What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

I don't agree with denying a father access to his children without good reason ie he's an extremely negative influence, abusive, likely to poison them against the mother etc.

oh ffs.

Don't you think plenty of the mothers who are denying the father access aren't doing that themselves? Why is that measure only made against the father but the mother gets a free pass?

If you want to know the one place that anti-patriarchy rules in the UK, it's within the family courts and related services.

[feral chile]

oh ffs.

Don't you think plenty of the mothers who are denying the father access aren't doing that themselves? Why is that measure only made against the father but the mother gets a free pass?

If you want to know the one place that anti-patriarchy rules in the UK, it's within the family courts and related services.

It's not made only against the father (by me I mean). we were talking about fathers being denied access. I wasn't suggesting that women don't also do this. But women are rarely denied access.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all here.

It's an example of when gender stereotyping penalises men, and I presume it's based on seeing firstly, mothers as the better caregivers, and secondly, as potential victims.

Going from a patriarchy model, I think it fits in with it, for that reason.

It should be the child's interests that are paramount, and that shoud be based on as objective an assessment as possible.

Edited March 12, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

But women are rarely denied access.

that's not done on any fair basis, it's done because of an anti-male agenda in the family courts.

The family courts set-up is such a fuck up that the govts own family courts advisor is not legally allowed to discuss the operation of the family courts with the govt.

I'd like to provide you with more than just anecdotal evidence of this, but because of the fuck up that is the family courts there is zero research about how the family courts operate, because that research would be illegal.

[feral chile]

http://metro.co.uk/2014/05/03/12-really-sexist-vintage-ads-to-make-your-blood-boil-4716871/

When I hear the term patriarchy, it's this kind of patheticness it makes me think of.

Edited March 12, 2015 by feral chile

[kaosmark2]

Isn't the anti-dad agenda part of the pendulum swing, that used to let dads who left families with no sense of responsibility, off the hook?

Like everything, in an ideal world, each case should be looked at in isolation. But as unfair, in some cases, as it is, I can see why it is the way it is. Hopefully the pendulum will settle in a fairer place eventually.

Not as simple as that, or as innocent. It's also based in an idea that men aren't capable of raising children without the mother. It follows traditional gender roles and perpetuates them.

[eFestivals]

I don't know of any woman who walked out on a man for him to look after the kids. I know it happens, but it is as often?

I know some, about half as many as I know the other way around.

Funnily enough, it's only (some of) the women of those who deny the father access - and only for the reason that they no longer like that man.

[kaosmark2]

I didn't mean to suggest it was an innocent excuse. But, If we're so locked into a patriarchal society, then isn't that the case (that men are less likely to be capable)?

I don't know of any woman who walked out on a man for him to look after the kids. I know it happens, but it is as often?

My dad, my wife's dad, my brother (who walked out on his kid), my wife's brother....

Not as often, but the proportion isn't as high as the family courts rules and societal prejudice would suggest it is.

[eFestivals]

a patriarchal society

i see you're talking about it, but do you know what it is yet?

Only yesterday you admitted you still didn't.

[midnight]

I know... I want an update though. I need some re-assurance that she's ok

There's kind of an update here, apologies if you have seen it already.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/10/lebanese-tv-host-rima-karaki-self-respect-interview

[midnight]

and as you're doing the all men are bastards thing, I'll just remind you all it's not a one way street.

Plenty of women are prepared to deny their child access to its father, on just the basis that they want to make that man suffer but don't give a shit about making their child suffer. To such women their child is not a person but merely their possession.

Courts have even gone as far to deny a father access forever simply on the basis that the mother would find it too distressing to let a person she's come to hate (merely via the breakdown of their relationship) be able to do what she doesn't want.

Let's have a little balance, eh? It's not only men that can be evil.

I don't remember anyone doing the "all men are bastards thing" , perhaps something has passed me by - I have neither the time nor the energy to read the whole thread again. And no one ever said that women can't be evil, or vindictive.

Family law on child custody is changing at the moment, at least that is what a solicitor I consulted as recently as January told me. Apparently regular access for the non-resident parent and shared custody are now not so easily denied; I wouldn't get away with such a reason as you gave above for denying my son's father the right to spend time with him (not that I would want to, btw, as I totally agree - it would be very bad for the child not to be able to see his father). I appreciate that this is not much good to people who have already spent many years struggling with an unreasonable ex. And that judges can be as traditionally biased as the rest of the population.

[midnight]

isn't it? I'd be interested to see a comparison, of how many dads walk out on their family against how many mums do.

Julie Burchill is famous for it. But I'm afraid you won't find any proper statistics on this, it just isn't properly recorded, all you can get are guess-timates and anecdotal stuff.

I don't know any women who have walked out on their children, not directly. By proxy, the daughter of a friend of mine was going out with a guy whose mother had left him and his twin brother to be raised by their father, but I never met the mother.

Gingerbread have some statistics on single fathers (about 8% - they should know, as they are one of the leading charities supporting single parents, but I'm sure I have read figures like 10-13% as well, just can't remember where). But there is no breakdown of how many of these men are single fathers because the mother walked out. What they do know is hat 12% of single fathers are widowed (as are about 5% of single mothers).

http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/content/365/Statistics

One of my male friends was a single father (I say was because his son is now 31 and mostly doing his own thing). He got divorced in the early 90s, his son was about 8 at the time. Both parents would have liked the boy to live with them, it went to court, the child was considered old enough to have a say - and he said he'd prefer to live with his dad. The mother was upset, but decided to respect the kid's decision and went along with it. The father is a freelancing musician, and I don't think that this was a case of him trying to influence the son against his mother, as single fatherhood was really quite a complicated feat for him with his irregular working hours and tours. They made it work somehow. I mostly know his side of the story, I've only met the mother once. So this man would be part of the 8% statistic of single fathers, but that doesn't mean that his ex walked out on her son.

Goes to show that it is possible to resolve these things if people can put their resentments to one side and their children's needs first.

Edited March 13, 2015 by midnight

[eFestivals]

Family law on child custody is changing at the moment, at least that is what a solicitor I consulted as recently as January told me. Apparently regular access for the non-resident parent and shared custody are now not so easily denied; I wouldn't get away with such a reason as you gave above for denying my son's father the right to spend time with him (not that I would want to, btw, as I totally agree - it would be very bad for the child not to be able to see his father). I appreciate that this is not much good to people who have already spent many years struggling with an unreasonable ex. And that judges can be as traditionally biased as the rest of the population.

How is it changing?

It's illegal to even research any part of the system.

There are no stats on outcomes.

There can't even be any advice given to govt to help them formulate new family law policies - it's illegal to do so.

[eFestivals]

What they do know is hat 12% of single fathers are widowed

I'll just point out that I know several fathers in this position (with the kids now adults) - but in all of those cases the mother had walked out before her death.

So that "widowed" stat is hiding some of the truth of the situations that have played out.

[midnight]

How is it changing?

It's illegal to even research any part of the system.

There are no stats on outcomes.

There can't even be any advice given to govt to help them formulate new family law policies - it's illegal to do so.

I am relying on information from a solicitor here, for all I know he was referring to clause 11:

Clause 11 of the Children and Families Bill will require the courts to presume that after a child’s parents separate, it will further the child’s welfare for both parents to be involved in the child’s life, unless the contrary is showed.

http://www.crae.org.uk/news/children-and-families-bill-controversial-provision-on-shared-parenting-amended/

As for "showing the contrary" , I was told that even an incident of DV would probably not be reason enough to exclude that parent, which surprised me somewhat. But I did not ask any more questions as I have every intention to go down the shared route, and this information was just a byproduct of a worst-case-scenario discussion we had.

Similar legislation was passed in Australia some time ago and apparently lead to a flurry of court cases brought by parents fighting for 50% shared parenting.

Since I've had my meeting, the amendment mentioned in the article above has been passed.

http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/index.php?page=children_and_families_bill:_%27shared_parenting%27_legislation_amendment

I'm not sure how much difference that will make - I probably will know in a few months time.

I'll just point out that I know several fathers in this position (with the kids now adults) - but in all of those cases the mother had walked out before her death.

So that "widowed" stat is hiding some of the truth of the situations that have played out.

As I tried to say, the stats are not very useful as they don't make abandonment scenarios clear, neither for men or women.

Also, based on the figure Gingerbread gives (2,000,000 single parents, 8% of them men) there are in total many more single parent widows (5% of the 92%) than widowers (12% of the 8%).

I have no idea how they account for people in the situation you describe. Until you said you know several, I would have thought that to be quite rare, simply because women usually stop having children in their 40s, so unless the absent mother dies at an unusually young age, her children would be grown up before she dies? And would anyone count as a widowed single parent if the absent parent died after the children are grown up? I don't know.

Finally, the whole single parent definition is a bit odd, according to the Gingerbread website:

"At least 9 per cent of single parents share the care of their child equally, or nearly equally, with the other parent."

It always annoys me that this scenario gets filed under single parenthood, when it really is a case of shared parenting, but there we are.

[feral chile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/xojane-/im-a-sex-worker-and-dating-is-awkward_b_6770650.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

A sex worker's account of her life.

I mean, I was fine telling him about the town I grew up in, that I double majored in sociology and literature, and that I went to a prestigious writing program, and that I was working on my first novel. I didn't mind telling him about the past three years I'd spent in New York working as an art model. I just didn't want to mention what I did now.

I love my job. I think I do something important in its own way. I perform in graphic narratives that people use to get off. I think getting off is a vital part of human life and one that we shouldn't have to apologize for. I also realize that reality is a long way off, and in the meantime I spend a lot of my time wading through the bog of shit that is other people's shame and rage as it relates to their sexuality.

So I didn't tell him.

I justified this to myself with the notion that, hey, who knows if this is even serious and why weigh it down unnecessarily with all of the heavy lifting of institutionalized sexism that demands very specific sanctions against women that are empowered in any way financially or sexually, and, most especially, both?

I mean, just writing about it is a headache. I can already hear everyone who hates porn weighing in with some hot take that's most likely based on irrational feelings rather than empirical truths. I digress.

I made up a pat response. When a guy would ask me to tell them about myself, what I did, etc., I would reply with:

"Writing is my life. I travel a lot, but not to anywhere interesting, usually San Francisco or Las Vegas, sometimes NYC. I love history and music and I have a pitbull rescue named Coco that I'm over-emotionally attached to. My iPhone is my life, I live out of suitcases, and I haven't unpacked most of my furniture yet. Netflix is like weed to me, and I have a diet that involves things called 'cheat days' and 'shame spirals.' I like the words 'overmuch' and 'evermore.' I'm a feminist and progressive and have a graduate education and really strong views about the wage gap. I write for an edutainment program about history on YouTube, I have a podcast, and, also, I'm a porn star."

This is why I'm ambivalent about Page 3. I just don't think it's as straightforward a feminist issue as people have expressed o here. And I particularly don't know where my own prejudices end.

So I'd prefer to allow the people themselves decide. And this lady thinks that it's social attitudes towards her job that's the problem.

I wonder if sex therapists get the same problem? After I graduated, I made the mistake of passing on some information relating to this, to a colleague. Based on the general response, I'd say it's nothing to do with porn, and everything to do with our attitude to sex.

but in the un-fun way where everyone wants to be unabashedly honest with you about their sexual desires and hang-ups because you're not a "normal person" anymore.

Edited March 15, 2015 by feral chile

[midnight]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/xojane-/im-a-sex-worker-and-dating-is-awkward_b_6770650.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

A sex worker's account of her life.

This is why I'm ambivalent about Page 3. I just don't think it's as straightforward a feminist issue as people have expressed o here. And I particularly don't know where my own prejudices end.

So I'd prefer to allow the people themselves decide. And this lady thinks that it's social attitudes towards her job that's the problem.

I wonder if sex therapists get the same problem? After I graduated, I made the mistake of passing on some information relating to this, to a colleague. Based on the general response, I'd say it's nothing to do with porn, and everything to do with our attitude to sex.

How does that relate to young girls being uncomfortable about page 3, feral?

It is neither you, nor I, nor the posing models who decide what gets published in the sun, and why. It is a decision made by the people who run the paper, with the aim to sell the paper. It has nothing to do with them wanting to empower women. And it apparently makes many young women uncomfortable. It is relatively easy to avoid the niche porn films the linked writer works in, it is a lot more difficult to avoid one of the best selling national newspapers.

But I have read the whole linked article on her dating situation, and here's my take on it:

Firstly, it sounds made up. Creative writing? Someone with the education she claims to have should be able to cobble together something better: " A guy with six pack abs kissing a dolphin with a graduate degree in comparative literature?" Well, I'd love a dolphin with a graduate degree - would probably be the answer to all my relationship problems!! Also, shagging away with male co-stars in your spare time? Aren't they supposed to save themselves for work? At least that's what I remember from last time I read about it (admittedly, some years ago). Never mind the oddity of a young man who has just finished his degree and is driving a mercedes (that's what she notices, apart from his shiny teeth - the brand of car). Unless he is from a minted family, he'd probably drive something else. And fab looking guys from minted families are dreaming of joining the police force to become detectives? Errr, what?

Nevermind. Sovereign has trouble finding a date to emotionally connect with. Yet all her observations about the men she's giving a chance are totally shallow: they have great bodies, looks to sell perfume with (eh?), degrees, ah yes, and a Mercedes. But she wants the men to go straight for her intellectual side. Pot? Kettle? ....... Tinder?? She calls herself a porn star in this -incredibly contrived sounding- write up for tinder you've quoted. Why star? Is everyone who works in the porn industry a star now? And she is surprised about the reaction she gets - tinder is not about meeting your soulmate. It's about young people looking to hook up for sex (correct me if I got that wrong). Why would anyone on there want to discuss the French revolution with her? That would be a case of massive serendipity. Ok, perhaps her brother briefed her badly.

She then says that there are quite a few men who don't mind her work - those who know what she does from the start and meet her in a social context. Well, that is probably the best way of meeting a potential partner anyway, as opposed to ticking people off against a set of characteristics on a website. What exactly is the problem, then? She just has to find one who doesn't mind, but also has impeccable looks, a university degree, great chemistry with her - and an expensive car. Even the French revolution should fall into place, then. Good luck. There certainly is prejudice against her type of work, but that is perhaps the smallest of her problems (she seems to be blissfully unaware of any other of the industry's problems anyway).

Finally, it may well be a fundamental human right for people to "get off", but the next time someone tells me that working in the porn industry is a kind of important public service, I'm going to fall off my chair laughing. They do it because the money is good, and some might even like doing it, I wouldn't dare telling them that they can't or shouldn't; but please guys/girls, stop suggesting that you're doing it to do me, or anyone else, a favour or essential service. People have been "getting off" for thousands of years without the help of this industry. It is quite doable. But they are happy to pay for porn, and that is why it gets made. Not as sex therapy.

Edited March 16, 2015 by midnight

[midnight]

I guess it's making a difference between kids being brought with parents together in one home, and parents who have split up but are sharing the parenting. In those cases both parents are single parents.

Made me wonder... would we call a parent who'd walked out on the other one, and any kids, a single parent, or do they no longer 'qualify' for being a parent? Otherwise, single parent doesn't mean much, as far as who is doing the parenting...?

Argh, double accounting, you've just made it even more complicated!

I think single parent is often used to describe the parent with whom the children mostly reside, but Single seems to indicate to a lot of people that the parent is alone in raising the children, although we know that this is not true in many cases. I can't find anything on how many parents with dependent children are truely single, as in no contact or support from the parent who now lives elsewhere.

Edited March 16, 2015 by midnight

[feral chile]

How does that relate to young girls being uncomfortable about page 3, feral?

It is neither you, nor I, nor the posing models who decide what gets published in the sun, and why. It is a decision made by the people who run the paper, with the aim to sell the paper. It has nothing to do with them wanting to empower women. And it apparently makes many young women uncomfortable. It is relatively easy to avoid the niche porn films the linked writer works in, it is a lot more difficult to avoid one of the best selling national newspapers.

But I have read the whole linked article on her dating situation, and here's my take on it:

Firstly, it sounds made up. Creative writing? Someone with the education she claims to have should be able to cobble together something better: " A guy with six pack abs kissing a dolphin with a graduate degree in comparative literature?" Well, I'd love a dolphin with a graduate degree - would probably be the answer to all my relationship problems!! Also, shagging away with male co-stars in your spare time? Aren't they supposed to save themselves for work? At least that's what I remember from last time I read about it (admittedly, some years ago). Never mind the oddity of a young man who has just finished his degree and is driving a mercedes (that's what she notices, apart from his shiny teeth - the brand of car). Unless he is from a minted family, he'd probably drive something else. And fab looking guys from minted families are dreaming of joining the police force to become detectives? Errr, what?

Nevermind. Sovereign has trouble finding a date to emotionally connect with. Yet all her observations about the men she's giving a chance are totally shallow: they have great bodies, looks to sell perfume with (eh?), degrees, ah yes, and a Mercedes. But she wants the men to go straight for her intellectual side. Pot? Kettle? ....... Tinder?? She calls herself a porn star in this -incredibly contrived sounding- write up for tinder you've quoted. Why star? Is everyone who works in the porn industry a star now? And she is surprised about the reaction she gets - tinder is not about meeting your soulmate. It's about young people looking to hook up for sex (correct me if I got that wrong). Why would anyone on there want to discuss the French revolution with her? That would be a case of massive serendipity. Ok, perhaps her brother briefed her badly.

She then says that there are quite a few men who don't mind her work - those who know what she does from the start and meet her in a social context. Well, that is probably the best way of meeting a potential partner anyway, as opposed to ticking people off against a set of characteristics on a website. What exactly is the problem, then? She just has to find one who doesn't mind, but also has impeccable looks, a university degree, great chemistry with her - and an expensive car. Even the French revolution should fall into place, then. Good luck. There certainly is prejudice against her type of work, but that is perhaps the smallest of her problems (she seems to be blissfully unaware of any other of the industry's problems anyway).

Finally, it may well be a fundamental human right for people to "get off", but the next time someone tells me that working in the porn industry is a kind of important public service, I'm going to fall off my chair laughing. They do it because the money is good, and some might even like doing it, I wouldn't dare telling them that they can't or shouldn't; but please guys/girls, stop suggesting that you're doing it to do me, or anyone else, a favour or essential service. People have been "getting off" for thousands of years without the help of this industry. It is quite doable. But they are happy to pay for porn, and that is why it gets made. Not as sex therapy.

Oh it never even occurred to me that it was fictional, that's because parts of the article struck home to me, particularly worries that any disapproval on my part would be relating to my own insecurities, as referenced in the article.

Edited March 16, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/fr/journal/v3/n1/full/fr197921a.html

I found this article discussing different feminist perspectives on patriarchy: it's heavy going (paragraphs would have helped!) so haven't had the chance to plough all the way through it yet.

I came across the urban dictionary definitions of patriarchy earlier - wow!

[feral chile]

While I was trying to educate myself on sex positive feminism, I came across this article:

WARNING: the article discusses experiences that are traumatic in nature.

I didn't really understand the reactions to Drew in the comments underneath - they seemed to me to be unnecessarily hostile, and totally lacking in compassion and empathy towards someone who had suffered a traumatic event.

Drew is a male survivor of sexual violence, and said that his experience is more difficult to come to terms with because of the female-centric nature of feminist discussions of sexual violence, and what he saw as a male vs female narrative.

His trauma was completely disregarded by some (not all) and he was accused of claiming entitlement. But male survivors would have difficulty finding support networks, I imagine, because they would be even more subject to patriarchal values in their roles as subjugated males.

Either way, some of the responses seemed callous to me.

Surely feminism would need to look at how patriarchy/dominance is used to disempower men as well as women? Isn't the aim to produce equality for us all?

The more I read, the more confused I get

Edited March 16, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

And this one:

http://www.quailpipe.co.uk/articles/the-patriarchy-is-the-concept-still-relevant-to-feminism/

The patriarchy is not the enemy, or at least not the only enemy. The enemy here is social attitudes which stigmatise certain groups of people. We’re taught these attitudes from our parents, peers and teachers – the people who make up our society and our social circles. Not the patriarchy. We’re all responsible. Sure, the elites might be more culpable than the rest of us – because they’ve got more power over society and failed to fix it (or in many cases the white straight rich men caused the attitudes long ago and we’re living with the consequences).

But...isn't the whole patriarchy argument based on the idea that social attitudes have been shaped by patriarchy?

While I agree that we're all responsible, and I don't want patriarchy being used as an excuse, I thought the whole feminist argument is stating that anyway. Which is why Page 3 is a feminist issue, and not personal opinion.

Isn't that the idea?

Edited March 16, 2015 by feral chile

[midnight]

And this one:

http://www.quailpipe.co.uk/articles/the-patriarchy-is-the-concept-still-relevant-to-feminism/

But...isn't the whole patriarchy argument based on the idea that social attitudes have been shaped by patriarchy?

While I agree that we're all responsible, and I don't want patriarchy being used as an excuse, I thought the whole feminist argument is stating that anyway. Which is why Page 3 is a feminist issue, and not personal opinion.

Isn't that the idea?

I found her argument a bit muddled myself (she finishes with it still being a valid concept), but I think the general idea is not to give oneself a get-out-clause by saying, "it's not my fault, the patriachy is to blame for everything". Which is fair enough.

I've found another article on the same site that works it out a bit better, for me anyway:

http://www.quailpipe.co.uk/articles/feminism-intersectionality-faqs/

Intersectionality is difficult, but interesting - I thought I'd mentioned it somewhere earlier on, but I haven't got the energy to go looking for the old post right now.

[midnight]

While I was trying to educate myself on sex positive feminism, I came across this article:

WARNING: the article discusses experiences that are traumatic in nature.

I didn't really understand the reactions to Drew in the comments underneath - they seemed to me to be unnecessarily hostile, and totally lacking in compassion and empathy towards someone who had suffered a traumatic event.

Drew is a male survivor of sexual violence, and said that his experience is more difficult to come to terms with because of the female-centric nature of feminist discussions of sexual violence, and what he saw as a male vs female narrative.

His trauma was completely disregarded by some (not all) and he was accused of claiming entitlement. But male survivors would have difficulty finding support networks, I imagine, because they would be even more subject to patriarchal values in their roles as subjugated males.

Either way, some of the responses seemed callous to me.

Surely feminism would need to look at how patriarchy/dominance is used to disempower men as well as women? Isn't the aim to produce equality for us all?

The more I read, the more confused I get

I can't see a link to the article? Is it missing or is it my connection?

Of course he should get the support he needs, and I can see why that would be more difficult for men, lots of reasons - as I said, I can't see the detail, but we don't have to go along with unreasonable comments, do we?

[midnight]

Oh it never even occurred to me that it was fictional, that's because parts of the article struck home to me, particularly worries that any disapproval on my part would be relating to my own insecurities, as referenced in the article.

I don't think it is entirely fictional, but probably embellished for dramatic effect.

I could be completely wrong, of course.

Here's a summary by Kat Banyard that neatly wraps up a lot of my own thoughts about the beauty/porn/sex industry, and it saves me a lot of typing!

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/oct/14/kat-banyard-feminist-pornography-equality

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/fr/journal/v3/n1/full/fr197921a.html

I found this article discussing different feminist perspectives on patriarchy: it's heavy going (paragraphs would have helped!) so haven't had the chance to plough all the way through it yet.

I came across the urban dictionary definitions of patriarchy earlier - wow!

This is from the late 70s, I remember reading that in the 90s as part of some coursework. Veronica Beechey really isn't the easiest read, all sociological talk and heavy vocabulary - she did a lot of stuff on the economic role of domestic labour.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_4tlym7-EocC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=veronica+beechey&source=bl&ots=5nBiwMhD85&sig=02CTwwmhzO1mtQC4LsBG-p__m1c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Lf8GVf22NY7VasP9gsAE&ved=0CCIQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=veronica%20beechey&f=false

[eFestivals]

Page 3 is different things to different people. I'm not sure why you need such specific answers, or reasons as to what people think about it. What is anything (with regards to such issues as this) if it's not an opinion?

if feminists can't agree about page 3, there is no feminism.