Calling all fathers

[mint]

I'm not trying to provoke an argument but am really interested in men's, particularly fathers', views on this article and story.

Libby Purves has had her say so I think it only fair that the discussion is now thrown open to those she writes about, so here goes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article7044594.ece

[Quillan]

I think she is right. I also think that the system is to blame just as much. I also think the grand parents also have to carry some of the blame as well for bringing their children up so badly that they have know respect for human life when they have their own kids. I also blame the government, who have taken direct control of several councils social services departments (like Haringay) and yet things have no improved.

[krusty]

[Gluestick]

Yes indeed, absentee fathers have become a huge social problem in Britain.

However, it takes two to tango: and along with the rapid growth of One Parent Families (Which are accepted by most social commentators as one of the greatest contributors to juvenile crime) we also see the many examples of women having two kids and even more by a series of part-time partners.

A good example perhaps being Karen Mathews, the mother of Sharron.

The serial failure of social workers can perhaps be traced back, well before the horrendous suffering of the poor little lass, Victoria Climbie, to an earlier death in a South London tower block, where social workers were found to be hugely negligent in the discharge of their duties: when their employer, the LA wanted to disicipline them, the whole lot went out on strike, supported by all that council's workforce.

As with so much of Britain's local bureacracy, they are very good at attending "Training" courses and learning all the current vogue buzzwords and blitzing each other with rainforests of papers, studies, plans, reports and the like, but not so good, sadly at doing what they are paid for.

Unfortunately, (Grumpy Old Git Hat On!) for those of us who track social decline and write and commentate about it, the trend has been obvious with each successive generation since the late 1960s: if you don't know how to behave and don't adequately shoulder your responsibilities, then sure as hell, your kids won't either, since they have no example and no supervisory hovering adult to inculcate values.

And we are now on the third generation: marry at 22 say; two kids in four years; they marry roughly 22 years later' and so the beat and decline goes on.

Add to this the obsession with sex and self-gratification: endless media brainwashing in songs, mags, papers, films. None of which teach responsibility along with pleasure.

Thatcher set up the CSA to tackle the then rapidly mounting problem of those feckless people who skipped out on their responsibilities: and left society to foot the bill and suffer the increasing social consequences.

The CSA didn't work, of course: and cost far more than it ever collected.

Since then the problem is multiplied many times over.

Ms Purves, of course, invariably takes the feminist cause: and as I said, it does take two to tango.

For me, it's the result of sex having become a casual sort of "Must Have" fashion accessory, rather than an extension of a far deeper and more meaningful aspect of a human emotion of inestimable value.

 

 

[woolybanana]

The men you are talking about are NOT fathers, but inseminators. Fatherhood has nothin g to do with their behaviour. What some of the women are is not mentionable on a decent family forum like this!

[Gluestick]

Also, perhaps worth considering these.............

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/jan/27/childrensservices.childprotection

 

http://www.open2.net/healtheducation/health_socialcare/historycprot2.html

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/how-did-it-happen-again-702075.html

[Hoddy]

Before we go off on yet another rant about single-parent families and sweeping generalisations about them being responsible for at least half the crime in the country, may I point out that they come in many kinds. What about all the widowed or divorced mothers ? I am truly proud of the way my daughter is bringing up her children on her own. As for their father, who lives in a four bedroomed detached house and owns two vehicles, and yet can only afford to pay £5 per week maintenance towards the children's upkeep, it's better if I keep my opinion to myself. As far as I'm concerned the CSA is just an expensive charade.

Let's not get carried away with stereotypes please.

Hoddy

[Gluestick]

Perhaps you had better inform the author of this report (and many others) how wrong they are then Hoddy?

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/default.asp?pageRef=346

Personally, I was not considering single parent families created by circumstances above their control: rather the worryingly increasing number where the parents drift into and out of casual relationships which result in one woman mothering a number of children by a number of different men.

I'm sure you have every reason to be extremely proud of your daughter: I am also quite sure you passed on your parental standards and discipline: and despite circumstance, she will pass same on to her children.

Let's face it: one can neither be divorced nor widowed if one is not married in the first place.

Might this provide something of a clue?

 

[Swissie]

Totally agree with her. she is NOT having a go at single parents, or divorced ones, etc, but at those who are quite happy to make babies and not take responsibility - that also means women in my book.

[Chancer]

I agree with what she says about the absent fathers who abdicate or ignore their parental responsibilities, I also think that she writes with remarkable insight into the problems faced by estranged fathers.

[mint]

Hoddy, nobody is having a rant at mothers left to look after their children single-handed on account of various factors.

Libby Purves is making the point that fathers should have responsibilty, that children are just that, children, and need protection from both fathers AND mothers.

Of course, there will always be individual cases where one or other or both parents are negligent but, on the whole, I think it's fair to say that the majority of "broken" families do end up with the mother left to bear responsibility for the children.

Clearly, there are also cases where the women are the irresponsible ones and put their own interest  (and pleasure) above those of their children.

The debate is not only about whether it should be the parents who should have responsibility (though it's obviously about that as well) but also about how much of a role the state should play.

Given that children are unable to look after themselves, how much are we, as parents, as adults, as citizens responsible for the welfare of children?

And, if we do accept that responsibility, to what degree can we expect the state and society as a whole to help us to shoulder that responsibility?

[Hoddy]

I am aware that I am hypersensitive about this. i would just ask that people think carefully about the perjorative use of the expression ‘single parent families’ not least because if affects the children who know that they live in one.

The point I didn’t make as well as I intended too is that many men think that the children are not their responsibility. I know only too well that my own ex son-in-law does not see maintenance as part of of his responsibility towards his children but rather a donation to my daughter. This, in spite of the fact that he has good regular contact with them.

On the more general point, I agree absolutely with Libby Purves. For far too long the emphasis has been on the irresponsible mothers and some of the responsibility should be shifted to the fathers. They won’t be able to do that though unless they do something about the CSA.

Hoddy

[Dog]

It is made too easy to produce children - the government even encourage it.

There are too many people in the world parents should be heavily taxed on each child produced.

Apologies for my post I shouldn't be posting as I have never made children - far too responsible.

Society is being dragged down by academics and government invented jobs.

[Russethouse]

 The flaw in your argument is that unless there are children there will be no one to pay our pensions or indeed continue society.

[Dog]

I cannot believe you expect other people to pay your pension!

If this is the society you want to continue count me out.

When the population is 30% of what it is now there may be some hope.

[Russethouse]

 Why not? Since I've been working s for the past 40 odd years how many peoples pensions do you think I've paid toward ? Thats the way it works - there is no pot with our contribution in, its a pay as you go system, so what we pay in today is paid out to others - and its far from just pensions.

You may think the system is wrong, but its the one we've got so we may as well stick a flower in our hats and get on with it.

[Dog]

Can't you see that system cannot work?

It's a pyramid scheme.

 

[mint]

[quote user="Dog"]

Can't you see that system cannot work?

It's a pyramid scheme.

 

[/quote]

[:D]

Except, Dog, I don't think RH is trying to sell anything?

[Dog]

She is trying to sell the current system and it has failed.

After 40 years she has probably paid enough for .3 of a pension for a policeman.

[mint]

Oh, Dog, that is simply too depressing to contemplate at this time of night.

[Dog]

Let's go to bed then.

[mint]

Together or separately, Dog?[:P]

 

[Dog]

Mostly I go to bed in one piece.

[Russethouse]

 I'm not trying to sell anything - its how it is.

Considering the way that NI is now scaled I think .3 is a little harsh, but at least I have the comfort of knowing that having produced 2 children they can help contribute too.[;-)][;-)]

[Will]

Let's get things into perspective.

First of all, has Dog or any of the other detractors of the UK pension system looked at how the equivalent works in their beloved France? Applying the pyramid principle it's no better and arguably worse. Whatever, I feel it somewhat depressing that I am paying for ex-policemen to retire to countries where I can no longer afford to live, or, worse still, for the former Chief Constable of North Wales to go sailing.

Secondly, I don't agree with Ms Purves. Although her principle may be valid - though I have yet to come across these apparent millions of teenage girls in Britain who get themselves pregnant solely for the purpose of receiving benefits, at least outside the Daily Torygraph and the Jeremy Kyle Show, neither of which I regard as representative of the broader society. In the article quoted she is attacking not a father in the true sense but actually an inseminator (to quote the woollybanana). In the broader role of parenthood he has been superseded and no longer has any function. There's probably little he could do, even given the opportunity of looking after his biological child for whatever very small proportion of the time he may be allowed. We aren't told whether he has that chance, what he does with it, or even if he wanted it and was denied it. All we really know about him is that he 'swanned off to Spain'. I bet there are a fair few fathers here in France whose biological children have stayed behind - several using this forum no doubt.

My real problem with the Purves woman is the way she is stuck in the 1970s view of feminism. Just because somebody is born male does not automatically make them obsessed with sex and pornography, and leave a trail of pregnant girls and illegitimate children behind them. As one of those who is mainly driven by other things I take great exception to her stereotyping of my gender.

I suspect too that the stereotype is reinforced for many readers by the rather Islamic sounding names involved.