New Fathers 4 Justice reveal their true bigotry

[Deerobe]

Your ignorance is astounding, huge numbers of species have no parental involvement of any kind with their offspring. Most fish for example just release eggs and sperm into the water and that’s it, mother and father never even meet each other or have contact with their offspring in anyway way.

 

Turtles mate at sea then the male and female never see each other again, the female turtles drag themselves upon the beach lay their eggs then swim off and leaving their eggs totally alone.

 

Male Wattled Jacanas incubate the eggs and raise the chicks alone in contrast elephant seal pups are raised entirely by the female.

 

The list goes on and on, not that it matters to how humans should behave but species where both the male and female are by no means the majority of all the species out there in fact they’re a minority.

 

 

Would you care to explain why you think this is of any relevance? It’s perfectly natural for a male lion when it takes over a pride to kill all the cubs sired by the previous dominant male, does this mean that men should kill any children women they start going out with by other men? Nature is anything but a guide to morality.

 

 

No natural = whatever happens in nature which amongst others things includes

Father, Mother - Child

Mother - Child

Father – Child

Father, Mother, Mother, Mother… - Children

Mother, Father, Father, Father - Children

Mother, Mother – Child

Father, Father - Child

Grandparent/s - Child

Elder sibling - Younger sibling

Parents, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, other relatives – Children

Adults – Children

The list goes on and on

 

If you knew even the first thing about either anthropology or history you’d know that humans have successfully adopted a whole range of structures to raise children either through choice or necessity.

 

Your astonishingly small minded belief that “Natural = Father, Mother, Child” is a very powerful argument for just how little you know and how much you would benefit from reading some books, not as you seem to think an argument for how other people should live their lives.

 

Further to Pleks response quoted above I suggest you read this article http://www.open2.net/sciencetechnologynature/worldaroundus/parentsandinfants.html

 

It outlines many different methods of parenting adopted by different species. As humans we have the advantage of our wider support network, this could include other family members, friends, social services an schools. As humans we adopt the method that delivers the best results. At least we hope to. All species adopt a method of parenting that suits their circumstances as do humans. One could argue that Elephants being nurtured by the mother and her sisters is not natural; well it is for them and who the hell are we to tell them it is not. In many human cultures children are brought up by all the people who are in the tribe or the extended family. It is only in recent times we have adopted the mother & father only scenario.

 

Education is a wonderful thing... No matter how old I am I will continue to learn. The greatest lesson I have learnt is understanding.

[Deerobe]

I have no idea who Lord Montague is, or when it was on the news. Truth is that when I was a child I was happy playing cowboys and indians and running around outside as opposed to being cooped up indoors watching the television. And we were not rich enough to have a television when I was a kiddie. When we did get one it was only allowed on at certain times and we children were not encouraged to watch the news - not that I would have bothered anyhow. Playing cops and robbers was much more interesting.

 

Dragon

 

Lord Montague

 

http://www.beaulieu.co.uk/

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-468385/Lord-Montagu-court-case-ended-legal-persecution-homosexuals.html

 

Read and enjoy!!

[plekhanov]

Hello - reread what I said before you start. Sheesh! My statement stands that I have no knowledge of homosexuality being illegal when I was a child. What part of that is beyond your understanding?

That someone could be old enough to still be up at this time whilst being ignorant that such a significant change to our society happened within living memory is the bit I'm having difficulty getting my head around.

 

I also do not understand the first part of your post - are you saying that everyone would have been aware of homosexuality being illegal? Are you assuming they knew homosexuality was illegal?

 

Dragon

Not everyone would know homosexuality was illegal only those with an IQ above single figures, who occasionally spoke to other people and consumed news media would be.

[shims]

What makes absolutely no sense is someone sitting in front of a computer typing away complaining about other people doing unnatural things.

I think it would help if you could concentrate on what people say rather than respond to what you seem to think they've said.

 

How does lesbians having children with donated sperm in any way marginalise a single father’s role in rearing his children?

It is a situation where females have entered into a situation artificially but making use of the services of a man. Perhaps some of these single fathers from F4J are reminded of how they may have been 'made use of', disposed of with the help of the courts and DENIED a role in rearing their children because their cynical partners decided it was time to cash in with a divorce and fail to respect child residence arrangements.

 

NF4J are attacking that choice thought aren’t they and you are supporting that unnecessary, petty, cruel attack.

Can't you read?! I didn't say that I supported them! I stated that they were rightly campaigning against the marginalisation of fathers. Since you want to talk "petty" and "cruel" you certainly seem to have scant regard for the basic rights for males ...

It's one thing to campaign for greater access to your own kids but quite another to campaign against other people having kids.

Why on earth should someone have to campaign for "greater access" to their own children??! Don't you even see that this is a screwed up situation?

 

Such actions simply underline the extent to which (as was pretty obvious all along) that many of these so called 'father's rights' campaigners are in reality campaigning for patriarchy and the domination of women.

What utter nonsense. The courts have been biased against fathers for years in regards to divorce and child residence arrangements. (What you describe as F4J's 'claims')

What has that got to do with their claims that men get unfairly treated by the family court system?

 

 

 

On what grounds do you make the claim that the ‘nuclear family’ with a mother, father and children is the ‘natural family unit’?

If as you claim it’s ‘natural’ then why is it such a comparatively recent development in our own society and far from universal both around the word today and throughout human history?

I don't need "grounds" it's a fact that for for some reason,whatever you're agenda may be, you refuse to accept. It's not a modern concept either just because you can tag it with a well known, recently coined term like "nuclear family". Additionally, in those parts of the world where it is less universal than here, it is not out-numbered by incidences of same-sex couples bringing up the children or child of one of the parties.

 

It may be inconvenient for us sometimes that things are the way they are and not the way we'd like them to be but distorting facts doesn't actually change anything.

[Solomon1]

I think it would help if you could concentrate on what people say rather than respond to what you seem to think they've said.

 

ahhh...the eternal basis for difference continues...

 

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"

 

[Deerobe]

I have no idea who Lord Montague is, or when it was on the news. Truth is that when I was a child I was happy playing cowboys and indians and running around outside as opposed to being cooped up indoors watching the television. And we were not rich enough to have a television when I was a kiddie. When we did get one it was only allowed on at certain times and we children were not encouraged to watch the news - not that I would have bothered anyhow. Playing cops and robbers was much more interesting.

 

Dragon

 

I used to read the paper when I was a child. It is how my father taught me to read. I also used to watch the news and current affairs programmes and remember the old BBC test card well.

[Deerobe]

Gosh I am enjoying this debate.

 

In spite of enduring a dreadful marriage break up I resisted all attempts of lawyers and social workers to block my ex husbands access to his child.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that fathers and grandparents are getting a raw deal. However, I cannot agree with NF4J protesting about gay couples or single mothers having children. Anyone donating sperm does so with a full understanding of what they are doing. If they don't want to enter into the agreement then they should not participate. In the case of single mothers who become pregnant all I can say is that men should exercise more consideration before rushing into bed with a woman.

 

It is not for us to judge. At the end of the day we all crave happiness and that happiness may arrive in many different ways. Sometimes surprising ways.

[plekhanov]

I think it would help if you could concentrate on what people say rather than respond to what you seem to think they've said.

Really so you weren’t trying to argue that only ‘natural’ things should be allowed, whilst being sadly ignorant of just how much the medium you’re using contradicts your message then?

 

It is a situation where females have entered into a situation artificially but making use of the services of a man. Perhaps some of these single fathers from F4J are reminded of how they may have been 'made use of', disposed of with the help of the courts and DENIED a role in rearing their children because their cynical partners decided it was time to cash in with a divorce and fail to respect child residence arrangements.

So you concede that Lesbians having IVF treatment in no way undermines fathers role in rearing their own children then? If you don’t concede this then why did you deliberately fail to answer the question I actually asked on that subject?

 

Can't you read?! I didn't say that I supported them!

Really so you haven’t been defending them and attacking lesbian mothers this whole thread then?

 

I stated that they were rightly campaigning against the marginalisation of fathers. Since you want to talk "petty" and "cruel" you certainly seem to have scant regard for the basic rights for males ...

As a male I have a healthy regard for the rights of males, I just happen to think that attacking lesbians is both immoral and counter productive when it comes to maintaining or seeking to extend fathers rights.

 

Why on earth should someone have to campaign for "greater access" to their own children??! Don't you even see that this is a screwed up situation?

Unlike F4J I don’t regard children as a possession to be shared out on a time share basis as the parent’s desire. Custody cases are quite rightly determined on the basis of what’s in children’s’ interest not the parent’s desires, in some cases this will obviously involve one parent being given custody and the other having to settle for access.

 

What utter nonsense. The courts have been biased against fathers for years in regards to divorce and child residence arrangements. (What you describe as F4J's 'claims')

That many of the personnel in the family court system tend to be predisposed to ‘children belong with their mother’ way of thinking (this being one of the rare examples of patriarchy very obviously harming men’s interests) doesn’t magically mean that F4J aren’t anti-feminist misogynists.

 

I don't need "grounds" it's a fact that for for some reason,whatever you're agenda may be, you refuse to accept.

I don’t accept your ‘facts’ because they are nothing of the sort and are nothing but groundless assertions made in ignorance and denial of the evidence.

 

It's not a modern concept either just because you can tag it with a well known, recently coined term like "nuclear family".

But it is, a modern concept, the ‘nuclear family’ is relatively new development which replaced the more traditional extended family household. In other societies aside from all those which are built around extended families children are raised collectively by groups of adults who may not be closely related, by adults in polygamous and polygynous marriages (with different levels of extended family involvement)… the list goes on and on.

 

What you think of as the ‘natural family unit’ is “natural” only within our society at this moment in time, to members of other societies both contemporary and historical your insistence upon such a narrow definition of ‘family’ would seem anything but ‘natural’.

 

Additionally, in those parts of the world where it is less universal than here, it is not out-numbered by incidences of same-sex couples bringing up the children or child of one of the parties.

Strawman, I never said that same sex couples outnumbered heterosexual couples, I pointed out that your narrowly defined ‘natural family unit’ is neither natural or universal. Why can’t you respond to what I actually post?

 

It may be inconvenient for us sometimes that things are the way they are and not the way we'd like them to be but distorting facts doesn't actually change anything.

I’m not the one insisting despite all the evidence to the contrary that there is only one single ‘natural family unit’ in which children should be raised. I’m not the one ignoring the paper I’ve linked to several times in this thread by the APA summarising numerous empirical studies of families which are by your definition ‘unnatural’ families which show that the children in them do every bit as well as those in ‘natural’ families.

 

Maybe you should look to the log in your own eye first before accusing others of ‘distorting facts’.

[shims]

1. Yes. Really.

 

2. I was making a hypothetical statement about how members of F4J may feel. It's not a matter about 'conceding' anything.

 

3. No. I have not 'attacked lesbian mothers'. I fear for your sanity now.

 

4. Forgive me if I failed to see it ...

 

5. You're attempting to distort this point by stating the blatantly obvious which is another example of why I may have failed to see your self-professed "healthy regard" for the rights of males.

 

6. Of course not. Furthermore anti-feminist does not necessarily equate with misogynist.

 

7. I would no longer have any expectation of you accepting what I stated as fact. Groundless assertions? You really are full of hot air. In denial of evidence?! What evidence? That link that you repeatedly post? I found a major error in that fairly quickly but accept it as your gospel if you wish.

 

8. No. A man, a woman and their offspring as a family is no modern concept. Nuclear family is just a modern term for it. The continued existence of polygamy and polygyny in no way contradicts this fact. All of these arrangements are of course more natural child-producing arrangements than same sex partnerships because the ability to reproduce is there: one man and at least one woman.

 

9. My "narrowly defined natural family unit" is indeed natural, contrary to your absurd claim. And nowhere did I claim that you said that same sex couples outnumber man, woman and child scenarios I merely confirmed that they DON'T. If you can retire your ego for a moment perhaps you might realise that, since other people read this, I may just post something to clarify a fact that had not been mentioned so far - that it is not same-sex couples with children who, outnumber heterosexual couples in some societies.

 

10. I'm not insisting this either. When I referred to "the natural family unit" I did so in the context of western society today. Bizarrely it was then challenged as not being so. I then stated my amazement at this referring to it by the indefinite article ('a').

 

Plekhanov, you seem to be some sort of self-appointed witch-hunter, not letting reality get in the way of your own personal agenda.

[arachnophobe]

It's what he said. Not dominance, but domination.

 

Dominance of X, means X is in charge. Domination of X, means X is under the thumb.

 

I thought so. Thanks for clearing that up.