LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006 From: Stourport-England Status: offline
|
I think I know what youre saying LA, but the UK just doesnt work that way. As the father I'm expected by the courts not to have custody (or necessarily even visiting rights) but I am expected to pay to feed, clothe and house my children - and by association my ex too - and any new guy she has live with her. Were my ex a crack addict selling herself on the streets, then its more than likely even in those circumstances that she would get custody, and failing that the kids would be taken into care - the chances of a father getting custody are low to zero. Had the relationship broken down because she was having sex with every guy in the street, her default would have no bearing whatever on the outcome of any hearing - although of course were the situation reversed, then the man would be judged harshly. As things are, my ex and I have good relations still, so much of that scenario doesnt apply to me - though there are thousands of fathers up and down the UK to whom it does apply, because the family courts here are stuck with the notion that man = bad and man = wage earner, regardless of the circumstances in most cases, whilst woman = good and woman = dependant. I see this as an over compensation for the previous way things like divorces were handled, whereby things were tilted unfairly in the man's favour, but it needs urgent redressing, not only because of the social problems this approach is causing and the many suicides of fathers over the way they are treated, but also because if we are to hold that sex equality means anything, then it must apply also in the family court and cases must be judged on their individual merits, not on some outdated notion of how society is and on male and female stereotypes that simply dont apply. Even if, and its a big if, I managed to find a wealthy guy who would support me to stay at home, I would still be expected to contribute financially to my children's welfare and pursued relentlessly to do so. No decent father has a problem with supporting his children of course, but the system here is so full of bureaucracy, inefficiency and incompetence that it cannot be relied upon to achieve that - which is why my ex and I have a private arrangement. Google the CSA (Child Support Agency) to find out just how well the whole thing is managed by government. I would have to pay, regardless of any inability to pay and giving up work is not an excuse - only if the unemployment is forced by redundancy would one have a hope of escaping - and in that case the state pays for my children, but at a significantly lower rate than it deemed by way of the CSA was necessary. Meanwhile, the deadbeat dads for whom the CSA was set up in the first place, escape by default. Should I win the lottery, then the family court will say that half at least of my winnings must go to my ex. Meanwhile when she inherits her parents' estate sometime in the next ten years I estimate, I will not be entitled to any of it. It is these kinds of glaring inequities that need correcting, and urgently. There is no equality, where one side is treated more favourably and more sympathetically because of prejudicial notions, and as the saying goes one must take the rough with the smooth. It does nothing to advance the cause of women's inequality in other areas of life, for them to abandon the advances made and appeal to a family court as the natural victim of male oppression and seek redress based on a carefully crafted pathetic stereotype that does not apply, in order to manipulate the system unfairly. My first chance at what I'd like to do will come paradoxically, only when my kids are old enough that they no longer need anyone in that role. Its a waste, it truly is, and meanwhile I must spend my time working when my heart isnt in it, to meet obligations which but for my birth sex, would never be placed upon me. E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|