2 Apr 2014

Why RadFem Anne Thériault's Lame-Stream Ideas Are "Garbage"

By Angelo Agathangelou: In Anne Thériault's gynocentric view the sole purpose of the MHRM is as a counter to feminism.

Please allow me to retort. In the UK there was no men's movement worth mentioning before 2002 when a band subsequently famously known as the 300 marched on parliament because "Are the government stuffing your kids this Christmas?" I am proud to have been one of those men (importantly a third of us were aunties uncles and grandparents) and I do believe that the spark for the modern MHRM was the effective and highly acclaimed campaign we waged as F4J (Fathers for Justice). The point I am trying to make is that 12 years later, it's way passed time for the radical feminists to accept that the core of the MHRM is literally and practically about Human Rights!

Miss Thériault goes on to attack 'rich white men' who she says are the oppressors in an apparent attempt to divide the MHRM. In my time Sir Bob Geldof and Charles Prince of Wales have been among our ranks, the former expounding his ideas in the excellent essay "The Father Love That Dare Not Speak It's Name" and the later exclaiming that his experience of the UK family court made him (the Prince of Wales, air to the thrown of Great Britain and the common wealth) feel like a second class citizen. That's right, HRM Charles effectively said "I'm a nigger!" 

I submit for your further dissection Anne Theriault's drivel/dribble on "Why the Men's Rights Movement Is Garbage"


*** 

By Anne Theriault: I need to take a moment here to talk about the Men's Rights Movement, because there seems to be some confusion. Actually, there seems to be a whole lot of confusion.

Over the past little while, I've had a number of people challenge me on calling out men's rights activists (hereafter referred to as MRAs). "But men are oppressed too," people say. "Feminism is sexist, and it teaches men that masculinity is wrong." "Straight, white men aren't allowed to be proud of themselves anymore." "If you believe in equality, then you should want men to have the same type of activism as women." "Everyone is entitled to their opinion."
First of all, yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But let's not pretend that all opinions are created equal -- some are based on fact, and some are total bullshit. Like, I could tell you that I believe that vaccines cause autism, and that would be my opinion, but it would also be demonstrably untrue. So let's not pretend that all opinions should be given the same consideration, because we both know better than that.
Second of all, let's get one thing straight: men, as a group, do not face systematic oppression because of their gender. Am I saying that literally no men out there are oppressed? No, I am for sure not saying that. Men can and do face oppression and marginalization for many reasons -- because of race, class, sexuality, poverty, to name a few. Am I saying that every white cishet dude out there has an amazing life because of all his amassed privilege? Nope, I'm not saying that either. There are many circumstances that might lead to someone living a difficult life. But men do not face oppression because they are men. Misandry is not actually a thing, and pretending that it's an oppressive force on par with or worse than misogyny is offensive, gross, and intellectually dishonest.
MRAs believe that feminists are to blame for basically everything that's wrong with their lives. The Men's Rights Movement is a reactionary movement created specifically to counter feminism, and most (if not all) of their time and resources go towards silencing and marginalizing women.
They do things like starting the Don't Be That Girl campaign, a campaign that accuses women of making false rape reports. They attend feminist events in order to bully and intimidate women, they flood online feminist spaces with threatening messages, and they regularly use smear campaigns and scare tactics to make the women who don't back down afraid for their physical safety. They do literally nothing to actually resolve the problems that they claim to care about, and instead do everything they can to discredit the feminist movement.


There are certainly issues that disproportionately affect men -- the suicide rate among men is higher, as is the rate of homelessness. Men are more likely to be injured or killed on the job or because of violence. Men who are the victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault are less likely to report these things. These are the issues that MRAs are purportedly working on, and by "working on" I mean "blaming feminism for."
The problem is that none of these things are caused by feminism, or equal rights for women, or anything like that. You know what's actually to blame for a lot of these issues? Marginalizing forces like class and race, for one thing. I mean, it's not rich white men who are grappling with homelessness or dangerous workplaces or gun violence. You know what else is to blame? Our patriarchal culture and its strictly enforced gender roles which, hey, happens to be exactly the same power structure that feminism is trying to take down.
The patriarchy has some fucked up ideas about masculinity, ideas that make men less likely to seek help for issues that they perceive to be too feminine -- such as being hurt or raped by a female partner, not being able to provide for themselves, or not seeking help for health issues like depression and anxiety.
On a societal level, it means that resources are not as readily available for men who face these challenges, because patriarchal ideas tell our courts, our governments and our charitable organizations that men don't ever need that kind of help. Yes, the patriarchy overwhelmingly privileges the interests of men, but it also hurts men. It hurts men in all the ways that MRAs are apparently so concerned about, which means that you would think that MRAs would be totally on board with dismantling the patriarchy, but they're not. Instead, they would rather blame women for their problems.
See, the problem with the Men's Rights Movement is that they are not doing anything concrete to resolve any of the above issues. They are not raising money to open shelters for homeless or abused men. They are not starting up suicide hotlines for men. They are not lobbying for safer workplaces or gun control.
Instead, they are crying about feminism, pooh-poohing the idea of patriarchy and generally making the world a sadder, scarier, less safe place to live in. In fact, I would argue that their stupid antics are actually a detriment to the causes that they claim to espouse, because they're creating an association between actual real issues that men face and their disgusting buffoonery. So good job, MRAs. Way to screw vulnerable men over in your quest to prove that feminism is evil. I hope you're all really proud of yourselves.
The Men's Rights Movement is not "feminism for men." It's not some kind of complimentary activism meant to help promote equal treatment of men and women. And it most certainly is not friendly towards women, unless we're talking about women with crippling cases of internalized misogyny.
I believe in equality for men and women, but I also believe that we're not born with an even playing field. Women still face disenfranchisement, discrimination and a lack of basic freedoms and rights, and although feminism has done a lot of great work over the last century or so, we still haven't undone several millennia's worth of social programming and oppression.
So that's why it's not "men's turn" to have a social justice movement. That's why we have the fem in feminism. That's why fairness and equality involve promoting the empowerment of women, rather than promoting the empowerment of both genders in equal amounts. Because, to use a stupid analogy here, if one person starts out with no apples and another person starts out with five apples and then you give them both three apples each in the name of fairness, one person still has five more apples.
So yes, let's talk about issues that affect men. Let's come up with solutions for problems that disproportionately hurt men, like suicide and homelessness and violent deaths (while at the same time recognizing that the fact that there are issues that affect more men than women does not mean that men are oppressed because of their gender). Let's work on opening up shelters for abused men, let's create campaigns bringing awareness to the fact that men are also the victims of rape, and let's pressure the government to improve workplace safety. But let's find a way to do this that's not at the expense of women. Instead, let's join together and fuck up the patriarchy real good, because that way everyone wins.
p.s. If you actually think that straight white men aren't encouraged to be "proud" of themselves you need to check your privilege a million times over and then check it some more because seriously.
Source


Angelo Agathangelou: What we have exposed as a movement of Equal rights for men and boys, much that was frankly in plain sight and simply imperceptible to many due to ignorance and indeed the marxist feminist brainwashing such as that effecting Anne are the many truths that make a mockery of feminism, current and historic. My advice is for the radical feminists to accept their mistakes pack up their foolish brigade and move on. The western world has outgrown feminism.

Men and boys: Approximately 80% of the imprisoned and homeless, receive twice the length of prison sentence for the same crime, 4-10 times the sucide rates, over 90% of workplace deaths, from top to bottom considered 2nd class citizens in the family courts and much more that super-trumps radical feminism in any victim Olympics. 

***

Pink Floyd - The Trial





The Real Love that Dare

Not Speak its Name:

A Sometimes Coherent Rant

Sir BOB GELDOF

PROLOGUE

BECAUSE OF STATEMENTS I have made on TV and elsewhere, I was invited by the editors to participate in the seminars convened by the Cambridge Socio-Legal Group, and to write what can clearly only be a lay view for this book. If my contribution is of any use, it will be, I suppose, in the shape of the amateur absolutist and iconoclast. The kicking up of an impassioned, but informed, fuss is the role Nature seems to have assigned me. Family law is not my field of expertise but it is certainly my field of experience and like many, many men in this country, it left me feeling criminalised, belittled, worthless, powerless and irrelevant. I wrote this chapter very quickly, allowing those emotions to determine the outcome.
I had no idea, and did not even care, whether it made sense or had any basis in fact but it was all true, and was what I and thousands more had experienced and found wanting. I assumed that my eminent collaborators in this work would be embarrassed by me and unwittingly patronising. They were not. They were in fact hugely tolerant, sympathetic and often, to my dismay, in agreement with my

inchoate groping towards the dark heart of this matter. I learned much from them. They sent me papers which put solid, researched fact behind my assumptions and observations. They argued amongst themselves, and with me, over parts of the piece. In the end, however, I have changed nothing because I believe still that what I wrote is true and just. Its emotional tone is what is required to change this hugely destructive assault on our personal lives, which in turn endangers
this society through an onerous and disgraceful Family Law and the system that must implement it.

I have tried incorporating supportive texts and arguments into the body of the piece to lend a greater credibility or weight—texts which my colleagues sent

me, arguments which were thrashed out in the seminar—but it seemed

presumptuous. I do not want to give the impression that I am an expert or

pseudo-professional. I am not. But maybe, unlike them, I am someone lacerated by this law, which contributed massively to the misery of my family. That is expert enough. Instead, claiming, and being allowed privileged, non-academic and profoundly unprofessional behaviour by my weary editors, I have included in an addendum the relevant texts, quotes, arguments and statistics (referring to them in the main text by number, with the references I have come across). I hope they serve three functions: firstly, they give credence to my uninformed thought; secondly, they make me appear a little less extreme or idiotic; and finally they may help force the sure and soon day that these baleful diktats will be scornfully shoved aside.

* * *

Family Law as it currently stands does not work. It is rarely of benefit to the

child, and promotes injustice, conflict and unhappiness on a massive

scale.

29,43,45

This law will not work for the reason that society itself and society’s expec-

tations have changed utterly.

Law must constantly evolve in order to keep pace with the dynamics of the

society within which it is framed.

Social law, specifically that governing human relationships, will need to

evolve ever faster particularly in an age of unprecedented and confusing change.

Deeply cherished nostrums of the ages are as nothing when confronted with a

different moral structure to that in which those beliefs took root.

The endless proposed adjustments with Family Law will not do. They

do not eliminate the injustices or aid the intended beneficiaries. An unthink-

ing tinkering with Family Law becomes unjustified tampering with peoples

lives.

Adjustments imply satisfaction with the core structure, but in the case of

Family Law, my view is that this is inappropriate on the basis that this same law

promotes pain, hurt and broken families in direct and unintended contradiction

to its purpose.

33,43,44,45

It serves merely to compound the self-inflicted damage

done to the individuals who come before it.

Therefore, just as society appears to be in a state of fundamental and perhaps

revolutionary change, the professionals of the law must be prepared to think

afresh, and act boldly.

38,44

This would mean new basic law.

I understand few believe this is necessary, and that it is too drastic or danger-

ously radical or just silly but I will try to give my, no doubt, poorly conceived

notions a rationale.

Sometimes my attempt at being dispassionate will fail and I will be seized by

the actual deep rage I feel at what the system has done to my family, myself and

many others I know personally or from the over 70 plastic bin liners of letters I

have received from individuals unknown to me. This amounts to thousands of

2

Bob Geldof

letters. Many more than I ever received during Live Aid or the Boomtown Rats

or at any other period of my ‘public life’. As Bob Dylan might have said

‘Something’s going on and you don’t know what it is. Do you Lord Chief

Justice Whatever-your-name-is?’

We’d better find out.

I will try and break down the factors that I believe have changed and which,

as a result, require a change of law. Beyond that this is the story of those 70 bin

liners—the love of fathers for their children.

1

.

SOCIETY

Given that the birth of children through the institution of marriage and the

desired end result of Family as the basic block of society is of cardinal import-

ance to our stability and social coherence we must start here.

60,61

All of the

assumptions in the above sentence however are now up for grabs.

50,63

Today, Government tries to deal with differing views of what is Family, and

each view insists upon equal validity. This is perhaps inevitable in an age of

moral relativism, itself an adjunct to our secular times. This alone is a massive

change and something some members of the judiciary seem to be unable to grasp.

The real and significant change that occurred however, the paradigm shift as

an American might say, was of course, the ‘emancipation’ of women.

1,34,36,38

Financial freedom, and the end of biological determinism, produced an over-

due and welcome balance in society. Its disruptive consequences to the status

quo however, could not be predicted but it has been massive and it has not

stopped yet.

Economics determine social arrangements. It has affected all areas of society

but most profoundly and inevitably in the relationship between the sexes and,

as a result, Family. There have been other exogenous factors contributing to

societal shifts but the effect of women free to enter the workplace has given rise

to consumerism, altered production, home ownership and house building mod-

els, and whole areas of law and sentiment within society itself. Very little has

been left unchanged by this huge and positive social movement and most of

those changes have strained the old glues that bound the family into the bread-

winner/nurturer/children model.

38

This model worked well enough for centuries and where it can still be sustained

works well today. The cardinal and excellent difference between now and the past

is that it is not clear until it is determined by the couples in question who will do the

breadwinning and who the nurturing or whether it will be both simultaneously.

And yet while individuals struggle with these difficult new conundrums the

law governing the, if you will, ‘intimate’ parts of society, the ‘personal’ laws,

remain (though some are fairly recently drafted) resolutely unaltered in their

presumptions, save for the pathetic pretence that they are gender neutral. This

is a grotesque lie that all Family Law professionals have tacitly agreed to be

The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name

3

party to, as willingly acknowledged by nearly all the lawyers I have talked to on

this issue.

26,28

And regardless of whether the professionals acknowledge it to be

or not, the vast majority of my correspondents, friends and others regard it to

be so. If this is the commonly held view then the law

will

change. It is simply a

question of when.

The law appears unwilling or unable to accept the change in the way we now

barter our relationships. The altered state of women has of course produced the

altered state of men. Men cannot be the same because women are not.

5

The law

will not acknowledge this and it must.

4

It appears bewildered, as indeed

famously do the men in question. What is their new role? What is expected of

them? How do they now define themselves in this more fluid brave new world?

And if the world is more fluid, if it now flexes, bends and warps like morality

itself, why is the law so rigid, so inflexible and fixed that its application to indi-

viduals binds them to an overweening and restrictive State of Orwellian pro-

portions—the common experience of those who find themselves as victims of

the secret world of Family Law.

Divorcees are not criminals, women are not angels, men are not ogres. Recent

rulings have produced two classic examples of the bewildering and blinkered

confusion at the inflexible heart of the law. One ruling was given against the

man who had successfully raised his children at home for 5 years while his wife

went to work. She got the children??? She got them because she was a woman.

The eminent male judge in question said so.

4

Two weeks later, another ruling

by the same judge was given

against

a woman who sought potential lovers on

the Internet. The children were given to the man??? These rulings show no

understanding of contemporary society, they appear flagrantly prejudiced and

discriminatory in clear breach of any ‘gender neutral’ guidelines or law, and per-

fectly illustrate the law’s inability to come to terms with the modern age. The

law must now root itself in reality and not social work theorising or emotive or

traditional notions of men and women’s roles. I am not the first to call for this:

a recent report published by the Work Foundation, which argues for father-

friendly workplaces, notes that:

Older fathers—the dinosaur dads—are currently the ones in the most senior positions

and so have a disproportionate influence. Most continue to see the world through the

lens of their own generation’s experience i.e. a world of bread winning men and child-

rearing women. (Reeves, 2002).

Something like 51 per cent of the workforce are women. The implication of

this figure is staggering and yet does not appear to be considered in relation to

family law. In addition men now hold a completely different view of the par-

enting role than before. Again this is a huge philosophical shift which has enor-

mous implications.

11,16,28

There are no studies which suggest that a child brought up by a man (as I was)

display any marked psychological or emotional characteristics different to one

raised by a woman.

3

4

Bob Geldof

There must be an immediate presumption, as there has been in Denmark

since January 2002 that the children, where possible, will live with the father 50

per cent of the time. Should this prove impossible the children must be free to be

with their dads 50 per cent of the time or allow a mutually acceptable arrange-

ment to be arrived at by both parties. Isn’t that eminently civilised?

In the course of the seminars which informed this book, we discussed a cul-

tural, and therefore legal, bias that men shouldn’t raise their children if they’re

toddlers. Why not?

3,14,15,23,33,63

Who do you think looked after them when

Mum was at work or otherwise out? Who changed their nappies or did the bot-

tles. What period of time do some of you live in? And if a man doesn’t know how

to do it initially, like most first time mothers, it is easily learned.

20,22,23

Relationship courses within school and during the mandatory pre-marriage

classes could helpfully incorporate babycare and parenting skills within their

agenda.

3,20,21

Clearly there may be difficulties with breast-fed babies but these

are not insurmountable, and some allowances would have to be made in this

and several other circumstances, but these are details in the overall concept and

can be dealt with. The principle remains and it is that principle of equality that

must be central.

40

Herring (this volume) reports cases in which women who wished to move out

of the area or even territory or jurisdiction were allowed to, because, well it’s

obvious innit, she’ll be-unhappy-if-we-don’t-let-her-and-that’s-clearly-not-in-

the-best-interest-of-the-child-now-is-it? . . . and therefore she should be

allowed!!!

30,33

Am I the only one who reads this and thinks this is a world gone insane? Even

if I take the utterly warped logic of the courts, how can they believe that the

child never seeing their father again until they meet a stranger some day as an

adult is in the best interest of anyone. While of course he pays for this child who

he will never see. A particularly futile way of living I would venture—I don’t

think I’d bother.

29

Herring also reports judicial disapproval for a man who objected to a woman

who wished to change the child’s surname.

30

‘A poor sort of parent’ is what this

unfortunate was called, whose child would at least know who she and her father

were before the past and her identity were stripped, like a Stalinist photograph,

out of her family’s history. He was not allowed even to give her his name. Her

family name. So a man is to be stripped of even that. He is to be utterly expunged

from the past. The past and he never happened. The child was a miracle birth.

The father of no consequence. A figment of a time. Best forgotten. Let’s move

on. Year Zero is now and forever.

24,29,30,33,38

It is unfortunate in these people’s eyes, but ultimately academic, that children

are genetically 50 per cent of the man and perhaps that selfish gene which drove

this man to express genetic infinity with his partner through their children

should just go away and conveniently disappear. But I doubt he will. The con-

tempt shown to the father is nonetheless, you will agree, utterly breathtaking.

Or will you?

The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name

15

The principle of 50 per cent of everything, the same for mother and father,

must pertain. We have seen the rise of dual-career couples; now we need

dual-carer couples. The best people to provide this care are almost always par-

ents. And we mean parents—not just mothers,

3,14,15

Indeed the reality of this

would help to neutralise the divorce advantage I describe above. Advantage is,

of course, a non-issue where there’s economic equality between the parties. In

poverty, divorce simply exacerbates the penury, in wealth it is academic. But,

whether in cases of poverty or wealth, an equal child-sharing arrangement

would be advantageous. Hopefully, it would help both parents to be free to earn

a living and pursue their independent lives, and achieve and maintain greater

amicability bewteen them, which will in turn benefit their children. I am not

blind to the impact this will have on the demand for affordable housing, but this

is essentially no different to the already huge housing crisis caused by divorce

and other factors now busily chewing up the green belt.

Seven million people live alone today as opposed to 1.5 million 50 years ago.

This change has been driven partly by the fivefold increase in divorce during the

same period and which, in turn, has driven the huge demand for housing and the

concomitant rise in price. 80 per cent of all new social housing is for single par-

ents. The government must address this core feature of the housing crisis and aid

those who care for their children to do so, especially in lower income cases,

whether it be through more shared ownership schemes run by local authorities,

greater investment in housing development, or tax relief, etc. The detail of this

can come later. However it is clear that the social and economic cost benefits of

such policies will far outweigh the current price of social disintegration.

As to those who can’t or won’t or don’t want to participate in this arrange-

ment, then the parties can work out something of mutual convenience and

benefit to the children.

Work patterns have altered considerably: flexi-time, work-from-home, the 35

hour week, and, with increasingly aware employers, will alter further. Should

new legislation be enacted allowing equal time as a norm, as increasingly hap-

pens elsewhere, it would become necessary for employers to accommodate this.

Working hours are stuck in the industrial era. They are also stuck in an age

where few employees had to worry about school runs or nursery pick-ups. The

Work Foundation (2001) has already called for legislation giving all employees the

right to request a change of working conditions (which will be granted to the par-

ents of young children from April 2003). It is now time the government recognised

that granting employees more control over their hours increases productivity

(Knell and Savage, 2001), and that, according to a recent survey of respondents

views about their ‘work-life’ balance, fathers want flexitime, a compressed work-

ing week and the chance to work at home (O’Brien and Schemilt, 2002).

Obviously I have not dealt with domestic violence or abuse of any kind.

However it should be understood as a given that there will be a small minority

of circumstances in which the 50-50 presumption should not apply and may not

even be safe—we have a child protection system which should and must deal

16

Bob Geldof

with those cases – but in all others, the presumption should prevail. However,

even in such cases, as with many aspects of family law, it should not be over-

looked that the assumptions and biases pertaining to abuse and violence—that

perpetrators in the main are men—are often overwhelmingly contradicted by

empirical and surprising fact which I have cited in the Addendum.

32–36

So the marriage contract is meaningless. Divorce is consequence free. The law

is biased and its premise discriminatory. What is left of this hollow sham? The

thing that makes any law a laughing stock and worthless—the utter moral fail-

ure or lack of will or inability to implement its own orders or impose its author-

ity with all the powers and sanctions it has awarded itself. Except in the case of

male non-compliance of course.

The Reality of ‘Contact’

The implication of any order determining the father’s allotted time with his chil-

dren is that he was always of secondary importance within the house-

hold.

2,8,9,10,11,28

Indeed this would appear to be again the unspoken assumption

underpinning the whole farrago. The weasel words ‘gender neutral’, and the oft

stated pieties of equality occur so frequently one would be forgiven for thinking

that if one says them often enough we could convince ourselves we actually are

administering a fair system. But these words, like all the other alibi utterances

such as REASONABLE CONTACT, will never disguise the underlying reality

of painful discriminatory practice.

Reasonable contact is an oxymoron. The fact that as a father you are forbid-

den from seeing your children except (like a visit to the dentist) at State-

appointed moments is by definition UNreasonable. The fact that you must

VISIT your family as opposed to live with them is unreasonable. I suppose

CONTACT as an idea works. One does become like a visitor from Mars, infre-

quent and odd, making contact with strangers in an alien landscape with all the

concomitant emotion of excitement, fear, anticipation, suspicion and disloca-

tion. But hardly the ideal emotions involved in being with your children or them

with you. In the end there is emptiness, loneliness and an overwhelming sense of

failure and loss. This wasn’t a Dad with his kids. This was an awkward visiting

Uncle in false fleeting situations of amity.

A man (like a woman) must be allowed to LIVE with his children where

possible, to raise them as he should, and as he desires, in co-operation with his

ex-partner. Once what the court deems appropriate orders (orders?) have been

made, the man enters the emotional marathon that is trying to retain your sense of

family and fatherhood with your children. It may well be that he was the type of

person who read his Sunday paper throughout the morning apparently oblivious

to anything but what was in front of him. (‘He was never a very good father’.) The

children would come in playing some game or other scrambling over him. He con-

tinued impassively reading. The children climbed over him and then buggered off.

The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name

17

This was the Dad they knew and loved. Now the Sunday morning papers and

the games are gone. Forever. There is no house. There’s an embarrassing bedsit

or small flat. ‘Well they can’t stay there can they. It’s not suitable. Don’t be stu-

pid, there’s no space’. The children are embarrassed for their Dad. They don’t

want to see him down on his luck. They feel somehow guilty, like they’re partly

to blame. Dad should be in a big house again. Then they’d like to come over.

Come over. Like a visit to another person but not a Dad. Dad looks sad in this

place; they don’t want to see that. He looks like Dad, a little tired, a little

crushed, still he looks like him but he doesn’t feel like him. There’s nothing to

do here. It’s boring. It’s weird Dad playing Monopoly and stuff . . . and draw-

ing and . . .What’s going on?

In Battersea Park on Sunday. Watch the single men with the children drag

themselves through the false hours in a frantic panic of activity. The build-up.

The excitement of being with them. The all-week anticipation. The fear of the

pick-up. The coldness. The stranger’s voice. The peremptory instructions.

The ‘have them back at . . .’ It’s Sunday. You remember the quiet papers and the

tumbling bodies about you. The serenity. But they’re here and the other thing

has gone. Not now the excitement, its not now the couple of hours together,

now it’s only the 2 hours and 58, 57, 56 etc, minutes left. Time dripping too fast,

decaying. Every second measured and weighed in the balance of loss, losing,

going away and fading. Everything must be crammed into this space. Life in an

hour. Love in a measured fragment of State-permitted time.

Now, oh boy, yeah you’re Action Dad! Yessiree kick that ball, push that

swing higher than those other Dads. You’re much better than them aren’t you?

Feed them duck

s...

again. Go to that movi

e...inthe

afternoon? Madame

Tussauds, the London Dungeon, the Eye, the Circus, Funfai

r...Hey

Johnny

every day with Dad is Treat Day. Birthday party time. They’ve finally forced

me into bein

g...

Hurrah for the State

...

New Model Dad!!!!!!!! and maybe

if I keep it up they’ll let you stay just one nigh

t...

Just one night. ‘But don’t

tell them we’ll share the bed like we used to befor

e...

they think it’s different

now, they won’t like it.’ Weird minds. ‘It’s the best thing that’s ever happened

to him. He’s a much better Father now. He used to do NOTHING before.

Nothing’. McDad in McDonalds. Sunday lunchtime. Where else do you go?

Contact centres?

Long benches and institutionalised coffee. ‘I want to go home Dad’. So do

you, but unlike him you can’t. You don’t have one to go to, remember? What

do you talk about? The silences must be filled. So much to say. Your heart

bursts with things to say. But shut up. It’s too much. Too grown-up. Too

heavy. Too burdensome on someone so small. ‘How’s school?’ brightly, cheer-

ily. ‘Fine’. ‘Great’. ‘How’s Pete?’ ‘Pete? Who’s Pete?’ ‘Y’know Pete. Your mate’

‘Oh Simon, yeah he’s good’. ‘Good’. Everything to say, no way or nowhere to

say it. Those easy silences, that casual to and fro talking of the past gone. Now

there must be subjects to fill in the spaces. And never get angry, or cross or

raise your voice or shou

t...

it’ll be reported. No discipline whatever you do.

18

Bob Geldof

‘Why, Mum lets me.’ ‘Yeah well I’m telling you not to.’ ‘You’re not the boss.

Mum is’ ‘You still must do as I tell you.’ ‘Why?’ Yeah he’s righ

t...

why? Next

week. ‘Don’t you ever speak to him like that again. Who do you think you

are?’

17–19

None of this is working. It is not the best we can do. The law itself is to blame

for these consequences of divorce. It is the clumsy, cack-handed law that

imposes this life on people. It is not right.

I note in the Lord Chancellor’s report,

Making Contact Work

, the desire to

create even more layers of State administration, tax money and bureaucracy by

creating a network of ‘Contact Centres’. Of course this is as nothing to their

solution for non-compliance with contact orders. Vast areas of advisors,

mediators, consultants and persuaders are to be set up to please ask the

‘resident’ parent to go on . . . oh, go on, please let him see his kids. Don’t be so

mean. Don’t be so horrible. Pretty please.

It is a cliché that the bureaucrat when confronted with a problem of his own

making will seize upon the opportunity to create even further layers of bureau-

cracy and contribute to the State apparatus even further. As the man said ‘It’ll

end in tiers’—it always does. But that seems to be the sum total of their creativ-

ity. That’s the big conclusion of the Lord Chancellor’s report: in principle every-

thing’s ok but could we have more money please to set up lots more levels of

interference. Thank you everyone who has contributed. Your comments have

been noted and duly ignored.

6

.

STATUS QUO

Upon separation, the system is slow and delay occurs immediately. This allows

the

status quo

to be established. As the process labours on it becomes impossi-

ble to alter. This is unfair. It is nearly always possible for the resident parent

(let’s face it, the girl) to establish a pattern. It is then deemed in the child’s inter-

est not to break this routine. But at the cost of losing sight and touch of their

father, we must really examine all our assumptions without fear. Then we can

move to building a more equitable system benefiting all equally.

Again a presumption of 50-50 rids one of the

status quo

problems.

Equally, 50-50 deals with the non-compliance issue. There would be no need

for sanctions under this regime. And no need for the laborious and unjust pro-

posals in the Lord Chancellor’s report which is a reductionist brief in a bid to

make CAFCASS into the overarching State implementor of Family Law. Perhaps

we should call it KAFKASS. This provides for an interminable round of increas-

ing sanctions to a recalcitrant parent who will not allow access to the child

though so ordered. Under the proposed regime it would literally take months

and possibly years before the other parent could see his child. At which point he

would meet a virtual stranger, possibly poisoned with prejudice (also a problem

in the

status quo

issue) against him.

17–19

Why is this permitted?

The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name

19

If the parent cannot see his child because of the refusal of the other parent to

allow it in breach of the court order, they should be arrested and jailed. The

end.

12,47

It is not much different from that other mother who was found to be

harming her children by not making them attend school. She went to jail. The

children went to school. She says it will never happen again, she was stupid.

Previously truanting children around the country, shocked by the visible

hand of authority have started showing up again. Try it. Is it any more

harmful that someone spends a brief period in jail because she is harming her

children by not letting them see their Dad? Or is it less harmful that they never

see their Dad?

26

Sometimes I also pose this question to you academics

and researchers because you are all part of this vast industry. And you are all

tinkering.

I know what I’ve written is a mess. I know it spills from coherent thought into

pain and anger. I know it sprawls across assumptions and anecdote and imagin-

ary and real conversations. Had I time I would whittle it all down to your polite,

empirical language. The problem is that this issue is bound up with pain that

spills its tears across your politesse and renders your language null.

The law is profoundly flawed. When there is absolute wrong it is permissible,

indeed imperative to be absolutist in your thinking. Do chuck out the baby with

the bath water. (Perhaps an unfortunate expression given the subject matter.)

Think fresh. Tabula rasa. Clean slate. Blank paper. Re-examine cause and

effect, for whatever the cause in the past, it is a different one today.

As we have seen, Society has changed profoundly. Marriage is meaningless

because it has no contractually enforceable consequences. Divorce is the same.

It should not be a ‘one bound and I’m free’ construct when there are children

involved. In the past people found a different freedom within their own chosen

chains of marriage.

48,50,56,60,61

Some pressure groups advocate a ‘Shared Parenting’ presumption at separ-

ation (see Buchanan and Hunt, this volume) and cosy up to the Family Law

Establishment by saying that this in no way implies an equal time situation, far

less a split residence one.

I insist on the latter. There is no harm in being radical when the status quo

breeds injustice. I have suggested:

—education in schools that would lead to an understanding of relationships and

familial responsibility;

—marriage classes which outline the consequences of a marriage contract (with

teeth), and the consequences of having children within that marriage and

their impact upon that agreement;

—at separation, and before divorce can be contemplated, a mandatory arbitra-

tor who could insist on staged withdrawal or conciliation before the dispute

may be permitted to go to court where due weight would be given to the arbit-

rator’s recommendations, and

20

Bob Geldof

—should proceedings move to divorce, a presumption of equal parenting,

implying shared responsibility and equal residency, would be assumed even if

not acted upon, but from which other formulae that suit the particular cou-

ples could emerge, save those arrangements so flagrantly ridiculous that it

would not be in the clear best interest of the child.

Currently my proposition has already begun to be assimilated into the main-

stream; in Denmark since 2001, more frequently in the US and other places.

55,56

I myself fought for it in this country. I had always worked from home. I had

money. I took care of the children. I lived beside the school; had ample accom-

modation; a stable relationship with a woman they knew and liked. My ex-wife

worked etc. Why couldn’t they be with me 50 per cent of the time? I understand

my circumstances were exceptional but I could not and still don’t understand

why there was so much opposition to this perfectly reasonable request. This is

not being naive or disingenuous. Eventually I succeeded but I had to nearly

bankrupt myself in the process simply to be able to live with my children. How

is that in their interests? Finally I was granted full custody. But I never wanted

or asked for that. My ex-wife was not a criminal so why this punitive measure

of taking our children from her. If I disagree with it happening to men, equally

so with women. I was given full custody because the professionals involved

would not agree that split residence was acceptable, despite the urging of the

judge in the case who had sat on international benches, making those judgments

daily.

Once he asked ‘If it works in those countries, why not here?’ Answer came

there none. What is it with you people? I was granted my children, but this

humane man told us should we wish to arrive at something more conducive to

us both he would welcome that. 50-50 worked fairly well for us. The only prob-

lems in our case were the personal and finally tragic circumstances. In a normal

household I cannot see why, after perhaps some initial dislocation, this would

not work.

The children are fine now, I’m fine . . . but the things your industry put us

through almost destroyed us. My children will remember your unwarranted

intrusions and heavy-handedness, save for a few gentle souls we encountered

along the way—all professionals—working inside or outside the state appara-

tus, who were kind and sympathetic. But Lord how I hated you, and what you

did to us.

Allow men their dignity. Let them be with their children. The sting is drawn

that way. The financial issue is laid aside. Co-operation, if not amity, would

be the norm. Issues of power and control and their attendant responses

of impotence and hopelessness which fuel the anger and rage are redund-

ant.

Of course it will work for some and not for others. But that’s now. When it

becomes the social norm—and it will, children will meet their peers who will

have the same or expected experience. Just as divorce was shaming for children

The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name

21

in the schoolyard once and is now a commonplace, albeit still painful. Allow

men to reclaim their fatherhood and their children.

All the other papers in this book are ignoring this central critical issue. It is

tinkering with the already redundant. We have all changed. Think anew.

Right now the agenda around Fatherhood is a modest ‘add-on’ to initiatives. It is at

best a sideshow. But the truth is that only changes in men’s lives can generate genuine

equality. Fatherhood is now the key to feminism. (Reeves, 2002)

Women changed their circumstance and so must men. By definition their chil-

dren must too occupy a different world—a different idea of family. For better

or worse? Who knows. But the law must as an imperative, recognise it and act.

There has been too much destruction. Too much pain.

As I entered court on my first day someone leaned over who felt they were

doing me a favour. ‘Whatever you do’ he said ‘for Chrissakes never say you love

your children.’ Bewildered I replied ‘Why not?’ The answer was as shocking as

it is illustrative ‘The court thinks you’re being unhealthily extreme if, being a

man, you express your love for a child.’

For two years I shut up while I heard the presumptions in favour of a mother’s

love.

Finally I began articulating the real love that dare not speak its name—that of

a father for his child.

No law should stand that serves to stifle this.

ADDENDUM

Fathers and Mothers’ Changing Roles

1. ‘Feminists point to increased father participation as essential in the realisa-

tion of women’s equality of opportunity’ (Rich, 1971).

2. ‘Currently, child care is seen as a women’s issue; it is rare indeed to find any

commentaries which frame the question within the context of women and

men. Perhaps while the question continues to be dismissed as a women’s

issue that is what will remain’ (Russell, 1983, p 219).

3. ‘There is a natural expectation that a woman’s biological capacity to bear

children carries with it an exclusive obligation to actually rear children.

However, there is no justifiable reason for the quantum leap between the

two functions—parental behaviours such as feeding, protecting, grooming,

playing, reading, education, putting to bed, washing and comforting are not

sex specific tasks’ (Opie, 2002, p 2).

4. ‘The idea that motherhood is a holy vocation managed to oppress women

by its impossible demands and unwarranted assumptions about femininity;

but it also oppressed men by excluding them from the home and consigning

them to a life of work, conflict and politics’ (Seel, 1987).

22

Bob Geldof

5. ‘By locking women inside the home, the Victorians effectively locked the

men out. Just as women were deprived of experiences relating to production

(power, creativity, economic independence, excitement), so men were

excluded from experiences relating to reproduction (nurturing, caring, sup-

porting and loving relationships with their children)’ (Opie, 2002, p 8).

6. ‘Children are universally seen as being owned by women. This leads to a

motherhood monopoly of childcare. The father, as a participating parent,

is chronically disadvantaged.’ (Opie, 2002, p 10).

7. ‘There is no evidence for a maternal instinct.’ (Opie, 2002, p 11).

8. ‘Contrary to the expectations of many, that only fathers would suffer ident-

ity problems with reversing roles and would feel threatened by mothers

taking over the breadwinning job, the evidence indicates quite clearly that

mothers experience considerable difficulty in adjusting to the father being

the primary parent.’ (Russell, 1987, p 176).

9. ‘Mothers felt threatened when fathers were intimate with their children’

(New and David, 1985).

10. ‘Mothers felt threatened by their husband’s participation in the tradition-

ally female domain’ (Russell, 1987, p 121).

11. ‘The answer [to why women do not want male involvement] may lie in the

traditional patterns of female power and privilege. Some women may fear

losing their traditional power over home activities if they allow men to relieve

them of even part of the home and family work’ (Polternick, 1987, p 112).

12. ‘Where involvement and responsibility are shared so is the decision-making.

A father’s involvement in the domestic sphere means that the number of

decisions that have to be negotiated greatly increases. Hence, in order to

keep to a minimum the child-centred decisions and the inevitable conflicts,

the father’s participation is restricted by the mother’ (Hoffman, 1977, cited

in New and David, 1985, p 205).

13. ‘It has been suggested that mothers do not want to abdicate any childcare

responsibility because by doing so they would place themselves in a less

favourable position with regard to custody of the child in the event of a

divorce’ (Lamb,

et al

, 1987, p 115).

14. ‘Fathers are as sensitive and responsive to their young children as mothers

are. For example when fathers feed their young babies they respond appro-

priately when the baby wants to pause or needs to splutter after taking too

much milk. They also manage to get as much milk into the baby as mothers

do’ (Parke, 1981).

15. ‘Babies usually bond as easily with their fathers as with their mothers.

Many studies have compared the ways in which 1–2 year olds relate to their

attachment figures and have found that the closeness of father and baby is

almost identical to that of mother and baby’ (Lewis, 1982).

16. ‘For various reasons, mothers resent active father involvement in child care’

(Biller, 1993).

The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name

23

Mothers’ Influence over the Father-child Relationship

17. ‘Mothers are gatekeepers, capable of enhancing or dampening father-infant

attachment’ (Braselton and Cremer, 1991).

18. ‘If a mother’s attitude to the father is negative she may wish the children to

reflect the same feelings towards him’ (Opie, 2002, p 17).

19. ‘In all too many families, children’s perceptions of fathers are heavily

weighted by information provided by mothers . . . if a mother continually

uses derogatory terms in describing the father, the children may come to

believe her and begin to withdraw their respect for him’ (Biller, 1993 at

p 23).

Education and Parenting

20. ‘It (the curriculum) regrettably undervalues the father’s role to accept that,

while the girl is educated to be a mother, the boys do not need preparation

for parenting’ (Sutherland, 1981).

21. ‘Formal education ignores fathering. One researcher found that only 1% of

his interviewees had received a school lesson on the subject of fathering. It

has been repeatedly found that parenting classes are dominated by female

staff and aimed specifically at girls’ (Lewis, C, 1986, pp 33–4).

22. ‘Most hospitals show mothers how to bathe, dress, change, carry and

feed their babies, but these skills were seldom shown to fathers, even

though they needed to be taught more than the mothers did’ (Lewis, 1983,

p

252).

23. ‘Mothers must learn to love their babies, to change nappies, bath and feed

them. Fathers who try to do these things at visiting time [in hospital] are

often discouraged and the idea that they might need to hold their new-born

is new. One father was told to stop bonding—“it isn’t fair on the mother” ’

(New and David, 1985, p 210).

Family Service Professionals’ View of Fathers

24.

‘Child and family centred professionals perpetuate the ideological division

between mothers and fathers by positively underwriting the mother’s owner-

ship of the children and negatively marginalizing fathers’ (Opie, 2002, p 18).

25. ‘Other child care professionals are resistant to father’s involvement. In

America a survey showed that only 50% of workers in a pre-school pro-

gram supported fathers’ involvement.’ (Burgess, 1997).

26. ‘It is important to bear in mind that the professional denial of father’s role

is widespread.’ (Rowe

et al

, 1984).

24

Bob Geldof

27. ‘Social work practice and research has not appreciated the role of the father,

he is dealt with as a ‘problematic figure’ rather than a full partner in social

service delivery.’ Bolton, 1986).

28. ‘By holding negative attitudes to all fathers and thereby ignoring them,

child-centred professionals are actually endangering the children they are

meant to protect. It may be speculated that this anti-father attitude is

created from the combination of two-factors—the ideological elements in

training and the current negative image of men in society . . . the whole cul-

ture of such professionals needs to be addressed . . . Prejudice against fathers

appears to be manifest amongst child-centred professionals, whose attitude

and behaviour promote the ideology that mothers should have a monopoly

on childcare.’ (Opie, 2002, p 22 and IPPR, 2000).

29. ‘Fathers are exalted as breadwinner and scorned as parents by a system that

relentlessly promotes child care by mothers and role defines the father out

of the home’ (Opie, 2002, pp 26–28).

30. ‘The dominance of women in family services, and the corresponding

scarcity of men, is among the most powerful of all the forces which exclude

fathers from the lives of their children today for in this we see the outward

and visible sign of what begins to be perceived as an essential truth: that in

family life, men are an irrelevance at best, and at worst a danger.’ (Delaney

and Delaney, 1990, p 156).

31. ‘There is no legislation or encouragement to introduce male quotas in the

female ghettos of child centred occupations, as there has been for females in

male ghettos.’ (Opie, 2002, p 27).

Some Evidence about the Perpetrators of Child Abuse

32. ‘A sample of workers from the Australian Family Services were asked what

percentage of fathers abuse their own children. The answer was an aston-

ishing 25%. The actual figure was only 2%.’ (Clare, 2000, p 185).

33. ‘The biological father is the least likely person to abuse his children and all

types of abuse increase significantly when biological fathers are absent from

the family.’ (Clare, 2000, p 186).

34. ‘[In] the neglect, physical and sexual abuse cases, [the children] were over

twice as likely to be living with their natural mother alone.’ (NSPCC,

1988–90).

35. ‘In one American study it was found that mothers were the physical aggres-

sors in 62% of the abuse cases that were reported to the child protection

services.’ (Wright and Leroux, cited in Fillion, 1997, p 233).

36. ‘Greater father participation in child rearing is unlikely to lead to more child

sexual abuse. Provided that the father is intimately involved from the very

beginning, there seems to be a protection from sexual abuse’ (Kremer, 1995,

p 12).

The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name

25

Policy Implications

37. ‘The child support agency . . . clearly indicates to society that the govern-

ment considers the father’s role only as a breadwinner. The agency should

link maintenance payments to non-residential father contact with his

children, thereby making a public acknowledgement that fathers have a

physical presence in their children’s lives, a right to be involved parents and

not just carry financial responsibility.’ (Opie, 2002, p 29).

38. ‘The movement for men to be parentally equal at home is as revolutionary

as the demand of women to be politically and economically equal outside

the home. Indeed it is probably more so because it involves a more funda-

mental cultural, social, economic and political change . . . It is not surpris-

ing that men who seek a fair share of power in the family are incurring

as much opposition as women who seek their fair share of power in the

market place.’ (Opie, 2002, p 31).

39. ‘A woman who is denied a job because of her sex can always seek redress

and compensation through the numerous Sexual Discrimination Acts. But

a father who is denied his child has no legislative support or recompense. He

has lost them forever.’ (Opie, 2002, p 31).

40. ‘We need equality for women and for men—particularly for men because

we won’t have real equality until men are able to take on their caring

responsibilities.’ (Mellor, 2000).

41. ‘The growth of marital dissolution witnessed in recent decades has imposed

increasing costs on the tax payer . . . and imposed a range of extra demands

on the welfare state. (Dnes and Rowthorn, 2002, p 2).

42. ‘Specialists frequently observe that modern family law creates an incentive

structure that encourages opportunism and facilitates interpersonal obliga-

tions’(Dnes and Rowthorn, 2002, p 2).

43. ‘A badly designed divorce law may undermine the fabric of trust upon

which stable marriages depend. If it is badly designed, the law itself may

stimulate divorce and contribute to a great deal of human misery.’ (Dnes

and Rowthorn, 2002, p 2).

44. ‘How far was legal reform a causal factor in the growth of divorce?

Statistics provide compelling evidence that the liberalisation of divorce law

had a permanent impact on divorce rates.’ (Dnes and Rowthorn, 2002, p 2).

45. ‘The law has a significant effect on divorce rates’ (Dnes and Rowthorn cit-

ing Zelder, 2002, p 8).

46. ‘Much can be claimed for the older reliance on informal social sanctions

and the good moral sense of the parties. Our modern need to wrestle with

settlement issues may stem from losing this traditional set of checks and

loosening the moral value of promise.’ (Dnes and Rowthorn citing Cohen,

2002, p 3).

26

Bob Geldof

47. ‘A failure to enforce quasi-contractual obligations between marriage part-

ners encourages opportunistic behaviour’ (Dnes and Rowthorn citing

Cohen, 2002, p 3).

48. ‘One does not have to be conservative to support legal restrictions on

divorce. The legal enforcement of marital commitments is consistent with

the legal principles and may enhance the freedom of individuals to pursue

their life goals.’ (Dnes and Rowthorn citing Scott, 2002, p 4).

49. ‘In marriage as in commercial contracts, legal commitment can promote

co-operation and protect investment in the relationship to the mutual bene-

fit of the parties concerned.’ (Dnes and Rowthorn citing Scott, 2002, p 4).

50. ‘Family law reforms since the 1960s have increased the freedom of individ-

uals to leave a marriage, but in so doing they have restricted the freedom of

individuals to bind themselves so as to achieve the long term goals they

desire.’ (Dens and Rowthorn citing Scott, 2002, p 4).

51. ‘Amongst the possibilities that would facilitate personal commitment con-

sistent with liberal principles, are mandatory pre-marital and pre-divorce

counselling, and mandatory waiting period of 2–3 years before divorce.’

(Dnes and Rowthorn citing Scott, 2002, p 4).

52. ‘Primary grounds for divorce should be mutual consent. A marriage should

be dissolved only if both spouses agree it is a failure.’ (Dnes and Rowthorn

citing Parkman, 2002, p 5).

53. ‘A spouse who wishes to terminate a marriage against the initial desire of

the other spouse will have to win the consent of the latter. This suggestion

mirrors the standard of specific performance remedy for breach of con-

tract, which obliges a party wishing to be released from a contract to pay

full compensation. Bargaining over terms of dissolution might require con-

cessions on such issues as custody, alimony or division of the family assets.

Such a provision protects spouses against expropriation of their invest-

ments in a marriage, since it deters opportunistic desertion and forces

a

departing spouse to pay full compensation. But to limit this power,

unilateral, penalty-free divorce should be available early in the marriage

when there are no children.’ (Dnes and Rowthorn citing Parkman, 2002,

p

5).

54. ‘In the absence of legal penalties, partners may avoid investing in the mar-

riage. ‘(Dnes and Rowthorn citing Rasmusden, 2002, p 5).

55. ‘Louisiana couples can now choose between two types of marriage: the

conventional type, which permits easy divorce with few penalties and the

new common marriage, in which divorce is obtainable only after substan-

tial delay or on proof of fault. Before entering a covenant marriage,

couples must undergo counselling, and they must agree to mandatory

counselling in the event of difficulties that threaten the marriage.

Moreover a spouse who is guilty of serious misconduct, such as adultery

or physical abuse, may be compelled to pay damages in the event of

divorce. There may also be damages if the divorce follows a refusal to take

The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name

27

‘reasonable steps to preserve the marriage including counselling’ (Dnes

and Rowthorn citing Spat, 2002, p 6).

56. ‘ The covenant marriage law unites two distinct strands of thought: it is

consistent with the liberal notion that individuals should have the right to

make binding commitments if they so choose. This choice is denied to them

in states that offer liberal, no-fault divorce. At the same time it embodies the

communitarian notion that marriage serves important social functions and

that marriage law should embody moral principles consistent with these

functions.’ (Dnes and Rowthorn citing Spat, 2002, p 6).

57. ‘Under the covenant law the primary purpose of counselling is to save mar-

riages, and counsellors are not expected to be neutral with regard to

divorce.’ (Dnes and Rowthorn citing Spat, 2002, p 6).

58. ‘Marriage law like ordinary contract law, should embody the moral notion

of personal responsibility. Fault is no more difficult to establish in the case

of divorce than in many other legal contexts.’ (Dnes and Rowthorn citing

Spat, 2002, p 6).

59. ‘. . . apply normal contractual principles to marriage so that damages would

be payable for a unilateral breach of the marriage contract’ (Dnes and

Rowthorn citing Dnes, 2002, p 7).

60. ‘In Western culture, marriage helps individuals to signal to each other and

to the outside world, their desire for a sexually permanent union. However,

modern legal and social trends have greatly reduced the credibility of this

signal. As a result, marriage is no longer an effective signal of commitment.’

(Dnes and Rowthorn citing Rowthorn 2002, p 7).

61. ‘The degree of commitment is still higher, on average, amongst married

couples than among cohabiting couples, and marriage is still the best pre-

dictor of the durability of a relationship.’ (Dnes and Rowthorn citing

Rowthorn, 2002, p 7).

62. ‘Insulating women from the adverse consequences of divorce may reinforce

incentives for marital dissolution.’ (Dnes and Rowthorn citing Smith, 2002,

p 9).

63. ‘People may choose to cohabit because marriage law is dysfunctional and

offers inadequate protection for spouses who invest in their marriage’ (Dnes

and Rowthorn citing Dnes, 2002, p 7).

64. ‘Marriage bargaining i

s...a

co-operative game in which the outcome is

efficient, in the sense that one spouse could not be made better off without

making the other worse off’ (Dnes and Rowthorn citing Zelder, 2002,

p

8).

REFERENCES

B

ILLER

, HB,

Fathers and Families: Paternal Factors in Child Development

(Auburn,

House, 1993).

B

RAZELTON

, TB and C

REMER

, BG,

The Earliest Relationship

(London, Karnoc, 1991).

28

Bob Geldof

B

OLTON

, FG, ‘Negative Paternal Stereotyping in Social Service Delivery’ in ME Lamb,

The Father’s Role: Applied Perspectives

(Chichester, Wiley, 1986).

B

URGESS

, A,

Fatherhood Reclaimed: The Making of the Modern Father

(London,

Vermilion, 1997).

C

LARE

, A,

On Men: Masculinity in Crisis

(Chatto and Windus, 2000).

C

OHEN

, L, ‘Marriage: the Long term Contract’ in A Dnes and R Rowthorn,

The Law and

Economics of Marriage and Divorce

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002).

C

REIGHTON

,

SJ,

Child Abuse Trends in England and Wales

, 1988–90 (London, NSPCC,

1992).

D

ELANEY

, TJ and D

ELANEY

CC, ‘Managers as Fathers: Hope on the Home Front’ in

LR Meth,

Men in Therapy: the Challenge of Change

(New York, Guildford Press,

1990), cited in A Burgess,

Fatherhood Reclaimed: The Making of the Modern Father

(Vermillion, 1997).

D

NES

, A and R

OWTHORN

, R,

The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002).

D

NES

, A, ‘Cohabitation and Marriage’ in A Dnes and R Rowthorn,

The Law and

Economics of Marriage and Divorce

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,

2002).

H

OFFMAN

, LW, ‘Increased Fathering; Effects on the Mother’ 1977 cited in C New and

M David,

For the Children’s Sake: Making Children more than Women’s Business

(Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1985).

K

IMMELL

, M,

The Gendered Society

(Oxford, OUP, 2002).

K

NELL

, J and S

AVAGE

, C,

Desperately Seeking Flexibility

(London, Resource Connection,

2001).

K

REMER

, S,

Active Fathering for the Future

(Working paper No 7, Demos, 1995).

Institute for Public Policy Research,

Father Figure: Fathers’ Groups in Family Policy

(London, Institute for Public Policy Research, 2000).

L

AMB

, M, P

LECK

, J and L

EVINE

, J, ‘Effects of Increased Paternal Involvement on Fathers

and Mothers’ in C Lewis and M O’Brien (eds),

Re-assessing Fatherhood: New

Observations on Fathers and the Modern Family

(London, Sage, 1987).

L

EWIS

, C, cited in M Lamb and A Sagi (eds),

Fatherhood and Family Policy

(New Jersey,

Lawrence Erlbaum, 1983).

L

EWIS

, C (1982) cited in ‘father facts’ www.fathersdirect.com.

——

Becoming a Father

(Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1986).

M

ELLOR

, J, Chair of Equal Opportunities Commission

The Times

, 13 March 2000.

N

EW

, C and D

AVID

, M,

For the Children’s Sake: Making Children more than Women’s

Business

(Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1985).

O’B

RIEN

, M and S

HEMILT

, I,

Dads on Dads: Needs and Expectations at Home and at

Work

(London, EOC, 2002).

O

PIE

, W,

Barriers to Father’s Involvement in Child Care Within the Two Parent Family

and Policy Suggestions to Remove Them

(Unpublished Masters thesis, University of

Bristol, 2002).

P

ARKE

, R,

Fathering

(London, Collins, 1981) cited in ‘father facts’ www.fathersdirect.com.

P

ARKMAN

, A, ‘Mutual Consent Divorce’ in A Dnes, and R Rowthorn,

The Law and

Economics of Marriage and Divorce

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002).

P

OLTERNICK

, N, ‘Why Men Don’t Rear Children: A Power Analysis’ (1974) cited in

C Lewis and M O’Brien,

Re-assessing Fatherhood: New Observations of Fathers and

the Modern Family

(London, Sage, 1987), p 112.

The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name

29

R

ASMUSDEN

, E, ‘An Economic Approach to Adultery Law’ in A Dnes and R Rowthorn,

The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce

(Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press, 2002).

R

EEVES

, R,

Dad’s Army: The Case for Father-Friendly Workplaces

(The Work

Foundation, 2002).

R

ICH

, A,

Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution

(London, Virago,

1977).

R

OWE

, J, C

AIN

, H, H

UNDLEBY

, M and K

EANE

, A, ‘Long Term Foster Care’ (London,

Batsford, 1984), cited in C Lewis and M O’Brien,

Re-assessing Fatherhood: New

Observations of Fathers and the Modern Family

(Sage, 1987).

R

OWTHORN

, A, ‘Marriage as a Signal’ in A Dnes and R Rowthorn,

The Law and

Economics of Marriage and Divorce

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002).

R

USSELL

, G,

The Changing Role of Fathers

(Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1983).

R

USSELL

, G, ‘Problems in Role-Reversed Families’ in C Lewis and M O’Brien,

Re-

assessing Fatherhood: New Observations of Fathers and the Modern Family

(London,

Sage, 1987).

S

COTT

, E, ‘Marital Commitment and the Legal Regulation of Divorce’ in A Dnes and

R Rowthorn,

The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce

(Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press, 2002).

S

EEL

, R.

The Uncertain Father: Exploring Modern Fatherhood

(Bath, Gateway Books,

1987).

S

MITH

, I, ‘European Divorce Laws, Divorce Rates and their Consequences’ in A Dnes and

R Rowthorn,

The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce

(Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press, 2002).

S

PAT

, K, ‘Louisiana Covenant Law: Recapturing the Meaning of Marriage for the Sake

of the Children’ in A Dnes and R Rowthorn,

The Law and Economics of Marriage and

Divorce

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002).

S

UTHERLAND

, M,

Sex Bias in Education

(Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1981).

The Work Foundation,

Cool Contracts: Modernising Employment Contracts

, Industrial

Society Policy Brief (London, The Work Foundation, 2001).

W

RIGHT

, C, and L

EROUX

, P, ‘Children as Victims of Violent Crime’ in Juristat Bulletin 11,

p 12, cited in K Fillion,

Lip Service

(Harper Collins, 1997).

Z

ELDER

, M. ‘For Better or for Worse? Is Bargaining in Marriage and Divorce Efficient?’

in A Dnes and R Rowthorn,

The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002).

No comments:

Post a Comment