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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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