Below link is an interesting look at last nights UK ITV’s ‘fatherless children’ program.The attitude toward fathers of society in general is expressed succinctly in the first few minutes by Zirene, a mother of Manchester, where in total ignorance and narcissism states that her absent children’s father is missing out, not the kids because “they have ME! and that’s all they need”
Sorry but I lost the final 3 mins
This is what happens when so called gender neutral Legislation is applied by Judges in a gender specific way. Dads walk, and I don’t blame them.
Only at the end of the program did they confront the reality tht many dads want to be involved but are prevented from doing so.
THe female court will see those tears as crododile tears
Thanks Triassic, for this programme.
Although it is presented in a soft and gentle format, it did illustrate the impacts of fatherlessness onto young children. Unfortunately, the most serious negative impacts show as the teenagers enter their teenage years, so the programme was very understated compared to the worst case outcomes that can occur.
The programme mainly showed the easily available people, but had no visible input from the escaped fathers. Thus we were left with no hint as to the forces that drive away these fathers, or why they left.
If we were wanting to offer improved childhoods for these children, that would surely be one of the most important issues to start facing. I might hazard a guess that these forces are the familycaught$ and the mother’s desires to proclaim their ‘job’, by decrying the fathers role. Part of this is their own lack of understanding of what most fathers do give their children. Their attitude that the mother is everything and the father only contributes cash, shows only ignorance of the breadth of a child’s needs for healthy development. (I am meaning the mothers, as well as the familycaught$.)
The programme didn’t look at father suicides, in response to these pressures.
The programme showed young children, where mothers more often can function quite well as sole parent. The challenge, as statistics show painfully clearly, become serious and high hazard in the teenage years, for both daughters and sons. Teenage pregnancies, antisocial behaviours and self destructive behaviours start to have very high consequences, in terms of damage and financial costs to society. The programme did not look at these issues, but glossed over them completely.
The programme talked about sole parents, but did not distinguish the 3 main groups:
1. Separated mothers
2. Never in a relationship mothers
3. Separated fathers
Child outcomes generally are better in separated mother and separated father households, due to their greater maturity, better mental health and relationship skills, better family and social supports and their better work skills. Child outcomes in the never in a relationship solo mothers group are the poorest. This is the group for whom the sole parent Government support is more attractive than their other options, as they often don’t really have any other workable options. These children were only brought into existence, in response to the subsidy.
The programme did not look at the degree to which the large number of families who stayed together, who managed their life responsibly and with mature relationship skills, suffer reduced standard of living, to subsidise the solo parents lifestyles. The solo parent subsidies have come from somewhere else in the community.
In the same way that stay at home mothers wanted greater social respect, fathers today are taken for granted by society and mothers in particular. Respect doesn’t need to be in cash. The first step is for fathers themselves to understand the role that they are playing in their children’s lives. If thy better understood child development and how their actions are a necessary part in this, then they would understand the value that they contribute. Although accountants, lawyers, judges and some mothers measure the father’s contribution to child development in hours with the child, where the mother is not present, this analysis is no more useful than a lawyer’s or accountant’s valuation of Heaven.
While most married couples both have good mental health, then counting hours has a little rough validity.
Where one parent has poor mental health, then the child’s ability to develop from time with them may be quite limited. In these situations, if the child has frequent contact with the other parent, even if only for quite limited periods of time, the child may be taking much more from that parent, than counting hours would suggest. In a married situation, the children’s development is not impeded by such a situation.
As separated couples typically have much poorer mental health than together couples, then it is not uncommon for the children to suffer seriously from the reduced contact with the father that often occurs on separation. The assumption that the children’s welfare is protected by maintaining their daily contact with mother is often missing the critical points. This assumption protects the mother, not the children!
The programme talked about ‘man deserts’, based on census returns about head of household. The commentator said ‘when there is a father in the house’, turning a blind eye to whether the man in the house is The father, or a man. This distinction is important for the child, as The father usually maintains a long term relationship, generous with time as well as resources. A man may only be a transient relationship, no more secure than the mother’s poor ability at maintaining relationships.
Children may take significant value from relatively small amounts of contact time, where the father does invest in the relationship. This is not just economic and time, but the genetic relationship has impacts onto the temperaments of both father and child. We are learning more about the impacts of pheromones, by which the child may be influenced by smelling the presence of their parents, even to the point of delaying daughters puberty by as much as 18 months when they have regular frequent and contact with their own father. Similar impacts are still being researched for sons.
Thus, where mothers feel pressured by their own ego, lack of relationship skills, familycaught$ and benefit system pressure, to drive the father away from the children, the children eventually pay a huge and horrific price for a small present time advantage to the mother. Present familycaught$ attitudes, where child support tax payments are valued above spending time with the children, are in the end, very destructive to the children, not supporting the child’s best interests.
Most fathers, even if they don’t have much earning capacity, are able to contribute valuable parenting for their children, if not impeded by the gatekeeping mother or the avaricious familycaught$ system.
The programme referred to large social costs of solo parenting, but didn’t suggest the small costs of better relationship and mental health support to teenagers and young parents, that might assist the parents to take better care of the children, or more responsibly choose not to have them.
Fathers cannot sell their value to judges, if they don’t understand these issues themselves.
Unless the last few lost minutes is very different from what we saw, this ‘documentary’ is a typical time-wasting television exercise designed to attract viewers and to sell advertising but not to inform anyone in any useful way. It is also typical feminist propaganda.
Why couldn’t they find someone who could competently describe the long list of real costs?
The term ‘families’ to describe ‘lone-parent households’ is propaganda in itself.
Dads haven’t disappeared. This terminology implies blame on the fathers without looking into the many reasons fathers might not maintain frequent contact with their children, such as being driven out of the children’s lives or having had the children’s mother be allowed to move the children hundreds of miles away.
Actually, the ‘documentary’ does not go on to examine what this means for society and hardly looks at what it means for kids ‘without dads’. And actually the kids, or most of them, do have dads.
But the ‘documentary’ doesn’t say much about how families or children are affected. Instead it goes on to show Zairena who at 24 had 3 children to her ex and then another child to someone else, and who now describes her ex as a deadbeat dad. The ex is interviewed but anything he might have said about the factors involved in his departure from the family or his limited contact with the children now has been edited from the programme. For example, nothing about the impact on him of the children’s mother being so hostile, blaming and verbally abusing of him, claiming that she is all the kids need, that might just possibly play a part in keeping him away. Instead, some out-of-context things he said asserting that he is a good dad despite how it might look are shown to make him seem ridiculous.
Then on about ‘man deserts’. The ‘documentary’ explores this concept by asking a sole mother “So what’s it like to live in a man desert?”, and that elicits no more than you might expect from that inane question.
Using the term ‘families’ for such households is feminist propaganda. One may as well refer to 50 cents as ‘a dollar’.
The term “do stick around” suggests the responsibility for the ongoing father-child relationship is with the father, when in fact it is usually controlled by the mother.
Then, instead of asking anything that might shed light on the difficulties fathers face in remaining involved with their children, the ‘journalist’ asks the man who is playing with his child “And what does being a dad mean to you?” Oh yeah, such incisive examination of the issues!
‘When families break up’ is femi-speak for the usual situation for which an honest phrase would be ‘When women eject their children’s father from the household’. And it’s not usually the mum who ‘has to step in and do both jobs’, but it’s usually the mum who seizes control of the children regardless of the father’s wishes, and this is in part to ensure her lifestyle is paid for by the government. Many fathers would prefer equal shared care and the process of ‘separation’ (i.e. most often ejection) would be much less traumatic and mentally damaging for fathers and their children if shared care were the norm.
‘She and her partner broke up’ most likely means ‘She kicked him out of the family’. And there’s no attempt to find out why there’s little contact now. Just another inane question: “How difficult is it being both mum and dad?” Of course, very difficult, blah blah blah, but oh, a father might have been useful to teach my son to ride a bike. Oh yeah.
Well then they are not actually born into families at all.
At a support programme for single mums, one says “I hope the father steps up… spend time, put their hand in their pocket…” Course facilitator “So to support your baby as much as you are”. Note the facilitator’s use of the term ‘your baby’. And why has this sole mother-to-be not developed a partnership with the man she mated with to enable him to play a full role in the child’s life? Also, of course when this man puts his hand in his pocket he is unlikely to find much there because the so-called ‘child support’ system of male enslavement in the service of women has taken most of what he earns, and he has become so demoralized by that enslavement that he isn’t doing very well anyway.
Hmmm…. I was pretty disappointed when I viewed the program but after reading the above and Murray’s excellent response I have decided to write to the Producer with your views included.
The required story should have been WHY is there a ‘man desert’ and HOW do we rectify it. This story would really entail high quality investigative journalism. Of course the inevitable out come of that would be the exposure of mothers (not all) failing to put their children first and many times using them as weapons against the father. A story like this would be so un PC that I cannot think of a news paper in the UK that would not rile against ITV for airing it……I will keep you posted
Thanks for doing that triassic (#6) and thanks too for finding and sharing this documentary with us.
Life is made from lots and lots of small steps. The programme raised a few issues, dodged a lot, but at least it was a few steps in roughly the right direction.
More to the point, why don’t we put the next few steps together ourselves?
If anyone is interested to discuss ideas, please telephone or EMAIL me and lets get moving.
Do you eat a man desert, or walk across it?
Sounds like disconnected markets, where there are apparent shortages or surplusses of both men and women, as they won’t see what is actually around them, or choose to devalue the others that are around. So what?