Imagine the scenario: a mother giving birth in hospital while the father of their child speeds across town on his motorbike to see their first child enter the world. But in his excitement he loses control of his bike and is fatally wounded. The midwives are informed and draw straws on who will tell mum the good news – that her baby is healthy – the bad news that the baby’s father is dead – and the even worse news that:
BECAUSE THE DAD IS DEAD, MUM IS NOW CONSIDERED TO BE A POTENTIAL THREAT TO HER CHILD, IS NOT LEGALLY A MOTHER AND CANNOT TAKE HER BABY HOME WITH HER!
Can you imagine this happening to a parent in the UK in 2012? You can’t? Well it does.
It happened in the past month to a parent in Wales whose partner died shortly after the birth of their child. The grieving parent was treated like a stranger to the baby, not allowed to take their baby home and the child protection system was invoked.
The reason the parent was considered a threat to their new born baby and not allowed to take the baby was simple – HE IS A MAN!
The hospital did nothing wrong – and by all accounts handled the issue with great professionalism and speed – ensuring the case was brought to court and a temporary order granted allowing him to take the baby home.
I would suggest that it is not the case that in 84% of cases that women are the better partner. Rather I would suggest that there are social prejudices in the court system.
The "Mother Whore" justice discrimination problem is well known in sociology. So well known that it actually came up as part of my sociology A2 exam and textbook.
The point is that institutional discrimination IS the only explanation for why men are so often turned down. There is no evidence to suggest that, overall, men make substantially worse parents than women do.
There is, of course, no doubt that some parents, particularly mothers, are responsible for alienating their children from their fathers without good reason and thereby creating this sometimes insoluble problem
Your first link is a story referencing an article in the Telegraph. It's third-hand reporting. That's not to say it's or its parent artcile are wrong but it in itself proves nothing.
Yes it does. It covers an event that did happen. Namely, that fathers were having their rights to be a part of their children's lives systematically revoked. Please explain why it proves nothing if it links to a source that itself explains the event in detail. I'll link you the initial source if you like, but I find it kind of bizzare that you feel the need for me to do that, since the link was right there to begin with.
Since however you want more first hand sources, let me draw your attention to the following
And how about the fact that child benefit is only paid into one parent's account, and it's almost always the mother, even after separation and the father is still expected to provide the same levels of care.
And how about this
Furthermore, currently a mother has automatic Parental Responsibility to the child once he/she is born, this means that a mother has assumed legal responsibility, meaning that she alone can decide what school the child goes to, medical treatment authorization etc.
Your second link is a response to a bill on assisted reproduction. I've skimmed it briefly but if you're going to try to make a point, I'd like you to actually do so and not expect others to do the leg work. Find the data/quotes and cite them.
I thought it was blindingly obvious. The bill had a clause that effectively removed the need of a father. It has been reworded to sound less offensive, but the section on "lack of need for supportinve parenting" was dangerous.
The third link in itself is pretty poor as it references a mixture of newspaper articles and legal documents, most of which are now unavailable online.
Just because you cannot read the sources, does not make the article poor.
Of those which remain, only one is of high quality . This is a review of Floridian family law which does in fact support your claim of discrimination though only in a restricted geographic area. As your original post relates to an incident in the UK and the McNeely document doesn't cite any cases from the UK, this doesn't really further your argument.
You are arbitrarily choosing to ignore the other data because you cannot access it. However, all the data is available online, and has links provided, and with a little googling, you can see that the source material is available elsewhere, and is accademically creditied. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt it's accuracy.
Beyond this, you stated that "The point is that institutional discrimination IS the ONLY explanation for why men are so often turned down." (my emphasis). Even after you have provided proof of institutional discrimination, you must go further to prove that it is indeed the only explanation.
Because there is no other explanation that makes sense. Men have not been proven to be worse parents, men are not always in a position of not being able to provide for their children etc. There is no other explanation.
I'll admit, though not a huge one, I am a feminist. I believe in equal rights for EVERYONE. Yes there are, admittedly, a lot of very radical feminists and that's all we ever hear about in the news. We don't ever hear about the activists who are sensible and fight for their rights through placid, reasonable ways. Women's rights are a big deal because they've been an issue for pretty much ever, yet we still can't seem to resolve it. The only progression we've made is by, apparently, a digression in men's rights. One thing I feel is, we can only take on one issue at a time. We can't tackle everything and expect to come out unscathed.
Another issue is this: we keep referring to each other as 'us' and 'them.' There shouldn't even be these distinctions. It de-humanizes both sides of the problem and makes us bitter towards one another. Yes, feminists can be radical, but that doesn't mean that they should be treated like a less than human animal that only cares about itself. People get a poor representation of feminism from a biased news source. There shouldn't even be the terms 'feminism' and "men's rights activist." They created a rift which, once established, is almost impossible to heal. There should simply be 'equality.' No man should have his rights stripped away because of a woman, just as no woman should have her rights stripped away because of a man. What happened to empathy or even simple sympathy for the common, downtrod person?
Because he wasn't the mother and he wasn't married to her.
I think your wording of the heading could be improved. Why would womens rights being curved have to do with men being discriminated against. If you are offended then start a men's right based on equality. Don't use someone else's bad behavior ( the govt) to bash a different group. They are fighting for their rights not yours. You should be allies not enemies. Start a group and recruit their help. It beats sitting around blameing a third party for what a second party is doing.
Women should not have the right being denied to men in this instance. It is that simple. If men are considered a threat to the child, so should women be. Hence, either women's rights are curbed or men's are enhanced.
Of course it does. It makes it fair and reasonable. If men are a threat, in the same context women must be also. Therefore it removes a danger to the child.
Again, I'm not touching fairness. How you think that stripping away the rights of the mother would be a beneficial move utterly baffles me.
You are missing the point. I agree with you. It wouldn't be a benefical move, but think about it from the perspective of the law that is in place. If the man is a threat, then logically it is fair to protect the child from him. However, if it is possible to assert the man is a threat without evidence, then it is equally possible to assert that the woman is a threat, without any evidence. And since the system should always be as gender neutral as possible, from the law's POV considering the woman a threat should be beneficial.
Taking that further and stating a priori that the mother must also be a threat (as seems to be the case with the father in the initially cited case) simply for parity is nonsense.
Yes, it is nonsense, but since it is nonsense that is already being perpetrated to the father, it must also be applied to the mother.
Vertigo I will go on the assumption that you don't really think that men are a threat and that neither are women. Please correct me if I am wrong. If this is the case then the law should be amended and don't blame women's rights for your lack of rights.