Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

A Request for your Help

Annie said
If you believe in our children you will then accept that women are hurting just as much as men. Women just have more of a support network but thier kids are alienated against them as well and it is happening more and more.
I disagree Annie, perhaps as individuals a woman could hurt as much as a man, perhaps more, perhaps less. However what is without doubt, is that far more children are denied a right to have their humane right to know and be cared for by their father than their mother. Far fewer mother's are presumed to be a peadophile/abuser than are father's. Far fewer mother's are presumed incapable of still being a parent simply because of separation, the list goes on. Isn't it a pretty simple equation, to alienate requires contact, more contact = greater chance to alienate.


 You also mention the support being more available for women, so are you saying that the support is useless by doing nothing to reduce the hurt with equal numbers of hurt (the numbers hurting aren't not discernible from what you've written)? If the support does not facilitate less hurt then why have it?


Perhaps you are saying contrary to the available research and figures that more women are denied the ability to provide for the right of their children to know and be cared for by them, due to men having the greater custody and that through the support their accumulated hurt is then lowered to equate to as being equal to the hurt suffered by the lower number of men who don't have contact. However if this is the case then there must be, according to the CSA's figures, massive numbers of mother's shirking their financial responsibility toward the children as the number of male payers greatly exceeds the number of female payers. However the figures may have changed since I last looked.


Perhaps you are saying that men hurt far less than women in this situation, because as there is a far greater number of father's unable to provide the children(s) humane right to know and be cared for, that far more father's hurt, but the level of hurt is less.


Could you please clarify Annie.
Perhaps one can just look at the various groups. Surely to best consider the child or children, equal time with both parents should be the norm, do you agree Annie?. Yet it is my understanding that the groups that represent single mother's fight against this and that it is the father's groups and grandparent's groups that are fighting for this presumption of equal contact time. I also believe that research shows that the children want this as well. Perhaps I don't understand, so please correct any misunderstandings that you believe that I have. In fact anyone who considers what I understand as wrong, please say so.
I think you left something out there MikeT.

The social impact of the assumption that the man is the provider for family, this in itself is believe by many men. Due to this assumed belief many fathers accept reduced time as they need to be the provider ( money ) for their children, they also need to work harder to provide a life for their extended family if they are lucky enough to have met a new partner.

I wonder how many out there feel they would like to spend more time with their children but this social presumption stops this happening, there are few cases out there where attempts to reduce financial burden by fathers sees them attempt full custody claims.

the presumption of full 50/50 is the only way you will create true mediation and negotiations as both parents start on an equal footing, the next step would to be to educate on the changing society and make both men and women truly equal and responsible as a person, mother and father to the need of the child to have equal contact with their parents and all negative claims to be legally tested.

Personally I think the issues are more to do with privilege than the sex of a person, fathers automatically have less privilege than mothers and this creates a fight for equality not a fight for control. This scares many as loss of privilege often does.

We all know how difficult it is to discuss some topics with out feeling the injustice that thwarts many lives and emotions run high but if infighting and bickering are reacted on then topics will digress, wouldn't it be better to try and understand that we all hurt differently and we have different ways to communicate this rather than be reactive.

A simple I understand but the topic is on XXX rather than attack each other.

Good topic MikeT I hope Sarah finds the stories she needs.
The debate is important and not stressful.
Its what we need to do - even with the anonimity of our website - to express the ideas and arguments that help form the debate. As far as concern about impact on individuals (me for example) having been through what i have - comments from web site forums are not a big deal - just the rich tapestry (I feel the earth move..) of life (go carol)

Try this google query
Burma victim women children men
then try
Burma victim women children -men

It shows 10 times as many pages for the first query than the second . What might this mean? Hmm.

Were there 10 times as many victims in Burma who are women and children that men?

then try London victim women children with the men and then minus men

Gosh is there a world wide pattern (lets call it the pearson/google effect) - wordwide country and city victim measurement.

try it yourself - you'll have fun.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
D4E said
I think you left something out there MikeT.

Well just to be argumentative, I think you left something out, the plethora of other things I left out. :)

More seriously, yes social impact undoubtedly has an affect of making a father consider himself the primary monetary provider. I certainly did before and after separation. Before when the ex worked she kept it all to herself, in the latter years, never put it toward the mortgage. At separation I basically worked out what I needed to survive on and gave her the rest as CS, no CSA involvement as I thought that I'd not even have enough to survive on. However when the ex went to the CSA, the payments reduced substantially, and yep accepted reduced time to continue providing, even though it was a fight with myself, not aided by a 3 month overseas trip a few months after the ex left, funded by money that was agreed would go to providing a home for my son. I would certainly like to spend more time with my son. I see how he suffers and finds it hard to accept, he's now asking things and saying things like "I should spend a year with us each".

D4E said
Personally I think the issues are more to do with privilege than the sex of a person, fathers automatically have less privilege than mothers and this creates a fight for equality not a fight for control. This scares many as loss of privilege often does.

Sorry D4E, I don't really understand how you can separate gender as the lower privilege is due to gender or perhaps you're talking about those who don't join the dots.

D4E said
We all know how difficult it is to discuss some topics with out feeling the injustice that thwarts many lives and emotions run high but if infighting and bickering are reacted on then topics will digress, wouldn't it be better to try and understand that we all hurt differently and we have different ways to communicate this rather than be reactive.
Did I do wrong? I didn't feel that I was attacking rather trying to unravel what was said. Although Sandra did feel attacked which is a shame as her intentions are only for the good of all, especially children. Perhaps I've just misunderstood what you're saying D4E, sorry if that's the case.

D4E said
A simple I understand but the topic is on XXX rather than attack each other.
I Certainly agree that my aim would be for gender to not matter and that children could have all the love possible from both parents in the majority of cases and also only see adults, at the minimum, being respectful of others especially those who matter to the child.
MikeT said
     
Katie,
   why would Sandra include Mums on a book that is about the issues surrounding what men go through?
 
Please re-read the post. The bulk of Sandra's request was written in completely gender-neutral terms.  The main text did not specify that she was only interested in men's stories.It was only in the smaller, follow-up  section where she specifically mentioned fathers, so it was not clear to me whether she was writing a book about issues men go through or a more general book on the issue as the first quote suggested, mentioning men specifically in the second quote because she was writing to you either as a man or a representative of a men's forum. My question was simply a question to clarify that point.

MikeT said
I'd also like you to explain why you did not include any knowledge of father's not having their children on Father's day
  My post in this thread mentioned mothers on mothers' day because it was written on mothers' day.

MikeT said
as I see it rather hypocritical that you pick an issue and respond in a similar way just the gender reversed.
 
If you look at my post I did acknowledge fathers as well, as I have done many times in this forum, referring to
 
katie said
exactly the type of situation that happens to far too many Dads and their children
  That is a direct quote from my post, so I find your comment about hypocrisy both untrue and very deeply offensive.


Here are two more of my earlier posts.


katie said
Bless you oneadadc!
 What you do matters.

 Hot chocolate at 12 midnight or something else?
 
katie said
oneadadc said
Recently I sat beside a SRL through his trial. Eight days. Plus many many hours helping him prepare his case, including the entire weekend before the trial stated on Monday.
oneadadc
 I have nothing to donate but love, and to you I offer that in abundance for what you did for this man!
 To other who think that you have nothing to donate, I wish I had known about your group when I most needed support and ideas/advice.  If that is all you can offer, that is HUGE to those going through it now.
 And to those who have $$$ how about it?
 
I have written other, similar posts affirming the work of this forum for men, I just can't find them

So, plainly, I care about men, women, and children -where is the hypocrisy in that?



MikeT said
I also see a pattern arising that you only appear to pick this up when it's females losing out.
 
 I have looked up my last 15 topics participated in, and found 24 posts in the public areas under those 15 topics.
9 are addressed directly to male payers, with information or ideas for their benefit.
1 is addressed to a male payer acknowledging that some decisions leave a bitter taste.
1 is addressed to a female payer, affirming her post and the site in general.
2 are addressed to female payees, one intended to encourage her because she is having difficulties, and one agreeing that it is always best to be polite.
1 is completely ungendered and offers a suggestion of benefit to males and females, payers and payees.
1 is written ungendered but could be construed as more helpful to females.
8 are all part of one conversation on a tricky part of the new formula. My interpretation favors the payee, but I believe it is valid, and it is respectfully written, it encourages negotiation which cuts both ways, and affirms the payer involved as having been more than fair in their particular circumstances.
1 is the one discussed above.



I see a pattern well established where I offer the experiences and understandings I have to men and women, payers and payees, without discrimination or favour.

I happen to think that is very important.  I think the only way to achieve genuine equality is to work together.



Again, your comments were deeply offensive to me, especially given the unstinting support I give to men's issues.



MikeT

No way did I mean that you had done anything at all wrong thats why I congratulated you on the topic and it's relevance as I saw it.

I sometimes think that a short sharp response aimed directly at a poster can put another off from participating, but this is something I have always felt, discussion with out there responses will always happen so why not refocus them on the topic rather than give them more life again this is not directed at yourself. I would have liked to see and read more of what was being suggested by Sandra as I was confused as others may have been and would have liked a little more clarification by reading the progression of posts.

My point about social impact is how dads see themselves through a picture painted too long ago of himself being the sole provider and such, not a Marta but a provider and one who great sacrifice is expected of by all. This can be and is his worst enemy. Is this sacrifice really the best for the kids in the long run ????

Although the subject is separated by gender if both parties were assumed equal and with out privilege then gender would not be an issue as both parties would be on equal footings.
A female member who has lost child or children unfairly would view the situation as privilege as she is of the same gender as mother who retain most contact. So in odd logic it then becomes about privilege and how privilege is used by the system. Remove the privilege equate to presumed 50/50 and then no gender issue. This raises the question about what the enemy is.


I have also been one of the members that Katie has offered help and support to in off line posts which I have appreciated, heart felt, she didn't need to but she did.    
Jon Pearson said
The debate is important and not stressful.
Its what we need to do - even with the anonimity of our website - to express the ideas and arguments that help form the debate. As far as concern about impact on individuals (me for example) having been through what i have - comments from web site forums are not a big deal - just the rich tapestry (I feel the earth move..) of life (go carol)

Try this google query
Burma victim women children men
then try
Burma victim women children -men

It shows 10 times as many pages for the first query than the second . What might this mean? Hmm.

Were there 10 times as many victims in Burma who are women and children that men?

then try London victim women children with the men and then minus men

Gosh is there a world wide pattern (lets call it the pearson/google effect) - wordwide country and city victim measurement.

try it yourself - you'll have fun.

Jon

Get off your soapbox -what a useless piece of information you provided - so what!

All media has different methods of reporting.

Here is some other information.

The term 'women and children first' was being used in English literature from 1710. Now correct me if I am wrong, but that was a long time before feminism was invented was it not?

You could also try a search of English newspapers during the Battle of Britain to learn that 34 airmen were killed during one days bombing at Biggin Hill. The six WAAFs that copped it were not mentioned.
D4E,
      thanks for explaining things, it's a lot clearer now. Yes and Sandra was put off, apologising numerous times to me for what she perceived as a wrong done to me. When there was no wrong intention. I'd say the opposite was done.

Currently Sandra is organising "Bands for Babies", which if I get things right, is under "Project Rock", for which Sandra also is a co-contributor. Project Rock is about organising concerts for charity to assist children and families. In addition to this she is spending quite some time on various forums, rallying support and putting the word across about the inequities that have so many children having their basic humane rights violated, primarily due to the willingness of society to consider males primarily as financial providers and not an equal parent. Sandra is also manager of a rock band, Finding Core and again if I get it right, is one of Canada's highest endorsed unsigned bands, offering their time and expertise very much for charity. Sandra is also in the situation that her fiancé and herself have been denied contact with her finance's children for nearly a year.

Putting this all together, the impression that I get is that Sandra knows first hand about the abuse and pain that children and father's suffer due to the way father's throughout the world are not treated equally by many arms of society and she wants to use her skills, contact and resources to make a noise, literally.

This aligns very much with my thoughts that is, it is society that needs to change and that changing society's view will then cause changes in society and hopefully before society we will have parents, not mothers and fathers, we will have evil people, bad people, good people etc not gender specific terms and views that serve to cause more angst. Hopefully in our time we will see differences and find, as a society, how to get the best from those differences. Saying that here are so many ways that society can be changed and who knows what actions will be most effective, however to do nothing will not effect change. So my praise goes to Sandra for getting out there and doing something. The same goes for Katie, of whom I believe, unless I didn't post what I wrote (something I do at times), does help.

However on that note I don't think I ever said that Katie doesn't help or even implied that, so I'm not sure where she has come to the conclusion that I was saying that and as such complained about that and was offended by that. Furthermore I believe that in one of my posts I said it was great that she was getting on board with helping with CS questions. What I did do, was ask whether she considered it rather hypocritical to question the exclusion of a gender and then supply gender exclusive material, this compounded by her asking that we be sensitive towards single mothers in another topic and also a challenge to myself that also saw her taking what was gender neutral to be against single mother's. Perhaps I didn't explain the emerging pattern that I spoke of as well as I could, perhaps I still haven't.

Anyway with regard to finding out more here's a few links that people may wish to follow:-

Finding Core "The Band"
Project Rock "The Organisation"

Lastly you said,

D4E said
My point about social impact is how dads see themselves through a picture painted too long ago of himself being the sole provider and such, not a Marta but a provider and one who great sacrifice is expected of by all. This can be and is his worst enemy. Is this sacrifice really the best for the kids in the long run ????

Sheesh that's very hard to tell and I reckon something that could only be answered with hindsight. I know that I question myself about whether many of the things that I do are the right things to do, especially with regard to my son. An example was a statement he made saying "You should have me for a year and then Mum should have me for a year", off the cuff/intuitively I answered, and I have no clue as to really what he took of the answer, "I don't think you'd want to spend a year away from your Mum or Me". The intention, I think, to make him think about it and perhaps conclude that too much time away wouldn't be good and thus see that a shorter period each would have be better. How I wanted to say is that what you really want and to say that I'd try to get there, but felt that would be coaching him. I wonder whether that his statement was really a question asking for this, perhaps I just hope that it was. Perhaps there could have been a better way to obtain an answer, perhaps an email like the one I sent and got a reply to before posting. I find it strange that Katie is saying that in her post she has acknowledged fathers, when in her post I can see no such acknowledgement, the only mention of fathers I see, is the quote of one line from Sandra's reply to my email, indicating that this was about father's.

I do very much like Sandra's analogy, if that's the right word, of a village, which I guess is a smaller and thus more controllable/manageable/empathic, form of society. Perhaps that could be a way to go and don't villages, well my view of them anyway, consist more of individuals than the greater overall society of today. Doesn't a lot come down to treating each as an individual rather than a stereotype?
Guys - I have a lot a respect for people on this site

You all take time to think
You are involved and interested
You are willing state what you think
You are willing to disagree - and wanting to get better at it
(as I am)

Theres no need for anyone to get bogged down constantly defending themselves - for me - thats a waste of time - if its about clarity OK . As long as people are happy to explore the questions and issues then go for it - treat each other with respect and spend less time being offended.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
I am not going to enter into this discussion again. I hope Sandra finds what she is looking for to help all children. Mike T my only hope is that we are doing what is in the best interest of the children. Out of my social group I am one of 3 mother's who have not had access to their child. Its hard for me to comment as I am taking it personally so I appologise.
I guess the hard part in all of this is to take out the gender and make every person equally important to the kids;

Remove the stigma in regard to roles of money and nurturing, I do not think gender makes you more nurturing but is instilled by social conformity.

Unfortunately at the end of the day this type of society would be of no value to a Government until it can move with social needs somewhere in the distant future.

We would all be guilty of minimal forms of manipulation, alienation and coaching Mike and it is and has been used in teaching ethics since the dawn of humans but this is used to establish a healthy respect for morals and values through examples etc, when taken to extremes it turns into a generational cancer that can travel from parent to child to grandchildren and so on.
Education and a healthy dose of punishment to encourage to dispel it would save so many children but as we know those in power are simple puppets to the machine.

As far as the tribe goes I think a lot of social problems today are because of the distance each member of the tribe is away, it's stretched to the whole world and that ritual function of close quarter living and commradary is so thin and irregular that it's nearly disappeared. The tribe also had a unique internal social system that had each member relying on the other for survival. Makes you wonder if in Australia it is seen at all ???

I agree it's best to treat as individual although I also understand that there are individuals who act the same as others and in discussion with others I can see an enormous amount of similarities or perhaps through my daughters mother I was able to experience many aspects of what other go through and thus include several types who portray similar caricature flaws. Is this stereo typing or simple observation  ;)

Hats of to Sandra and what she is trying to get together.  
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets