Labour's pink bus

[????]

So it pervades the tory Party but not the Labour party?...only one of them's had a female leader* and that was 40 years ago, which kind of illustrates your point minus the partisan line

*although I know 'that woman' doesn't count among the right-oners

[Robert Poste's Child]

Dunno, Loz, but over the last 5-10 years I've heard a fair few people criticise the fact that most trainee doctors are women and blame problems in general practice on that (rather than, for example, relentless exploitation of the system a la DMC, to use a local example.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Re girls' public schools, technically there aren't any as by the time education for girls was a thing they had already effectively become private. The ones for girls are known as independent, or so we used to be told.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You miss the point Loz. Most men do not go 50/50 with the mother on all aspects of childcare. And

> until that changes, men can't expect to be seen as equal in effort to women. Add to that, that 92% of

> single parent families are women too. That's a lot of women doing most of the work when it comes to

> children.

All a bit chicken and egg though, isn't it. To cross a couple of themes, it's a bit like 30 years ago saying that women don't want to be doctors since only about 8% of doctors were female. Quite a few single parents are women because both society and the law expect/allow the woman to take the kids. I'd like to know if a husband has ever successfully taken the kids and left the wife.

Fathers have made huge leaps forwards in the past 10-15 years. Getting involved is now seen a positive thing, with some great male role models out there. But still, as RPC bemoans, women are expected by society to be the primary carer... and men are expected to not be. We've changed a lot of attitudes in society in the past few decades - this should not be difficult. Equalising maternity and paternity is a good start and sends a signal from government that mothers and father both have to be active and involved parents.

> What do you guys want? All men to share childcare equally so that we as a gender can be recognised on equal footing?

Why not? If someone brings a child into this world, is it not too much to ask for them to actually look after it?

[Blah Blah]

'So it pervades the tory Party but not the Labour party?...only one of them's had a female leader* and that was 40 years ago, which kind of illustrates your point minus the partisan line.'

Thatcher was hand picked by Airy Neave because he wanted Heath deposed. Thatcher didn't come from some great liberal drive to advance equality for women in the Tory party. She was the pawn in a clash between those two politicians. No Neave, no Thatcher.

I disagree Loz. It's not chicken and egg at all. It's life. Women go through pregnancy, give birth, and some breast feed and they already have a relationship with a new born child that men can never have. And there's nothng men can do about that. Babies have a unique relationship to mothers.

Nowhere in my comments can you draw the conclusion that most children being raised by women means that men don't want to be fathers. Men do not do the bulk of childcare. But nor does a man have to in order to be a father.

It's true that the law favours the mother in custody cases (unless there's a good reason why the child can't be looked after by the mother), but children can't be split down the middle. It's the whole thing of pregnancy etc that gives women the edge in that repsect and yes it's crap for men who want to be custodians, but maybe it's the price you pay for having a child with a person you aren't really compatable with? (cruel thing to say I know).

'Why not? If someone brings a child into this world, is it not too much to ask for them to actually look after it?'

In an ideal world yes but the fact remains that most men still expect the mother to do it all. Look at the number of absent fathers out there. Do you think all the guys at a Millwall match changed their kids napppies? It's up to us guys to pull our socks up if we want anything to change, not criticise those who say it like it is.

[KidKruger]

"I'd like to know if a husband has ever successfully taken the kids and left the wife".

It's extremely uncommon. If involved, the family courts automatically conclude the children belong to the Mother. There needs to be a significant child welfare issue for a Father to be upgraded to anywhere near an equal footing.

[Robert Poste's Child]

I don't think that's true, KK. These days in the event of divorce the law automatically presumes custody will be 50/50 unless there's a good reason not to. The greater issue, from the point of view of fathers who want to be a real co-parent, is that so many people don't get married before the kids come along, or have them before there is any real relationship between the parents, and that throws up all sorts of practical and legal difficulties. If you want to be a proper dad to your kids, the answer is to get to know the woman properly and get married first or at least make sure your name's on the birth certificate.

One other point: in terms of history, women having custody is a very recent thing. Until well into the 20th century, in the event of divorce, particularly if the wife had had an affair, the father would have custody. Women tended to have custody only when the family was abandoned by the husband.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Might have to rename this thread 'desperate electioneering'. Today's instance: IDS wants to GIVE social housing tenants their house if they're on benefits and then find work for a year. I've had to turn the radio off.

[PokerTime]

It's a ludicrous idea and I can't see it happening. The proposal would not hand over the entire home, just 60% of it, so the tenant would still have rent to pay, and other charges, but would also no longer have the safety net of Housing Benefit open to them if they lose their job. So would work for some people but would be a risky route for others, especially those who gain low paid or insecure contract work etc.

It's worth pointing out also that LA's can now charge up to 80% of market rate on new tenancies, and that once part ownership is handed over it's no longer a social home. So anyone being gifted 60% of their home under this scheme may well find they are paying market rent on the other 40%.

The claim about reduction of the Housing Benefit bill is a red herring too, given the much higher cost of housing people in the private rented sector. If IDS really wanted to save money, the answer would be to create enough low rent property for those who need it. The last thing the social housing sector needs, is more transferance to the private sector. It's easy to claim that money raised can be reinvested in new homes, but practically impossible to deliver on any like for like scale. 2 million social homes lost since the 1980's. 1.7 million people/households currently on council waiting lists. We never needed to be in this predicament on the first place, and it shows how out of touch and uninterested the Conservative party are when it comes to the UK's Housing Crisis.

Nothing to do with a pink bus I know.

[numbers]

patronising the proles shocker.

Whatever they had to say to non-voters has been entirely lost because they?ve dressed it all up in pwetty pink and so that?s all we are talking about. Own goal.

I don?t find the pink bus ?offensive?, no. Instead, it's patronising and insulting to both women and men. And before anyone says ?its not aimed at you?, well, neither was the ?go home? bus. Should we just stfu about that too and focus on issues 'aimed at us'?

That whole talking around the kitchen table shite leaves me speechless. Any good intentions behind this are completely obliterated by the mockery it has attracted. What the fuck were they thinking? Any right-leaning party would have deservedly been given hell for this. Any minute now someone will blame ma Thatcher..

Remind me, what are Labour doing to appeal to men who didn?t vote in the last election?

Shower of condescending wankers

[Mick Mac]

Lets hope it's a vote loser and the Tories get in.

[KidKruger]

"If you want to be a proper dad to your kids, the answer is to get to know the woman properly and get married first or at least make sure your name's on the birth certificate".

Wow. All sounds so straightforward. The high divorce rate and volume of Fathers fighting in courts to maintain contact with their children must all be negligent, uninterested Dads. Let's hope their children don't find out they haven't got proper Dads.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Bit illogical there. Why negligent? Sounds to me more like the relationship between the parents wasn't on a firm enough basis though. The idea used to be that before you had children you got to know the other person and agreed the basics of how you expected to bring up children including what would happen if things went wrong. Most people seem to have children in a romantic (or alcoholic) haze these days, and when it goes wrong they're unable to behave like adults. I see that in my own family. Hopefully now that mediation is compulsory divorcing couples will sort it out that way rather than in court.

[Otta]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lets hope it's a vote loser and the Tories get in.

If anyone actually decided not to vote Labour purely because of this, then they're a moron.

[Jeremy]

Complete rubbish, RPC.

Relationships don't always work out, it happens. It doesn't mean the parents haven't thought it through. It doesn't mean they were drunk when they conceived. It certainly doesn't mean the dad is guilty of rushing into things.

[Otta]

What Jeremy said.

Massive sweeping statements from RPC.

[Robert Poste's Child]

That's what I see going on and I find it tedious when men play the fathers-for-justice victim card.

[El Pibe]

what an unpleasant post RPC

[Otta]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's what I see going on and I find it tedious

> when men play the fathers-for-justice victim card.

Because you know all of their circumstances right?

[Robert Poste's Child]

I'm talking more about social codes, I suppose.

[KidKruger]

"If you want to be a proper dad to your kids, the answer is to get to know the woman properly and get married first or at least make sure your name's on the birth certificate".

By 'negligent' I mean that's the inference I take from your statement quoted above, if the predicates you advocate for being a 'proper' Dad are not adhered to.

I'm sorry but I feel that proposition naive and sexist, all the worse coming from someone who seems to freely call others sexist or mysoginist (sp).

Fathers for justice set a bad example in some cases, there's no doubt about that - but to paint all situations with such a beligerent brush is IMO uncalled for. It may apply to some of what you've seen but that doesn't mean the rest of the world matches what you think.

I act as a McKenzie Friend for Fathers (or Mums) in family courts, where there are custody disputes.

There is a whole Angola going on out there, perfectly reasonable and loving Fathers being ruined by their ex-wives supported by the courts, on account very often of their being male. There are less than brilliant mums and dads everywhere in all walks of life, whether married or not.

Not sure what your angle is but your points are very inaccurate and generalised with no sensible merit.

I've known two men hang themselves through not being able to see their children even when the children themselves wanted the contact re-established, solely because the Mother decided it and the courts bought the lies.

If the Mother 'acts normal' for the hearing they can boss the show, this doesn't translate to Fathers 'deserving' what they get - which seems to be what you're saying.

This is more prominent outside London in the provincial counties.

You don't work as a magistrate in family courts by any chance do you ?

[Jeremy]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It may apply to some of what you've

> seen but that doesn't mean the rest of the world

> matches what you think.

Exactly this.

It really shouldn't need to be spelled out though.

[Robert Poste's Child]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "If you want to be a proper dad to your kids, the

> answer is to get to know the woman properly and

> get married first or at least make sure your

> name's on the birth certificate".

>

> By 'negligent' I mean that's the inference I take

> from your statement quoted above, if the

> predicates you advocate for being a 'proper' Dad

> are not adhered to.

>

> I'm sorry but I feel that proposition naive and

> sexist, all the worse coming from someone who

> seems to freely call others sexist or mysoginist

> (sp).

>

> Fathers for justice set a bad example in some

> cases, there's no doubt about that - but to paint

> all situations with such a beligerent brush is IMO

> uncalled for. It may apply to some of what you've

> seen but that doesn't mean the rest of the world

> matches what you think.

>

> I act as a McKenzie Friend for Fathers (or Mums)

> in family courts, where there are custody

> disputes.

> There is a whole Angola going on out there,

> perfectly reasonable and loving Fathers being

> ruined by their ex-wives supported by the courts,

> on account very often of their being male. There

> are less than brilliant mums and dads everywhere

> in all walks of life, whether married or not.

>

> Not sure what your angle is but your points are

> very inaccurate and generalised with no sensible

> merit.

> I've known two men hang themselves through not

> being able to see their children even when the

> children themselves wanted the contact

> re-established, solely because the Mother decided

> it and the courts bought the lies.

> If the Mother 'acts normal' for the hearing they

> can boss the show, this doesn't translate to

> Fathers 'deserving' what they get - which seems to

> be what you're saying.

> This is more prominent outside London in the

> provincial counties.

>

> You don't work as a magistrate in family courts by

> any chance do you ?

To be honest I think your examples tend to back up what I'm saying.

[????]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lets hope it's a vote loser and the Tories get in.

9/10 your best work so far

[????]

Still nice to see a Deed of Varition is not tax avoidance according to weasly worded hypocrites - handy for Millibands and Benns whose 'marxist' dad's set these up for exactly what reasons other than reducing IHT? Beats me.