claims on a whole group of people based upon nothing more than gender.
Hey Raz, explain to me how a male is responsible for this:
http://www.news.com.au/national/rachel-pfitzner-who-dumped-sons-body-in-pond-jailed-for-19-years/story-e6frfkwi-1225808694633
@Dave
you wrote
“The fact is, the overwhelming number of parents, male and female, love their children and only want the best for them.”
When I read this article I automatically realize that this article is not talking about ALL Men so no need to bring out the “ALL” police. I know this, but for those men who this applies to then this article is on point.
I know that there are men out there who don’t abuse their kids and are good fathers and even after a divorce they continue to play an active role in their kids life. I personally know men like this, however that said, this doesn’t mean that one should ignore that there is a growing concern for the men who are violent and use the Father’s Right movement as a platform to commit violence against the spouses who rejected them and the children who get caught in the middle. Men violently retaliating against ex spouses SHOULD be addressed.
Your attempt to come on this board and deflect by using the worn out reasoning of ‘So women do it too’ doesn’t change the fact that world wide men commit violent acts against women and children everyday and that crimes against women by their SO is on the rise!
Just because ALL men don’t do it doesn’t mean people who realize that there are atrocities that are committed against women by men under the guise of these Father Rights movement should not be addressed.
You seem to want people to not have a voice or say anything at all. You have this ‘all or nothing attitude as though the author of the article and the owner of this blog have no right to say anything against the Father’s right movement unless the criteria is met and that is ‘ALL Fathers are committing crimes against women and they are child abusers. That seems to be your threshold.
If there are 10 men in a contentious situation involving women and children and 4 of those men committed a violent act against the woman and child but the other 6 did not, you seem to think that’s ok. Well since the majority of men don’t do these dastardly deeds no need to sound the alarm. What kind of logical thinking is that? It isn’t logical. Violence has a cumulative effect. It is not in isolation. 4 this year out of 10, next year 3 out of 9, the crime is still happening, Are people not supposed to notice? Are people not supposed to observe the cause and effect the negative outcomes occuring under these so called Father’s right?
Is the supposed ‘good’ that this Father’s Right movement outweighs the fallout that is being observed not just by the author of this article but by other people who personally experience what is is like when kids go back home to be with a violent angry bitter father.
Try telling that to child welfare agents, social workers, teachers etc.. people who personally witness men who abuse their spouses and their children.
So we are going to speak out about it the cons of the Father’s right movement and violence against women because that is what is being seen. You only want to see one side. All sides of the Father’s movement is not positive nor is it beneficial for the child. You may not like that but that is just the way it is and posting unending statistics doesn’t change a thing nor does it matter when a child or a woman is hurt at the hands of an angry father in the name of the Father’s right movement.
Raz says:
“@Dave just what exactly is your point posting these stats?”
Simply an effort to clear up some apparent misunderstandings about child abuse and who commits these heinous acts. Apparently some commenters here have the mistaken impression that only men commit child abuse. Apparently some commenters here believe that divorced fathers having more time with their children automatically places these children in danger.
The fact is, the overwhelming number of parents, male and female, love their children and only want the best for them.
Deborrah says:
“Too many men see their children as property, not as people that they need to be involved with mentally and emotionally”
And too many women see their children as their propety, to do with as they please, even if it includes using them as a tool to hurt their former spouse or to extract something from them.
In another study, 40% of divorced mothers admitted that they had interfered with their ex-husband’s access or visitation, and that their motives were punitive in nature and not due to safety considerations.
[Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) “Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers,” Sanford Braver et al, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.]
Your comments make it seem as if you see all divorced fathers as rapists and child abusers. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who have that view, including Dr. Flood. You and he apparently believe that ANY woman who makes a claim of abuse should automatically be believed without any need for evidence or proof. THAT is why there is a need for Father’s Rights groups.
As I stated before, in only about 6% of cases women claimed to be divorcing cruel or abusive husbands. So you and Dr. Flood want to treat the other 94% as rapists and abusers?
@Dave just what exactly is your point posting these stats? What are they supposed to prove? They are out of context, they’re just statements, numbers without any type of context. That’s like if I posted a bunch of random sentences and had nothing cohesive to make them meaningful. Child abuse and neglect and you post a bunch of numbers up there. What defines that child abuse and neglect? What is the socialogical context of these numbers? Concerned Citizen posted the same thing. So what?
None of what you posted means anything because they are just numbers and statements posted without any sort of supporting descriptive information or anecdotal details about this information that provides pertinent background into these numbers. This is just raw stats and is meaningless in and of itself.
We could do a statistic that says obesity is higher among poor people than people of means. Just by saying this along, could paint a picture that poor people don’t care about their health or their weight, but closer studies and other sociological factors are brought into play that takes into account the who/what /where/whys the reason for the higher rate in obesity among people of a lower socioeconomic background. So in other words, just posting numbers about abuse and neglect don’t mean anything, that’s not impressive. That alone doesn’t say anything except you just cut and pasted some numbers. What is the sociological reasons for those numbers, descriptive factors etc….
GetALifeDickwad says:
“On women initiating divorce: So what? What does it prove anyway? That men can’t screw, to say the least.”
I see, so you believe that women who become bored with their husbands should be free to divorce the guys, be guaranteed to receive custody of the children, and be guaranteed financial support from their boring husbands so that they can be free to hook up with more exciting guys? Meanwhile the fathers should be grateful if they get to spend a weekend here and a weekend there with their children. Does that about sum up your views on the matter, Dick?