Telegraph Asks: Are we guilty of ignoring fathers' rights?

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-11-29 21:04

The Telegraph asks: "Are the courts automatically biased towards mothers, even if they may not be the more suitable parent? What steps can be taken to force mothers to provide fathers with the necessary contact with their children?

Is there too much of a focus on a father's responsibility to make alimony payments, and not enough on his right to visit his child?

How do you think Britain compares to other countries in the way that it handles the rights of separated parents?

Has the adversarial approach to divorce law turned children into the spoils of marriage?"

The response from readers is absolutely overwhemling.

One day, a politician will catch on, offer equal rights to fathers in divorce, and scoop an election.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

There is one noteworthy reader's comment to this article which I think reflects the opinion of many MR activists:

"This is the new world that we are going to live in the future. It is the breaking-up of the family orchestrated by the United Nations.
It is a Socialistic agenda to destroy the the family in order for this future "world body" to govern the populations of the globe."

I think it's a bad mistake that people constantly mix two different issues of men's rights and breaking-up the family into a single problem.

It's completely obviously that the family as a social institution doesn't have any viable future. All who bother themselves trying to save the family simply waste their time.

MRAs are totally wrong when they mix a hopeless campaign for the traditional family values with the battle that can be won: the fight for the social role and rights of men.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by nbdspcl on Thu, 2006-11-30 00:44

either way, things won't change or get better if they don't change directions.

feminists rising up because they used to be opressed is one things but if they're right, shouldn't they lead by example instead of revenge?

the people who created whatever original laws that made the women feel opressed are dead. hell, the citizens of then are either suffering alzeihmer or dead.

taking revenge on the descendants who have no clearcut idea of how things used to be, imo, shows nothing more than how childish the feminists are. afaik, whichever great people that lived on this world were not childish.

sure, some of them like Einstein may have had a sense of humor (according to his picture where he pulls his tongue) but that doesn't mean they're childish.

heck, if men were so evil and all, wouldn't they have fought tooth and nail to eradicate the feminists? wouldn't they have done everything in their power to keep the women in their "slavery"?

sure, they may not have been immediately cooperative (cultural shock, big-ass change on how things work...which is normal when you try to change the mold) but they DID accept to change so the women could have a shot at getting higher-ended jobs and stuff.

problem is, most of the women turned into sore-losers and started crying sexism when they were told they didn't qualify for said big jobs and a man did. nevermind that the man was genuinely skilled, he was a man. he got hired and she didn't.

they also wave around the 70 cents to a man's dollar. however they don't check of the women do overtime or if they ask for shorter weeks.

women also say there aren't any good men left but aren't the social hot spots night clubs and bars? and aren't women usually attracted to social hot spots?

the issue of child support needs no mention. though i did see two news articles where the info fitted together in an interesting coincidence.

one mentioned the law that recently passed in canada concerning child support. the arguments against it said that over 80% of payers were men.

another was some kind of support center for single mothers which said that over 80% of single-parent families only had the mother.

hmmm...

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by dudejo on Thu, 2006-11-30 01:37