Anger in action
The politics of “fathers’ rights” in Canada

I first heard about fathers’ rights groups when I was working at a Vancouver drop-in centre for women several years ago. A family law advocate for a similar organization in a neighbouring community told me about a group of men who would show up at court in matching T-shirts to support male members of their organization who were engaged in custody and access disputes with their ex-partners. The groups would do this to try to influence the judges and intimidate the women, who were often there without a lawyer or any other support besides the advocate. Concerned, I wondered how organized these men were and if it was a local phenomenon. To my surprise, I learned that this group was part of a global movement with a membership ranging from Caribbean Canadian Senator Anne Cools to British anti-poverty activist Bob Geldof (though the vast majority of fathers’ rights leaders and activists are white, middle-class, conservative men).
There is a diversity of thought and tactics to fathers’ rights groups, but they share a focus on issues of family law – in particular, issues surrounding custody and access to children. Organizations like Fathers 4 Justice, Fathers are Capable Too, Canadian Equal Parenting Council, Dads Canada and Equal Parenting BC have adopted the language of “equal rights” and resistance to oppression, but wield these terms in defence of traditional ideas of fatherhood and male privilege.
Although fathers’ rights groups have existed in Canada since the 1970s, it wasn’t until the mid-1990s that they began to emerge as an influential voice in divorce and child custody proceedings. In 1998 a Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access was convened to consult with individuals and communities across Canada on proposed changes to the Divorce Act. This committee included allies of the fathers’ rights movement such as Senator Anne Cools and committee co-chair Roger Galloway, then a Liberal MP for Sarnia Lambton. Although this consultation process was widely considered a failure (the resulting report was not adopted by the Justice Minister and none of the recommendations of the committee were adopted), it did highlight how family law has become the staging ground for a heated struggle around gender norms in modern families. With strong support from within the committee, the consultation process became a platform for fathers’ groups to air their grievances with the current system. In particular they called for “equal shared parenting” and increasing non-custodial parents’ rights.
In Canadian law there are two forms of equality that are commonly discussed, formal equality and substantive equality. A strict “formal equality” approach demands that everyone is treated exactly the same regardless of mitigating circumstances. At first glance, this approach sounds reasonable as it would allow a father’s grievance in the courts to be given equal airing to that of the mother. However, this “gender neutral” approach obscures the substantially different ways the men and women experience separation, divorce and the justice system.
While experiences of divorce and separation vary, many women find that the end of a relationship means a new life of precarity, lower income (if not complete loss of income) and single motherhood. While poverty rates among women before divorce are 16 per cent, after divorce these rates increase dramatically to 43 per cent. This drop in socio-economic status coupled with decreases in government support for family law legal aid in many areas of Canada means that women are often unable to access adequate legal representation or advice in family law matters like custody and access.
This situation is especially serious for women who are leaving abusive relationships, disabled women and newcomers who face barriers to accessing the legal system due to limited English language skills and unfamiliarity with our legal institutions. Not having access to legal advice means that these women are less likely to be able to present their arguments within legal language, and are therefore less likely to be taken seriously by the judge or mediator.
This is where substantive equality comes in. Substantive equality accounts for these patterns of discrimination and oppression in an effort to guarantee equality not just of opportunity but of outcomes. Basically, substantive equality recognizes that we don’t all start at the same place due to structures of privilege and oppression, and stipulates that giving everyone a fair chance requires that we compensate for these imbalances.
The two approaches to equality can be effectively contrasted using the example of sharing an apple with a friend. While formal equality would require splitting the apple 50/50, addressing substantive equality requires that we ask what both individuals had eaten that day and divides the apple based on need (or in this case hunger). A substantive equality argument in the case of custody and access would recognize the disproportionate burden women carry in child rearing, as well as the lack of equity many women face in the workplace.
When fathers’ rights groups speak of equality, they rely heavily on conceptions of formal equality that obscure the unequal relationships between men and women in a patriarchal society. For instance, in a document prepared by the Canadian Equal Parenting Council, equal parenting is defined as “the presumption that both parents should share responsibilities and time on the basis of equal rights. Of course parents may agree to divide duties … but if they can’t agree, such as in highly-conflicted divorce, both parents keep equal rights and responsibilities.”
Using a substantive equality lens, however, we must ask whether the presumption of shared responsibilities reflects the realities of families in Canada today. Statistics show that for most families today parenting is neither equal nor shared. Therefore, any discussion of responsibilities and rights must take into account women’s disproportionate burden in caring for children.
In 2004, for instance, over 14,000 women in Canada left their paid employment due to unpaid caregiving responsibilities – double the number of men – and missed an average of 10 days of work due to caregiving commitments, while men missed, on average, a day and a half. According to Statistics Canada, men have increased their participation in unpaid work in the household in the last ten years from an average of 2.1 to 2.5 hours a day. This change corresponds with a half hour decrease in women’s household labour, moving from 4.8 hours daily in 1996 to 4.3 hours in 2006. It is clear that households are changing but it is equally clear that we are a long way off of a 50/50 split in household labour.
The reality of separation in Canada today is that even when joint-custody arrangements are made, children are typically cared for primarily by the mother, while decision-making is shared by both parents. In practice, this emphasis on shared parenting and increased non-custodial parents’ rights only serves to reinforce the roles demanded of the traditional heterosexual nuclear family, with the father as the decision-maker and the mother as the primary source of unpaid reproductive labour in the form of child care, food preparation and cleaning.
In order to appease the strong local fathers’ rights movements, England and Australia have shifted away from the framework of custody and access to a shared parenting model, where each parent keeps their pre-separation roles and responsibilities. However, this shift just further perpetuates unequal relationships. A study undertaken in Australia three years after the amendments were introduced found that the changes had put an increased pressure on women to provide contact even in situations that compromised their safety. Additional studies found that the changes had not reduced conflict or litigation, nor had they substantially changed caregiving patterns. Shared parenting models, the evidence suggests, simply do not address the root problems of gendered inequality that shape women’s experience both before and after separation.
Nonetheless, members of the Conservative Party have supported further entrenching patriarchal relations through similar changes to family law. The Conservative Party has included a commitment to shared parenting after separation in various election platforms. Last year, former MP Carol Skelton and sitting Saskatchewan MPs Maurice Vellacott and David Anderson (all Conservatives) publicly pledged support to equal shared parenting in the House of Commons. Fathers 4 Justice activists continue to rally support in British Columbia and across Canada, staging banner drops off of prominent bridges while dressed as superheroes and trekking across Canada to raise awareness and money. Fathers’ rights groups have also worked together with the conservative women’s organization REAL Women to lobby for equal shared parenting. Beyond extensive lobbying and direct action tactics borrowed from social justice organizations, fathers’ rights groups have also attempted to simply bully groups into supporting their cause. Bruce Wood of the Saskatoon Men’s Resource Centre, a male-positive, pro-feminist, gay-affirmative and anti-racist non-profit organization, told Briarpatch that the Centre “has been the target of an organized campaign of harassment by fathers’ rights activists in Saskatchewan and Alberta.” The Centre, Wood said, has been “flooded” with anonymous calls, voice mail messages and emails – many of which appear to have been scripted – voicing anger at everything from the courts to women’s violence against men.
“The objective of their harassment is to confront us on our public support of the feminist movement and our work on male violence against women,” Wood said. “They also have insisted that we take a public stand in favour of something they call “˜equal shared parenting.’”
These tactics have put many feminist and pro-feminist organizations further on the defensive as they seek to maintain services at a time of funding cuts and increased demand for services. Without an infusion of new volunteers, the Saskatoon Men’s Resource Centre is at risk of having to scale back its programming. Likewise, many feminist women’s organizations have borne the brunt of cutbacks. In Vancouver, 100 per cent of the North Shore Women’s Centre’s operational funding from the provincial government was cut in 2002 and the centre has only been able to keep its doors open through community support and fundraising. In the midst of these financial struggles, the North Shore Women’s Centre has struggled to block a local fathers’ rights organization from joining a local Coordinating Committee on Violence Against Women in Intimate Relationships. The committee had been alerted to the presence of the fathers’ rights activists when they lobbied to change the language in the District of North Vancouver’s violence policy to remove any mention of gender. Michelle Dodds of the North Shore Women’s Centre told Briarpatch, “we spent a lot of time trying to figure out if they were going to come to community meetings. If we thought they were going to present at a meeting, we had to prepare people so that they would understand what it was that they were saying.”
Although the committee was able to block the group from joining, they have increasingly had to devote already strained resources to providing services not just to abused women but also to men stirred up by the angry rhetoric of the support groups organized by the local fathers’ rights centre. These support groups have been effective at capitalizing on men’s feelings of loss after separation. Playing to traditional conceptions of male authority and entitlement, these groups build upon and stoke men’s sense of victimization, scapegoating their former spouses, feminists and the courts for the failure of their relationships.
One man in North Vancouver described to a community advocate how attending fathers’ rights support group meetings caused him to develop an anger he never had before he attended the meetings. Feminist and pro-feminist organizations have had to devote increasing energy to countering these myths of victimization and to supporting men to take responsibility for their role in the failure of the relationship. According to Bruce Wood, “there are lots of men (as there are women) who are full of grief, anger, sadness and shock after a relationship comes to an end. These men deserve to be heard and to be helped heal – not to have their anger fed like a fire for political lobbying purposes.” In a past Briarpatch article (March/April 2007), Wood asserts that “heterosexual men seeking connection with and support from other men have proven easy targets for … fathers’ rights organizations.” Wood goes on to suggest that our “unwillingness to support and deliver comprehensive education for adult men … is a significant contributing factor in our failure to reduce the rate of violence against women.”
The challenge for the feminist movement is to engage men in the discussion around the relationship between fatherhood and masculinity. We must engage in these discussions not only for men but also for women, who bear the brunt of abuse and are facing a disproportionate burden in caregiving that impacts their economic freedom before and after separation.
Fathers’ rights groups have proven very effective at reaching out to and supporting men who are anxious about their perceived loss of power in a relationship that is dissolving, turning that anxiety into anger, and directing that anger outward at spouses, women in general, and the courts. They have been equally proficient at taking equality language that was originally developed out of social justice movements and using it to support traditional ideas of masculinity.
Activists need to re-engage with and support feminist and pro-feminist organizations in our community, reclaim the language of substantive equality, and contribute to rebuilding a national feminist movement to counter the fathers’ rights movement and push for real equality pre- and post-separation.
Challenging the myths of the fathers’ rights movement
Myth #1 – Men face a disproportionate burden when paying child support
In 1997, the federal government brought forward child support guidelines to regulate the amount that non-residential parents are obligated to pay to support their children. Prior to the regulations being introduced, recipients of child support saw their income go down by 29 per cent after divorce and the income of the payers increased 20 per cent. Clearly there was a need to balance the situation.
These new guidelines calculated payments according to income and the number of children, and have helped set a common standard across Canada that had not previously existed. That same year, the tax law was changed so that child support payments were no longer tax deductible by the payee. For many men, these policy changes represented an increase in the support they were expected to pay. The fathers’ rights group Fathers Are Capable Too characterized the regulations as “arbitrary, greedy and [an] inaccurate formulation by people who knew better.”
But according to the courts, child support is the right of the child and in their view it is the right of children to enjoy a standard of living similar to that of the non-residential parent.
Myth #2 – Men face a women-friendly bias when applying for custody
There has been a dramatic shift over the past several years towards joint custody. Joint custody in Canada allows for a child to spend similar amounts of time with each parent and requires shared decision-making. Usually there is a primary parent and generous access for the non-residential parent, with major decisions like where the child attends school made by both parents. The difference between joint custody and equal shared parenting is that joint custody is awarded on a case-by-case basis and the decision is made based on the best interests of the child. In 2004, just under half of all custody cases were granted jointly; this number roughly equalled the number of cases where custody was given to the wife only. Sole custody was given to the father in only eight per cent of the cases that year. This has led fathers’ rights groups to argue that women receive custody whenever they ask for it and men almost never receive custody. However, given that decision-making and access to children is shared in almost half of all custody and access cases, it can hardly be said, as Fathers for Justice does on their website, that “family law has evolved from being anti-female to anti-male … the pendulum has swung too far.”
In his paper “Hard Time to be a Father: Reassessing the Relationship Between Law, Policy and Family,” Richard Collier, a British legal theorist on men and family law, challenges the assumption that custody should be 50/50 between men and women, arguing that it devalues the ongoing work of women in caring for children. Collier questions the courts’ emphasis on shifting parenting practices after the relationship has broken down and instead calls for men to be accountable for their parenting practices during relationships. According to Statistics Canada, men currently do not contribute 50 per cent of the labour of raising a child and make few of the career sacrifices, so joint custody represents a substantial shift in parenting dynamics. Contrary to the myth of a women-friendly court system, it seems that the courts are giving men the benefit of the doubt in awarding joint-custody in such large numbers.
A disturbing reality is that the likelihood of sole custody being given to the father may increase if the mother alleged that the father was abusive to her or the children during the course of their relationship. In survey of 100 self-identified protective parents by researchers at California State University, 94 per cent identified that they were the primary parent in the relationship prior to separation and 87 per cent had custody at the time of separation. However, after reporting child abuse only 27 per cent of the mothers were left with custody after the resulting court proceedings. Forty-five per cent of the mothers were labelled as causing “Parental Alienation Syndrome” in their children. (See below for a discussion of Parental Alienation Syndrome.)
Myth #3 – Women often make up stories of abuse to discredit the other parent’s custody bid
The fathers’ rights movement alleges that women lie to the courts and make up stories of abuse to “get back” at the father. Groups like Fathers are Capable Too argue that Parental Alienation Syndrome, a supposed condition with no scientific foundation, is a disorder that results from the dysfunctional and adversarial divorce system.
Only five per cent of separation and divorce cases end up as “high conflict” cases where parents are not able to come to a mutual agreement on custody, access and child support, but instead go to trial. High-conflict family law cases are often characterized by a history of violence within the family. If they acknowledge such violence, fathers’ rights activists characterize these cases as instances of men driven to violence over the stress of the legal battle, lashing out in anger at spouses who have unfairly denied their access to their children. However, many fathers’ rights sites don’t even bother to justify violence as they simply deny it exists, claiming that women unfairly and inaccurately fabricate stories of abuse in order to separate the children from their father.
This narrative of embittered women lashing out at helpless fathers through the children represents one of the main areas of pseudo-science that has emerged from the father’s rights movement: Parental Alienation Syndrome. Parental Alienation Syndrome was “discovered” by the late Dr. Richard Gardner in 1985 while he was working as a paid consultant to men charged with sexually abusing their children. Gardner defined Parental Alienation Syndrome as “a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child custody disputes.” He claimed that “it results from a combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent.”
Gardner often dismissed claims of abuse voiced by children as merely symptoms of parental alienation, where one parent (typically the mother) has turned the children against the other parent.
Critics of Gardner’s work, and there are many, have highlighted that Parental Alienation Syndrome fails to account for the multiple factors potentially contributing to a child’s rejection of a parent, thus grossly oversimplifying a complex situation. Gardner justifies this simplification based on a very constrictive definition of how “real” sexually abused children behave. If an abused child does not behave in the narrow manner that Gardner proposes, he assumes no abuse has taken place. Thus, Parental Alienation Syndrome’s assessment procedures rely on a circular logic that almost guarantees the conclusion that a given child has the syndrome.
In Canada, two Queen’s University law professors, Nicholas Bala and John Schuman, reviewed 196 judges’ decisions between 1990 and 1998 where allegations of physical and sexual abuse were made in the context of separation in order to determine what patterns emerged. They found that judges concluded that only a third of all false allegations were a result of individuals deliberately lying in court. Moreover, the study found that men were far more likely to make intentionally false allegations of abuse, as 21 per cent of men brought forward intentionally false allegations compared to only 1.3 per cent of women.
Readers like you keep Briarpatch alive and thriving. Subscribe today to support fiercely independent journalism.
45 Comments
I see you have visited all the gender feminist web sites to do your research and used it to support your ideologically predisposed notion that women are an under class of victims requiring special status from the nanny state.
The arguments to not stand up to scrutiny or science. 75% of divorces in Canada are initiated by women. Very few of them are related to DV. Most are related to ethereal visions of greener pastures brought on by dreamy magazine articles, romantic books and movies and hormonal surges that never come to pass. The relative poverty placed upon children as a result is based on very bad decisions by women and then supported by the courts. Check the statistics for children who become social problems and their relationship to single motherhood homes.
In fact your whole notion of DV being a one sided gender issue with women as victims does not stand scrutiny at all. In a Centre for Disease Control; study women were found to be initiators 71% of the time. In all categories of DV it is pretty much equal between genders yet men are excluded from every tax supported DV shelter in Canada. That is part of the gender apartheid contributed by articles such as this.
The longer you try to inculcate these myths the longer will the struggle be for true equality. The equality you and others of your ilk seek is already there but your ideology prevents you from seeing it. Real women have found it. Gender feminists are ideologically and perceptually blinded by it. You cannot ever expect to be equal by constantly pulling the victim card. Get over it, grow up and move on.
From MikeMurphy on May 2nd, 2009 at 10:35am
Your quote:-
“According to Bruce Wood, “there are lots of men (as there are women) who are full of grief, anger, sadness and shock after a relationship comes to an end. These men deserve to be heard and to be helped heal – not to have their anger fed like a fire for political lobbying purposes.”
This is precisely what feminist groups have been doing for years now. The political purpose is clearly stated in their own manifesto ‘ to destroy the traditional nuclear family’ and replace it with what exactly?
This attack on the basic structure of society, and the consequential tragedy for children, has been instigated by feminists under the guise of equality.
Fathers retaliate in defence, and are accused as the instigators.!!
Who is right here? NO ONE. It’s a tragedy for all concerned.
Who is wrong? I propose the ones who wish to turn society on it’s head and replace it with unworkable chaos.
Another similar situation concerns PAS. Feminists deny it’s existence, and when fathers engage in PAS, the mothers ‘support network’ cannot support them due to their initial denial of reality!!
Selective support only when it supports the underlying political agenda!
That’s typical irresponsible feminist thinking for you!
From Michael on May 4th, 2009 at 3:29am
The outmoded argument of domestic violence in marriage holds no water. According to Stats Canada, An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive Statistics Canada report on family violence. Look it up yourself: [url=http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm]http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm[/url].
In popular culture, men get a bad blow as they are portrayed as simpletons, deadbeats, pedophiles, rapists, and wife beaters who wear “wife beater” shirts stained with ketchup. Today, men are just female side-kicks on TV commercials bobbing their heads in the background. Can we say also say that in popular culture women are prostitutes and gold-diggers? Do you agree with this? Obviously, not, so why should men?
You need to separate fiction from fact and realize that most men and women are decent people. We don’t live in the 60’s anymore. Stop propagating such nonsense and stop identifying with urban myths. Maybe it’s time to close up old-fashioned feminism and embrace an age of parental equality and responsibility. Be more compassionate and fair to both sexes.
Lastly, you’ll be surprised by how many women are involved in these “father’s groups”. Anyone with a conscience should speak the truth despite what sex is involved. I am an adult child of divorce and I experienced more abuse in the hands of my mother than my father. The stats also reflect this. I hope you love your father because I surely love mine!
Elisa Hayse
From Elisa Hayse on May 4th, 2009 at 10:48am
Deanna Bravo for writting such a great article. I could not agree more.
In my 20 years work experience as an Educator and Counsellor, I have worked with many children exposed to domestic violence. In almost all the cases that were refered to me (specifically by the Ministry of Children and Families) children were the victims of experiencing their dad’s violence towards their mother. The only time a dad would come in contact with me is when the matter was going to court. Truth hurts and I think it is time for men to take responsibilty! Caring Dad program in Ontario is a great programs for dads who have taken responsibilty for their violence towards their child’s mother. Men who have participated in the Caring Dad programs have reported that taking responsibility of their violence has helped improve their relationship with their child.
I challenge the postion of the Father’s Rights Activists/Supporters who have commented above that domestic violence is mutual. Please reflect on why is it that almost 99% of high profile domestic violence homicides in
BC are that of women who have been killed by their intimate partners? These are the forgotten victims. Can you even imagine what life is like for these children whose moms were shot /stabbed to death right infront of their eyes???? Please reflect and rest your EGO’s!
From Shahnaz S on May 5th, 2009 at 3:03pm
As the new partner of an incredible father who, after his wife divorced him, lost his children, home and assets, you clearly have never seen the effects of the “womens” movement in action. What might get you to change you mind?
How about this scenario : You have a son you love and who you know is a good person. He gets married and has children. You are a grandmother and love his kids. He gets a divorced. He is relagated to a “visitor” in his children’s lives. He loses his home and lives in a shabby apartment while giving his ex-wife 50% of his net income. His ex-wife continually ignores the court ordered visiting time. He takes her to court. The court informs him they cannot enforce his visitation rights. But if he is one day late on his child support, they will garnish his check so he can’t pay rent. You lose your grandchildren, and have no rights to visiting them. Your son is in financial ruin and may have to maove back in with you to survive. It happens every day to GOOD men and GOOD fathers.
I hope this never happens to you, because then you’ll realize the damage you’ve done perpetuating the stero-type that woman are infantile citizens who deserve special treatments and almost unliminted power in the area of famiy court.
From Tricia on May 7th, 2009 at 1:43pm
I am a father who won equal access to my children. I share custody on a 50/50 percent basis with my ex wife.
It took me almost four years and cost around 60 000 dollars.
I was attacked in court not by facts but by stereotypes. I could talk about the details but everyone reading this knows that she had to screw up really, really bad for a man to win equal access to his children in Canada.
It seems to me that every article I read like this never considers that men might just want to be in their children’s lives. The message articles like this send is that Fathers never participate in their children’s lives, and that they could never help handle child rearing abilities.
I work full time, I do not get a baby bonus check or any government aid. I look after four children, I cook I clean, I nurture, I help with homework just as I always have. I have no desire to control my ex wife, I avoid her as much as possible you see I am happy to be free of my abuser.
What is wrong with wanting to be in your children’s lives. If you can’t understand this picture seeing your children every other weekend and having little to no input in their lives.
From Harold Gabriel on May 15th, 2009 at 5:48am
I guess Shahnaz S lives in a feminist bubble and deals with “reported” DV. Men only report about 10% of the time so you won’t find stats from the police on them in proportion to their being battered and abused. When women kill their partners it is often not recorded as DV. Recently Adam Cunningham died from wounds received at the hands of his wife Ellie in Vancouver. The Crown was even wondering if they should proceed with charges given the death of the only witness. I have been in contact with the BC AG to disabuse him of the notion a gender discount is in order. In Edmonton a similar situation occurred recently where a drug addicted woman punched out her partner who fell to the ground and he was kicked further by this woman. He died later in hospital. This will not be recorded as DV. She got 6.5 months for killing a man.
Shahnaz S uses the old canard of children watching DV perpetrated by a dad but neglects to say, given DV is pretty much equal, what the impact is on the children when mom is punching, throwing objects, cursing, yelling, screaming at the top of her lungs, pulls out 4.5 foot rake handles and tries to kill dad, and hits him over the head with a 10 lb jug of water amongst other things. Indeed mom frequently in front of the children when dad is not around denigrates him to alienate the children and create allies creating greater emotional abuse.
You live in a feminist bubble and are in denial. You are ideologically and perceptually blinded by what likely is going on right under your nose. That makes you far less than professional. How many female addicts do you deal with? They are some of the worst bullies on the face of the earth to both their partners and children? They go to the DV shelter to dry out before going back to do more drugs and commit more DV. Some even commit crimes to get money for the drugs while at the shelter. Some do tricks to supplement their habit then go back to the shelter after getting the money and a fix. They feed off the self abuse of their own bodies and take it out on others.
I often hear the term “protective” parent used by the radical feminists in reference to the mom. Statistically the single mother is the most dangerous person to supervise children. You can check the USA stats here. [url=http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm]http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm[/url]. Mothers are the greatest abusers and killers of children by far in the USA and the greatest killers of children, in partnership with their boyfriends in Australia.
Its time to drop the victim persona and be real women. DV is not a single gender issue it is a family issue. Until it is recognized as such not much will change. Until these shelters start treating men not much will change. You practice a form of gender apartheid and a backlash is starting to be felt across the nation.
The federal public service is now 55% female and the Ontario Public Service close to 60%. The pendulum has swung way to far in terms of feminist instigated entitlements and it needs to stop. I am in the forefront of bringing the pendulum back to the centre instead of marginalizing fathers and ridiculing men with feminist mythology as appears in the article and in Shahnaz S post.
From MikeMurphy on May 15th, 2009 at 9:14am
I find this article and subsequent posts to be of three opinions. One from a feminist’s positon, one from a Men’s advocate’s opinion, and the rest from ill informed people who have not been through the hell of modern divorce.
I am a men’s advocate. I also advocate for equal shared parenting. I help non custodial parents in getting over their grief and try to help them find the way back into a more meaningful relationship with their children. I also try to recomend that the people try to keep communiocation open, and try not to let things get into a legal slug fest.
I know that there is a lot of miss information out there put out by all sides in this debate. However I can tell you that there is only a Status of Women’s ministry, and to me that says it right there about how our government feels.
There was a comparison of equal shared parenting to a substantive equality. There was an analogy of an apple. I would like to discuss this therory. Let’s take one apple a day, and one child and one adult. Put them on a deserted island. Feed them each half of the apple per day. Lets see who lives and who dies. I am sure the child will possibly atleast maintain weight, yet the adult will loose weight, and eventualy die. But lets compair the same situation with two adults and the one apple. They both will loose weight, until they learn to work things out and find another source of food. This is equal shared parenting.
But now lets look at substantive equality as put forth in this article. Ms. Ogle implies that the courts use substantive equality because women work harder at child care than men, or they do not have as much knowledge or are at a disadvantage because of oppression. Under this idea of substantive equality, you take that one apple, and cut it into two parts, with one part containing 1/3 the apple and the other part the remaining 2/3. You give the larger portion to the woman, and the smaller portion to the man. The apple is not large enough for both of them to survive, but the woman will live longer than the man, and they will most likely bicker of the apple before they learn to work together. That is how our current system works. They both die.
Now let’s look at the economice side of things. Ms. Ogle puts forth statistics that more women take time off from work for child care. That is undissputed, but is worthless information if you want to use it as an argument for why our system is the way it is. She implies that this proves that women take more of an active role in child care. She does not include the prior take home salary of the two spouses prior to the desision of who would take time off for child care.
Most women still earn less in their day to day work than men. This is largely due to the different career paths each sex takes in life. Young men and young women may both start working at the local McDonalds, but as soon as the young man is offered a job in the oil patch or a trade, he takes it. The girl often is not interested in such jobs, and takes up a less physical job. Now this is the difference in salaries. He gets paid more because of the demands of his job compaired to her. Now these tow young people get married and have a child. Lets say that they both can take time off for child care. So he makes $50k a year, but would drop down to only $30K for that year if he takes time off to raise the baby. She makes $30k a year, but would only take home $15k for the year if she took the time off. So if she took the time off and he still worked, the family income for the year would be $65k, and if he took time off from work the family income would be $60k. $5k a year less. That is food for a year, or a car payment for a year less in real terms. Now most men are able to pick up some overtime in the typicaly male dominated blue collar jobs, where as most white collar jobs have fixed hours, so men have a higher earning potential. I think it is clear why there are more women taking time off to raise the children then men.
Ms. Ogle also discussed child support. Now this is where things get complicated. Most men pay child support. Most pay what they are ordered to pay, and they pay it. Now most also complain that they pay too much, and I may not always agree, but this money should be able to be a tax write off, and the person should have to declare this income, but not be taxed on it. I also think that both parent’s have a responsibility to pay equally based on incomes. In Australia they had a screwed up system like Canada, but they fixed it by taking into consideration both parent’s incomes, time spent with each parent, and any other children that each parent had to support. Then there is a math formula, and depending on the incomes, it was possible for the custodial parent to have to pay the non custodial parent some support, and this my friends is what is called ensuring that the child continues to enjoy the same lifestyle at both parent’s homes. What we have is only the non custodial parent paying support to the custodial parent, regardless of that parent’s income, or the responsibilites of the other parent to other children. So a debtor who remarries must have his children with the new family go without so that the creditor who also has remarried can spend the money on their new children. You wonder why so many men’s second marriages fail? It is because many of their spouses get tired of having to see their husbands earnings go to support his first children, and then the ex’s new children, while her’s have to make due with less.
Now there was a discussion about DV. This is one of the other myths. Feminists want to have the world believe that it is only men who abuse women and children. This is not supported by any study today. I will conceed that more women seek medical help after domestic violence than men, however this is more to do with power of a man. More women use weaopns than men. Just ask Riahana. She attacked Chris Brown with her stilletto heal while he was driving, before he beat the hell out of her with his arms and fists. I do not condone violence, but why do we only hear about poor Rihana? She started the attack, and it most certanly was reciprical. But it is Chris Brown who was arrested, and everyone gives Rihana the sym[pathy because Chris Brown is a monster. What if she had caused them to crash before he stopped and disarmed her? She would have been responsible for there crash and possible death. Lets place the blame on the real problem here, and that is their mutual in ability to control their emotions.
I have custody of my kids. It took nearly 6 yrs and over $160k. I have had to go to court many many times, just to keep seeing the same bias. It was only when my ex started to not pick the kids up from school, and had neglected the kids that something finaly happened. Unfortunately I still do not have an actual order declaring this, and this still causes problems for me, but my kids are doing better in school, and they are having a better life. I also have been much more flexible with my ex over access then she ever was to me. If we followed the access order, my kids would not have had birthdays, chrismas, easter or half of spring break with their mother. I did this not because I could not look after my kids, but because it was the right thing to do for my kids. If only the courts made parents be fair and reasonable, then the kids would not be so affected by divorce.
The government needs to make presumpton of equal parenting. This will eliminate the financial grab that divorce starts off with many women. Too often some unscroupoulous women go to court and get an ex parte order, claiming abuse or the fear of abuse, and then she gets the house, the kids the car, and support, why he ends up living on a friends couch until they can get into court to deal with things, but often this takes too long, and he looses meaningful his access to his kids.
I am not saying that all women do this, but the courts are biased towards this. With the presumption of equal parenting, then there is no financial incentive for divorce, and more people will try to work out their problems.
I also feel that the government needs to bring back fault into divorve. Let the person who has caused the breakdown to suffer the results of their behavior.
From Russ McNeill on May 15th, 2009 at 4:41pm
I am one of the few, I have my boys with me. The mother left and moved to a city 400km away. I AM, the rock in their lives, their mother was a stay at home mom, with substance abuse issues. Now we are learning to live just the three of us, the abuse continues, but now it’s mostly financial and with some superficial psycological hits whenever her attention reverts to us. I instill respect in my boys towards their mother, but it’s one of the toughest things to do when your child degrades his own mother the woman who once was your world and now cares nothing for anyones well being, But her own. I know I’m doing the right thing by promoting the boy’s relationship with her. I hold on to the hope that one day she will see the damage she’s caused, her sons will be her jury!
In the mean time I try to fight her lawyer and have the $1500/months spousal support payment removed, reduced or at least limited to a term. Lectur et emergoMy position, biased I might add is that no human being should be ordered to support someone who of there own free will made a decision to live their life in a certain way. But as they change there minds on the decisions they made that someone else should became their welfare state. The provider in a traditional marriage suffers just as much disadvantage, usally ends up working harder, and longer hours to make up for the spouse that stays home to nurture the children. But some how the courts see this as career advancement!!! How about self sacrifice in the name of your family. The law itself deflects support of an individual to the ex spouse, because it has this same opinion that the state should not have to support anyone!From C Barbeau on May 15th, 2009 at 6:00pm
Quoted references are documented at National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center [url=http://www.NFVLRC.org]http://www.NFVLRC.org[/url] Policy Statement on Family Violence
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
Males disproportionately arrested
“Reports from the WHO (Archer, 2006) also make it clear than in many countries around the world, particularly where women have little political or socioeconomic power, women represent the much larger share of IPV victims. However, the most reliable population of surveys indicate that in Western industrialized democracies such as the United States and Canada, where they enjoy higher status, women engage in physical aggression at rates comparable to men (Archer, 2000; Fiebert, 2004; Straus & Gelles, 1990) and are as likely or more likely to be the initiators (DeMaris, 1992; Morse, 1995; Dutton et al., 1999; Straus, 1993; Williams & Frieze, 2005).”
“Shernock’s (2005) analysis of over 2000 IPV incidents in Vermont revealed that men were categorized as perpetrators 3.2 times more often than women on the initial police report, but subsequently arrested 9 times as often. At issue is the extent to which this pattern of gender bias reflects flawed “dominant aggressor” guidelines and assumptions about IPV based on discredited sociopolitical theories of patriarchy”
“Victimized males do not have access to services because of the assumptin that they are only minimally impacted by IPV, if at all. This assumption, however, runs contrary to an overwhelming body of research evidence. A significant minority of IPV-related physical injuries, between 25% and 43%, are incurred by men (Archer, 2000; Laroch, in preparation; Mirrlees-Black, 1999; Straus, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), an men are the victims in nearly a quarter of intimate homicides (Rennison, 2003)”
FAMILY LAW AND FAMILY VIOLENCE
“IPV assumed to be male-perpetrated”
Many states now incorporated into their family law statutes guidelines that discourage or prohibit violent parents from obtain custody of their children (National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges (1994). These guidelines are good in theory, but when improperly applied may result in substantial harm to children and families. Advocates for mothers (Silverman et al., 2004) argue that many fathers who have perpetrated IPV and child abuse are able to manipulate the courts to their advantage and obtain primary custody of their children; and advocates for fathers (e.g., Leving & Dachman, 1998) present the same argument regarding abusive mothers. However, research efforts to resolve this issue have been decidedly skewed, concerned almost exclusively with finding evidence of abusive fathers gaining custody (Kernic et al, 2005; Morrill et al., 2005; Silverman et al., 2004)”
It is also the case that parents for whom there exists little or no empirical evidence of abuse have been denied custody and visitation of their children via restraining orders due to mere allegations, or when the documented abuse is minor or situational (Epstein, 1993; Heleniak, 2005; Pearson, 1997). More often than not, these cases involve fathers rather than mothers, because many family court mediators, evaluators, attorneys and judges share in the general assumptions that men are rarely victims and women rarely the dominant aggressors of IPV (Dutton, 2005).”From Denis Pakkala on May 15th, 2009 at 10:21pm
Dear Deanna, I do not believe that equality is subject to your interpretation. Every honest person walk to the family court can see the bias against the males in almost every motion and trial. Your hypothetical, practically worthless and scientifically unbiased article and allegation has no circle of truth around it. It is simply an emotional reaction to growing voices against the unjust system called family law, trade mark of feminism Canada. Ever literate person who can read the case laws can predict the judgment by observing the gender of the applicant. Marriage is not a charity foundation and choosing to stay home and taking care of children is not an excuse to gain legal grounds and collect the wealth, becoming pensioner of a hard-working man. Let alone that your argument can not even apply to the cases of a three-year old marriage with no children which faces years of spousal support (always paid by males).
And for Shahnaz S, as a Middle Easterner who landed in a tax payer- funded fake job, called “counselor’ you have every right to provide an false %99 homicide rate by ‘intimate’ partners. After all you could not get such an easy life in Iran for selling BS to people.
Unfortunately the fact does not work the same way here in Ontario, where the mothers are killing their kids and walk free crying abuse, where almost in ever case DV allegations against the fathers are dropped by the prosecutor as being unproven and men are losing 0 of their rights and life savings trying to save their children from abusive mothers. Have seen enough of them. Have seen enough of your fellow countrymen in Toronto courts, while demanding support from their ex husbands back home in form of ‘Mahrieh’ dragging the men in courts in Canada.
I understand your business gesture though. It is recession-proof position where you live a descent life by selling crap.
Did it ever happen to you to ask yourself a simple rational question?
‘If after decades of feminism rulings in Canadian courts and all the steps taken by law and police and law maker to an extent that all it needs to have a man arrested and eliminated from the family is a 911 call, still you believe in what you say about DV and the murder rate, then isn’t that obvious that the feminists have miserably failed in addressing and solving the issue? What it takes for a policy to be considered as failed when it does not produce the result after decades of swallowing billions of dollars?’
From Ebi on May 15th, 2009 at 11:31pm
Mz. Ogle proves the point of fathers rights activists whom she goes to such lengths to disparage. It is the accepted norm for media to publish diatribes and mis-information such as this article without questioning or fact checking, and without seeking rebuttal opinions from the opposite side. That’s one of the facts that make fathers upset and angry, and prompts them to speak out against the outrageous discrimination we face. Mz.Ogle was given much space in this magazine to spew her malicious and venomous lies. Fathers, if they’re lucky, might get the equivalent of a “letter to the editor”. Certainly not an equal amount of ink, space, and time to rebut all her lies.
To begin with, editors and readers should ask why, if women were as oppressed and put upon as Mz. Ogle would have us believe, there are so many fathers rights groups, and only a scarce few women’s groups complaining about inequality and unfairness? Could it be that women really don’t have much to complain about?
The cause of Mz.Ogle’s angst can be seen in her comment that fathers’ groups “have adopted the language of “equal rights” and resistance to oppression, but wield these terms in defence of traditional ideas of fatherhood and male privelege.” In other words, father’s groups are using the same words and concepts as feminism, and that outrages feminists. Not much equality there, is there? They feel, apparently, that what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Ogle mentions a government study on custody and access, disparaging the opportunity for fathers to have their grievances heard. But, Ogle misses the most important point of her own diatribe. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE WERE COMPLETELY IGNORED! A government minister overruled the results of a nationwide study in favor of entitlements for women. Proving, of course, that fathers’ complaints about government bias against fathers were valid.
Ogle goes on to opine that a strict formal equality approach in marital cases is detrimental to women. She argues for a “substantive” approach, which would continue the preferential treatment accorded women. She argues that women suffer more, economically, from divorce, ignoring research which shows that divorced women actually prosper more than the fathers. She further decries a reduction in legal aid offered to women (but never to men), but ignores studies that show that mothers get custody in more than 90% of cases, and a hefty child support cheque as well. Who needs legal aid, when the courts are known to be that biased against fathers?
In typical feminazi style, Ogle brings domestic violence into the equation. Of course, she totally ignores violence against men, pretending that violence is something only women suffer, and always at the hands of a man. Combining two concepts, Ogle wants “substantive equality” provided to any women who lodges a false complaint of abuse (as most have been shown to be). Even feminist lawyers have publicly agreed that most complaints of violence occur during proceedings for divorce and custody.
Ogle admits that “even when joint custody decisions are made, children are typically cared for by the mother.” That’s because “joint custody” usually means “joint LEGAL custody”, a term that is meaningless for the father. The mother still gets sole residenial custody, and the equal sharing of responsibilities is lost by the wayside. Ogle is trying to confuse the reader by insinuating that “joint” custody means and equals “SHARED PHYSICAL CUSTODY”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Ogle also believes that mothers should get sole custody because they do most of the child care and housework, including taking time off from a job to care for sick children. However, she neglects to credit dad for providing transportation for the kids, or time spent playing with them, helping with homework, repairing their toys, or reading to them. Her idea of housework are all the indoor chores, such as cleaning an cooking. She completely ignores dad’s work on car maintenance, plumbing and electrical repairs, house painting, raking, snow shoveling, and all the other “male” jobs that allow mom and the kids a comfortable and safe home.
Ogle then discusses changes in Aussie and British law, and disengenuously hints that those changes involve “shared parenting”. She lets the cat out of the bag, however, by admitting that those plans allowed each parent to “keep their pre-separation roles and responsibilities”. Those intact family roles generally have the father as breadwinner, and mother as homemaker and child carer, BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT. So, what she fails to say is that those changes weren’t much change at all. Mother was given custody, and Dad was reduced to breadwinner for a family he was no longer a part of, and no longer benefited from. It’s no wonder that the supposed changes had not reduced conflict or litigation. It’s actually funny, in a way. Feminists, like Mz. Ogle, created entitlements for women, at men’s expense, and now are complaining that those entitlements are actually detrimental to women. Reading between the lines, one would suspect that Mz. Ogle would like to make men return to their lost homes to change diapers, do the ironing, cleaning, home repairs, etc, in addition to providing half his income to the mother in a Communistic “TRANSFER OF WEALTH” scheme.
Mz. Ogle goes on to accuse fathers’ rights activist of trying to “bully” a supposed mens support group. The group bills itself as “Male Positive”, so it’s no wonder they get “flooded” by phonecalls, emails, and faxes from fathers “ voicing anger at everything from the courts to womens’ violence against men.” Agencies supporting men and fathers are both scarce and needed. A phonecall from an abused man looking for help is not “bullying”.
The real purpose of Mz. Ogle’s diatribe against men and fathers comes out when she discusses FUNDING for feminist groups. She decries the loss of government funding for these agencies, while (almost comically) admitting to the reason. She makes it clear that these agencies are more about gender politics than violence prevention. They provide no services for abused males, and won’t even allow mens groups to participate in discussions of violence prevention. The funding was lost because the groups discriminate against men. The attempts of the fathers rights groups to END the discrimination was, apparently, terrifying to the feminists, who derive huge financial and political profits from such agencies.
Bruce Wood, of the Saskatoon Men’s Resource Centre is again quoted, saying, in effect, that men suffer grief, sadness, and anger after divorce, and need to be heard and helped to heal, not to “have their anger fed like a fire for political lobbying purposes.” But isn’t that exactly what he does by supporting the adversaries of men? Ogle did describe his group as “pro-feminist” and “gay affirmative”. And Wood himself admits that his groups’ uwillingness to support and deliver comprehensive education for adult men, is a significant contributing factor in our failure to reduce the rate of violence against women.” So, although he presents his group as “male positive”, when a man reaches out for help, he finds this is just an adjunct to a gay/feminist support group. Once again, the divorced father is made to feel put upon, mistreated, ignored, and trivialized. Not exactly a good way to reduce violence.
Ogle ends her piece by repeating her ideology of “lifeboat feminism”. She would have us believe that it is somehow wrong for men to adopt the “equality language” of feminism in their own quest for equality. Good for the goose, not for the gander. She seems to be suggesting that feminist superiority is actually “equality”, and that father’s rights is a criminal endeavor requiring opposition and oppression.
From Paul M. Clements on May 16th, 2009 at 6:15am
Quoted references taken from
CHILD CUSTODY, ACCESS AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE SEARCH FOR A JUST AND EQUITABLE STANDARD
Edward Kruk, December 2008
“Research is clear that children fare best in post-separation relationships in which they maintain meaningful routine parental relationships with both of their parents beyond the constraints of a ‘visiting’ or ‘access’ relationship, in which they are shielded from destructive parental conflict, and in which they are protected, to the highest degree possible, from a marked decline in their standard of living. Contrary to current practice and dominant socio-legal discourse in Canada, when parents disagree over living arrangements of their children after separation, new evidence suggests that these conditions are best achieved by means of a legal shared parental responsibility presumption, defined as children spending at least 40 per cent of their time with each parent. The current framework of sole custody in contested cases is associated with high rates of father (and sometimes mother) absence, increased inter-parental conflict, and a marked reduction in children’s standard of living.
A child-focused analysis of child custody determination must also include a careful consideration of the issues of child abuse and family violence, which warrants against a ‘one shoe fits all’ approach, even though the majority of contested cases of child custody, including high-conflict cases, do not involve the type of “intimate terrorism” necessitating the removal of a parent (as a routine parent) from a child’s life via sole custody. Contrary to current practice and dominant socio-legal discourse, children are not shielded from post-separation violence and abuse by means of sole custody. Although it is clear that shared parental responsibility is contraindicated in cases of established family violence, research shows that inter-parental conflict increases with court-mandated sole physical custody in cases with no previous violence, as fully half of first-time battering occurs after separation. New research evidence makes clear that inter-parental conflict decreases within a shared parental responsibility custody arrangement, as neither parent is threatened by the loss of the children and parental identity. The current framework of primary residential custody in disputed custody cases, contrary to dominant discourse, exposes both parents and children to violence”
“Sole maternal custody often leads to parental alienation and father absence, and father absence is associated with negative child outcomes”
“Children of divorce want equal time with their parents and consider shared parenting to be in their best interests”
“A recent meta-analysis of the major North American studies comparing sole and joint physical custody arrangements has shown that children in joint custody arrangements fare significantly better on all adjustment measures than children who live in sole custody arrangements (Bauserman, 2002).”
“Inter-parental conflict decreases over time in shared custody arrangements, and increases in sole custody arrangements. Inter-parental cooperation increases over time in shared custody arrangements, and decreases in sole custody arrangements.”
“Both U.S. and Canadian research indicates that mothers and fathers working outside the home now spend comparable amounts of time caring for their children”
From Denis Pakkala on May 16th, 2009 at 8:50am
I am one of many men falsely accused of committing all imaginable family crime. I have been reported to police about 40 times during last three years; none of the allegations resulted in any charges due to lack of evidence of wrongdoing. However, as a result of those false allegations I was thrown out of my house, business and separated from my children for months in violation of not only common sense but, also, in violation of my Charter rights. On the other hand, the court(three judges) ignored evidence of abuse inflicted on my little son by his mother. Now, I find it very difficult to believe a woman alleging abuse, unless, there is very strong evidence and the allegations do not produce financial gain for her and her attorney. She’ll never be held accountable for her words in court, they will pretend that they believe her and extort from a man huge amount of money for legal fees necessary to “defend” himself and keep from jail. This is an extortion racket perpetuated with help from feminists such Deanna Ogle.
From Wes Wojtowicz on May 16th, 2009 at 12:29pm
Thank you for your article Deanna
It’s free advertising!
By the way, how might you feel if someone took YOUR child?
The words ‘righteous indignation’ come to mind, not to mention angry, sad, disillusioned and all of the other things we normal human beings experience when grieving.
Have a very nice day.
Kristin Titus
Co-President
Canadian Equal Parenting Council
From Kristin Titus on May 18th, 2009 at 3:34pm
Although I disagree with much of the article, I personally don’t believe that Deanna Ogle meant any disrespect to men or fathers’ rights groups. It is clear that she went out of her way to research the subject as best she could. It is hard to imagine any journalist taking a strong position in favour of fathers, given the literature that is available to them in the academia and the press in general.
The reality is that both mothers and fathers almost always mean to do what they think is best for their children. The problem lies in the family court system and the legal establishment that is behind it. They are in it for the money and money is all that they really understand.
From Gerald Gauthier on May 18th, 2009 at 9:59pm
Excellent reporting on your research. You must know that your report was excellent- based on the very long comments left here-14 of the 16, seem to want their own magazine-one understood your report and one- I cannot decide ! So- bravo !
From Cold North Wind on May 22nd, 2009 at 4:04pm
Fatherhood in america,Im gonna tell ya.
the only right a man has to his children is if you are lucky,To pay through the nose,And a couple hours a week visitation.usually at the mothers house.So she can herrass you the hole time you are there.And pay.Even if you are married she does not have to give the child your last name.
They get there way piriod.You have the right to pay,thats it.And godforbid you get layed off.Or like me get tirde of being milked.For everydime they can dig out of you.Anbd it doesnot matter if the woman is abusive,to you or the child,She can do no rong in the courts eyes.You are in the rong (being a man).And if you get a few weeks behind,Hay it happens to all fathers.All the woman has to do is get you out of the house.They lie sceam,And the police help them because the county gets money from the state,The state gets money from the federal government.And the mother gets welfair-And money from you.Suposedlly for the child.Its funny how within a couple mounths shes driving a new car.And the father is walking to work.Men get labled as deadbeats.And women get pittied.It dosnt matter that they will rape you in you sleep or do ungodly things with the used condoms,IF they want to get pregnant they will one way or another.And its OK,I have spent the last 15 years of my life in court trying to see my children with or without a lawyer the man if he is lucky will be treated like a paycheck.Ive gotten to the piont where I dont try anymore.I wouldnt touch another woman,Or give her a chance to trick me again any woman.They are all sceaming.goldiggers.So i get treated like a deadbeat even when I eat if ime lucky once a day.And havent bought myself a new pair of underwear in god Ive forgotten when.I dont go to movies or basically Im in jail.on house errest.Never have any money to do anything.Havent had cable in 12 years.Havent got a bank account because SCU will clean it out.Cant get foodstamps because I pay childsupport.And its not counted as a bill.But i have to pay taxes,and cant take any tax credits for my children.hell I dont even know my childrens SSN#s,And you know This country is so great and fair.My ex-wife will probably make sure my dauter gets pregnent.And do some poor sucker the same way she done me FOR MONEY.AND WELFAIR.So know that we ore going to be in a depression.Im worrying about my self Period.Hay I dont even Know my children,They dont KNOW me.So mabie if all us fathers-What a JOKE.Dont send them our money mabie they the governmen will bo broke.I hate this country.And would no take up arms to defend Rights only women have.A woman can give up a child and never once get pulled into court and PAY.A man cant do that.And never ever let a woman get your SSN#.no madder what hell give them a fake name.get what you want and forget them because Thats exactlly what they will do to you.Take everything youve worked for and ever will work for.You will be a slave.Nothing more.MONEY MONEY MONEY.I think its time for men to Cut this government and golddigging women off.Revolution time.
From Billy Jackson on May 26th, 2009 at 10:37am
You are truly brave to allow comments from the mens movements who clearly oppose anything that is even the slightest against their terrorist regime. Absolutely fantastic article and very honest. BTW, when you write a good article they will email it to all of the groups to try and bring it down. Its a threat to them. These movements are however starting to lose its power as most people now know what they are truly about and have got to a stage where they have had enough of their behavior. There are no more lies left to conceal their intents or behavior.
From Anonymum on Jun 9th, 2009 at 7:22am
Anger in Action is an appropriate title.
It is anger, vindictiveness, and a selfish lack of love for their children, that motivate many Canadian women to use the gender biased Canadian Family Justice System, to take their children away from good, loving Fathers. 90 % of the time, it is sickeningly evident that the mother’s hatred for her ex, exceedingly outweighs any love that she may or may not have for their children.
Truth be told, The Canadian Family Justice System is a morally corrupt, multi-billion dollar industry, that promotes parental alienation and child abuse.
Parental Alienation is Child Abuse! It is a form of Emotional Child Abuse that is being encouraged every single day in this Country by our Canadian “Family” Courts. Every time an “honorable” Judge awards one parent full custody, they are encouraging Parental Alienation. Is 4 days a month with one parent really in the best interests of the children???
To many mother’s, lawyers, Judges, Politicians and Feminists in Canada, money seems to be more important than the children of this country. It is as if they don’t even see Children any more. All they see is dollar signs with pigtails and baseball caps.
For a Country that prides itself on being a Nation of Peace Keepers, why is it that Canada has a “Justice System” in place that asks families, during one of the most difficult times in their lives, to go to war with one another over their children?
Aren’t we as Canadians better than this???
We as Canadians claim to be one of the greatest Nations on this Earth, yet we have a so-called “Family” Justice System in place that continually fails children and their families every single day.
Is Canada a Great Nation??? I think we fall very short of being a Great Nation, and will continue to do so, until Family Law is reformed, and a system is put in place that helps keep Families out of Court, and encourages divorcing couples to place their children’s best interests ahead of everything else, and work out a shared parenting agreement for their children.
You see, shared parenting is true Child Support. Why the Canadian Family Justice System refuses to see this is beyond me.? Why our Canadian Government refuses to see it is beyond me.? I guess the only conclusion that can be reached, is that our Canadian Government does not care about our Children. If this is true, and I believe it is, one can also conclude that our Canadian Government does not care about the future of this country.
Our Children are our future. What is done to children, they will do to society. We as Canadians will end up reaping what our Canadian Government has sown. It is inevitable!!
All Safety issues aside, any Parent, Mother or Father, who would try to take their children from the other parent during a divorce, cannot truly say that they love their child. Their actions speak much louder than their words.
Our Governments actions, or should I say inaction’s, are also speaking very loudly. They are boldly stating: WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN OF DIVORCE IN CANADA. WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT CANADA“S FUTURE.
From David Nash on Jun 24th, 2009 at 12:04pm
You are a racist misandrist! If what you say is even close to true, why are most men if not in jail? Oh, let met guess it is the PATRIARCHY! (excuse me while I drool on my club) People like you are the true source of evil in the world. You hide behind what you call intellect. You are sorely misinformed. You would harm women and children to right some so called inequity in your life. (mothers, sisters and daughters are affected by family court injustices) Men love there children, they have feelings and are deeply hurt when there children are suddenly torn from there lives. SURPRISE! Men have NO reproductive rights in this country. (Reproduction happens after sex – So don’t say keep it in your pants). The only reason these injustices continue is because of misguided, ill informed lies, like the ones you spout. Yeah, just blame white men for everything – its the IN thing to do!
From Sean on Aug 6th, 2009 at 11:36pm
Hey Deanna
Fathers may not have breasts but they have a heart!
Regarding parental responcibility; 1/2 an apple is and always will be a fair starting point for Canadian Courts
Only a thief would want more!
John Hummell
From John Hummell on Aug 8th, 2009 at 2:26pm
Well said, David Nash. Judges are such suckers, it really is ludicrous. The only thing worse than the judgement of the judges is the cowardice of the police.
From Scott on Aug 24th, 2009 at 4:00pm
So very happy to read so many well-written responses to the obviously pre-determined pop-‘feminism’ ideology presented in the above column/article.
As a man in my mid-30’s, raised by a single mom who left dad behind, i can vouch for the one-sided nature of the courts when it comes to favoring Women in the divorce proceedings.
Sure, some men dont take on their responsibilities. But that is not what’s being portrayed in the above article. as others have said, this isnt the 60’s. I have as many male friends who are the successful, present, primary care giver to their children as I know women who satisfy that roll.
I have seen as many functional, healthy families essential destroyed by a selfish woman as by a selfish man. And yet the court system invariable awards a large portion of the man’s income to the woman, regardless of her actions, indescretions, or lack of desire to make things ‘work’. This is not ‘equality’. It is just trading one bad thing for another.
It’s unfortunate that some women seem to feel so threatened by male organization and empowerment groups that they feel the need to attack them in the same way feminist groups were attacked 3 decades ago.
From David on Aug 25th, 2009 at 1:31am
Evidently children need fathers like fish need bicycles.
Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (S.C.C.) 1993-10-21
Supreme Court of Canada articulates the principle that the court must remove or mitigate sources of ongoing conflict which threaten to damage or prevent the continuation of a meaningful relationship with the parent.
In most cases the source of the conflict is the mother’s opinion that the father is an asshole.
On this basis the court removes the father, and not the mother’s opinion, which is the source of the conflict.
It seems to me that the judiciary has something backwards.
From T. Martin on Sep 2nd, 2009 at 2:27pm
Today the BC Court of Appeal again affirmed the principle that when the custodial mother is of the intractable conviction that the dad is an asshole, the dad has to go.
There is no error in law or fact, and an appeal against this principle can not proceed because the appeal would have no merit.
The really fucked up thing about this is the only dissent to be heard among the judiciary is that of a female judge – one voice against three males.
This is a gender issue, for certain, but the gender issue is that male judges are the assholes women have been complaining about for years. They are the ones who, because they were raised that way – share a common culture if you will – believe that dads should go off and leave the women’s work to the women.
Add that attitude to the systemic differential treament of custodial and non-custodial parents, and you get what we now have – pacification of custodial mothers (usually) at the expense of justice.
From T. Martin on Sep 4th, 2009 at 3:06pm
Myth #4
If the word “myth” is to be used, perhaps it should be used in an informed fashion – informed by semiotics as described by Ferdinand de Saussure, Charles Pierce, and particularly Roland Barthes.
“The best interests of the children” is a semiotic structure – a sign – a signifier referring to a signified, the custodial parent. However, the male judiciary take this signified and attribute their own meaning to it, making the custodial parent the new signifier referring to a new signified – the idea of a healthy, happy, well adjusted child.
This is called a “second order sign.”
Feminists have for years struggled to unpack the semiotic structure of women as myth. Why then do they not recognize the threat to their cause implicit in their own arguments in custody matters?
If men are forever enshrined in myth as being incapable of raising healthy, happy, well adjusted children, why then would women ever be permitted to hold any other role? Somebody has to do it, and the men can’t – as reified by myth, it’s women’s work.
Permitting men to do it would not be in “the best interests of the children,” therefore women MUST hold the role.
From T. Martin on Sep 4th, 2009 at 3:55pm
Every Civil or Criminal Law is supposed to have a default position or a presumption. A legal presumption is a rule of procedure for judges to follow. The most commonly recognized legal presumption is surely the presumption of innocence in criminal cases. When a person is accused of criminal activity, he/she is innocent until proven guilty.
Unfortunately in Canada, The Divorce Act does not provide a default position or presumption to the Courts. Due to this intrinsic flaw in the Divorce Act, the Family Courts in Canada have implemented their own default position: one that unequivocally, IS NOT in the best interests of the children; that position is one that is a cruel form of Child Abuse, and that is the forceful removal of one of the Child’s Parents from the Child’s life.
More often than not it is the Child’s Father who is removed from an active parenting role. In Canada, Mothers get custody in 86% cases, and more than 40% of children in Canada’s divorced families see their fathers only once a month. For the sake of the Children, this needs to be stopped!!! It can be stopped with your help.
Please visit: [url=http://www.crosscanadarun4thechildren.com/]http://www.crosscanadarun4thechildren.com/[/url] to find out how you can help put a stop to it.
On June 16th, 2009, Member of Parliament, Mr. Maurice Vellacott introduced an Equal Shared Parenting Private Members Bill, Bill C-422, before the House of Commons. Bill C-422 would reform the Divorce Act, and help put Children’s best interests forward by making Equal Shared Parenting the normative determination by courts dealing with situations of divorce involving children.
If a presumption of shared parenting existed, it would place the burden of proof on whatever party to the custody proceeding opposed equal shared parenting. Certain things would be slam-dunk winners, such as actual proof of violence, abuse or neglect. Other than actual proven safety concerns, there wouldn’t be any real reason for a Judge not to order Equal Shared Parenting.
As Private Members Bill’s normally only stand a 1 to 2 % chance of getting passed by Parliament, we believe that the best way to ensure that Bill C-422 gets passed and made into Law, is to have Canadian Citizens like you write to their Members of Parliament and formally request that they support Equal Shared Parenting Private Members Bill
C-422, for the sake of the children.
Most Members of Parliament don’t even know about Private Members Bill C-422, so by writing to them, you are helping to educate them about Equal Shared Parenting and Bill
C-422. You are also helping to educate your MP about the deplorable state of the current Family Justice System in Canada.
Please visit: [url=http://www.crosscanadarun4thechildren.com/]http://www.crosscanadarun4thechildren.com/[/url]
We have provided all of the information about Bill C-422 for you, as well as all of the information that you need to write to your Member of Parliament regarding Bill C-422. We thank you for your support.
From Dave Nash on Oct 6th, 2009 at 12:50am
WOW, I wish as a father I participated in this court system you mention. To me it is simple: If the Mother is a resonable sort, not bitter and values the importance of the Father in her child(s) upbringing then the court system will be supportive and make resoanbale rulings as the parties are all getting along. But as in my case, the Mother sees access of the father as a victory over the mother and the potential for equal parenting as nothing more than a potential loss of income for her then all the Mother has to do is cry foul. The child is to young, the child has seperation anxiety, the child is not ready to be away from the mother. The mother is better in providing a better home. What makes the system completely unfair is that is enough for our system to support the Mother and block access to the Father. The father can say all of the above but he is just the Father, that is the essence of our problems. Ioftened thought maybe I will sneak in a Mrs. in fron of my name on the affidavitt and the Judge would autonmatically unknowingly think of me differently.
From Dale on Nov 4th, 2009 at 11:50pm
wow!!
As a man I acknowledge that women pay the cost (financially) when it comes to the child rearing and such. I saw this first hand when my high school girlfriend had the baby and stayed home to care of our child. I think that she is still trying to catch up 14 years later.
I moved on and did school and such.
I acknowledge that patriarchy exist and I may not understand all of its infulunce on how we function in society, but what I have difficulty understanding is how after having a relationship with my son for 10 plus years, his mother can go to court (without my knowledge) and say that I have been abusive to her and him and I loose my access and have to spend the money on a lawyer for it to be proven that I was not abusive to him and when it is all said and done the court does nothing to consequence her for making these false allegations. (not that this would help as it would make her even more mad with me and it would also not help the child as the court’s only option is to put the mother in jail, or the good old change custody). The court process was about 2 years and during that time we had to go through the process so I had no access and when access is returned to me she tells the court that the child does not know his father so I need to go to supervised access center. (which I have to pay for).
In the end access is returned but the child says that he does not want to see his father.
On the subject of DV. Try looking at the statsitic regarding same sex couples and try talking to the police who have to work their way throught all their biases as they try to figure that one out. DV is a complicated matter we should not paint either sex with a particular brush. (which is not to say that Im ignoring the historcial stuff ie laws about men being able to hit their women) (you will also have a hard time finding those stats regarding same sex DV).
Also what about the way that women abuse… emotionally I find that there is not much credence given to when women emotionally abuse their children. (I guess that stuff is harmless right, strictly reserved for mothers and daughter at wedding time).
If I understand patriarchy it says that we are locked into our gender roles pretty tight and men beneift from this. So should feminist not be fighting to help men break out of these defined roles (abuser, support payer) shouldn’t women be redefined as well and moved away from (care taker, victim). I know it is never right for the man to be telling the women to get over it as he is improperly positioned to be saying that, but Im just really bugged by the way that these defined gender roles are allowing women to to get away with abusing their children and why does she get away with it…. becasue the judge male/female seems to say it women’s prerogative to say and do crap/stuff becasue she is angry. (Am I being sexist here) patriarchy i guess.
Please dont dump me in the catageory with the pigs, I was really trying to be fair.
From Anonymous on Nov 9th, 2009 at 2:16am
All your femiNazi double talk and propaganda lies does not fly. Children raised by mothers away from their fathers do less well and suffer far more from abuse than do children raised with father. The old adage, “father knows best” is absolutely true raising children. Shame on you for pushing the old tired misandrist lies.
From Bob on Sep 5th, 2010 at 10:49am
Men’s Groups are standing up to the feminist “Agit-prop” being pushed by indoctrinates like you. For people who see men as egotists , idiots, rapists and thugs;
you feministas love to use ad Hominems, set up straw men arguments and foist your fallacies on everyone – as though you have some special “female priviledge” to do so. You lie when you claim these men are there trying to intimidate poor, picked-on, persecuted women … all alone and afraid … with no legal representation. They are there to counter the feminist lawyer that’s going to defame the father!
From Irving M. Salos, Ph.D. on Sep 5th, 2010 at 12:08pm
Why does equality for men scare feminists so much? Really – articles like this only serve to demonstrate the FACT that feminism is about female-superiority and NOTHING to do with true, full equality – as they lie.
From Marx on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:50pm
IF you believe in EQUALITY, and in cases where child custody is in dispute, why not go with a quota system? It works for minorities and women in business and gov’t. Best interests of the child? That standard has never been scientifically defined and is based strictly on feminist “education” of judges, and archaic, sexist, emotional baggage wherein women make the best parents.
Set up a system where not even the judge can override the pre-determined decision, based on gender equality, as long as the “winning” parent has no legal convictions that could prove detrimental to a child’s health and well being.
Sound fair? Sure it does. It’s EQUALITY at its best and I guarantee you there will be more joint custody and less family wealth spent on lawyers and judges.
From tonysprout on Sep 6th, 2010 at 7:54am
The assertion that men have even been a privileged class is an asinine fraud. Such gender feminist propaganda is just another way that gender feminist ideology batters and abuses innocent men as elucidated in “Los Misandry.” [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAmOxvudpF8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAmOxvudpF8[/url]
From Ray on Sep 8th, 2010 at 3:28am
our body,our choice—
oops you forgot something
“our responsibility”From outdoors on Sep 21st, 2010 at 11:22am
My son was kidnapped by his mother. I was told I had no rights and was thrown in jail for not being white. I went to court and was told flat out that I have no rights thaat will be respected because I have testicles.
My son is dead now and his father never had the right to do anything about it.
Laws exist for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of citizens. By denying us our rights, the courts have also alleviated us of our obigation to obey their laws.
From Dead Father on Sep 26th, 2010 at 9:10am
I would appreciate it if someone could PLEASE explain to me how I have become one of the so-called “criminals, abusers, deadbeats”, etc…, as described. In the last four years I have witnessed every type of fraud you could imagine commited by my ex. In the first few weeks of our separation, while I was in hospital due to a motorcycle accident, she took my money from a “joint” bank account (which we agreed to keep open because our mortgage payments were being paid through it), and then proceeded to open her own “personal” account. Needless to say, I had no access to that account but, she was then able to transfer the mortgage payments to come out of that account. All without my knowlege! When I tried to have the payments transferred back to the original “joint” account, I was told that I could not because I did not have access to her “personal” account. Next, she ran up gas and electric bills that were in my name until they were disconnected, at which point she then changed them to her name, leaving me to deal with collection agencies for bills that she had told me she was either paying, or had changed to her name upon our separation. We also had a line of credit that went into default due to the motorcycle accident which prevented me from working for a little over a year and a half. To this day, she has not paid a red cent towards any debts whatsoever! I could go on and on about the emotional abuse she has caused to me over the years, and now to our two daughters. DO NOT try to tell me that “Parental Alienation” is just some kooky medi-scientific dreamed up by parental activist groups!!!! IT IS REAL!!! And it happens every day. I do not belong to any type of activist group or support group. I am just an average guy trying to get the ground back under his feet. TRYING to rebuild a relationship with my daughters. I paid my child support faithfully. Even to the point of being a couple months ahead of the game because I work construction and it is not a steady day in day out industry. It is seasonal at best, with frequent layoffs, downturns, and upswings, based on economy. Now that our house has fallen into complete disrepair, and is nearly uninhabitable (and I have the pictures to prove it), my ex called to ask if I would move back to it (to repair it and prepare it for sale). All because she now has a new partner and wanted to move in with him and his mother. My youngest daughter wants to stay here with me now because she is aware of her mother’s attempts at abuse and alienation and she does not like it! So, I now have all the debts, the mortgage, and costs associated with repairing the house, a 14 year old daughter to provide care and support for, an 18 year old daughter who works full time and only attends school part time (and lives with her mother) that I also pay child support for, and to top it all off, I just found out this morning that Maintenance Enforcement has taken my only source of income at the moment (my EI cheque), because I just a couple days ago went 3 months behind on my child support. Meanwhile, my ex works full time in a permanent position, has my oldest daughter working full time and helping to provide income in her household, and is entitled to child support for both daughters until the legal process takes it’s course. I now have no money for food, utilities, mortgage payment, am having my licence suspended, my government cheque taken, am being reported to the various credit bureaus, and will likely have the bank forclose the mortgage on my house. All because I was laid off due to a slow economy I am barely three months behind on my child support (which I shouldn’t even be paying now)!!! So, you tell me who has the courts favor? Who can I turn to as a male, as a Father, to put a stop to all this just long enough for me to catch my breath and get things back on track? There is NO ONE!!! As a final note, I want to add the fact that I am only trying to fix the house up to a point where I can sell it to pay off the debts, the mortgage, get braces for the girls, split whatever is left down the middle, and hopefully, have enough left over to start life all over again at age 44. Somebody HEEELLLLPPPP!!!! I can find no justice whatsoever in our current government’s so called “presumed equal and shared responsibility”!!!!!
From David Bradley Shirran on Oct 14th, 2010 at 12:49pm
You speak of joint custody, yet you leave out the disclaimer “with primary residence” which (in most cases) is the mothers residence. This simple turn of phrase allows people like yourself, to claim that there’s equality in the system when in reality it’s a new name to an old inequality.
The term Deadbeat is tossed around quite freely in regards to dads that don’t meet their child support obligations, but, the same term should be thrown back in regards to mothers who, without any fear of consequence, ignore or manipulate court ordered access.
What a concept…enforcing access orders with the same vigor as child support.
All you have done is repeat false and misleading information as fact, without even a hint of desire for the truth. What you claim as fact and the few citations you make, have long ago been dis-proven. You’ve made no effort to be accurate, you’ve merely set your position and built your theories around it.
Calling this an article implies you are a journalist. Journalists do research… and at least attempt to be seen as unbiased. something it’s painfully obvious you are not.
From Ron on Oct 16th, 2010 at 4:13am
this article is completely horseshit. this gives no credit to the oppression of fathers. this article sterotypes men as “intimidators” with feminist cliches of power. the fathers rights movement has not yet been even close to influencial. do your homework.
too bad if fathers want to fight for their rights and you have bigots wanting to crush equality for males..
FEMINIST HYPOCRITES WITH VESTED INTERESTS.
From anger doesn't describe it on Nov 8th, 2010 at 8:24pm
Question…a man has fling with woman and impregnates her…she tells him it is not his, until the child is 4 months old, woman comes back and tells him its his. If man had choice in beginning of pregnancy he never would have wanted to be involved. How can that man give up rights to that child including financial responsibility? Is it possible? Has it ever happened?
From Ash on Nov 11th, 2010 at 3:11pm
I have been in the Family Court system for 14 years in Nova Scotia. Believe me, it’s biased. Period. Yes the feminsts are scred of the equality issue. When she mentions this “adjusted” equality, I get shivers. Then I chuckle. How could she even write that with a straight face? After all, the feminists claimed they wanted equality in the first place. If the courts say they are trying to maintain the same standard of living for the family before and after the separation and/or divorce then why isnt the contact with BOTH parents maintained? Oh that’s right. Because the man becomes a raving aggressive maniac AFTER separation. Its funny in my case that I was more then capable of taking care of the kids when she was going out to the bars. Actually it was the only goddamn time there was peace and quiet. And of course there’s the PALS and the access denial used as a tool. The funny thing is that now at both plus 20 years old my children stop communicating with me the same time I lost my high paying job. She sure raised them to be classy. Another tidbit. My dauhgter left her mothers home because of violence. It took 9 months to get the order changed and the whole time the MEP garnished me knowing she was with me. I felt they were trying to starve her back to her mother. Daughter leaves and goes back with mother- not a problem but she shows back up 3 months later- more violence. Cop tells my girlfriend that WE have to take her when we dont even live to gether. I told the cop that if the mother is charged with assault It serious enough. If not she’s just looking for a vacation with pay (child support) again. That was the end of that.
From Don Littler on Dec 10th, 2010 at 5:14pm
One thing is very clear: these guys are very well organized and respond one cue, one after the other, including a woman or two among them…maybe to convince us that women can be fooled. O yeah guys, the bad feminists are coming to get us.
You have no shame, but then, a pack of wolves wearing lamb clothes have act on instinct and show themselves when they are sure they are exposing others.
Hearing you is a real eye opener.
Thanks for the article dear you are very brave!
From Lili on Feb 6th, 2011 at 5:51pm
I can’t work out if this article is a piece of ignorant bigotry or a piece of concern trolling. Anyone interested in Social Justice issues would be inclined to find out what their issues are first before scribbling off an ‘ad hominem’ diatribe. But no, you let your bigotry cloud you evaluation, shame on you.
As for this group be a well organised group, they are a grass roots organisation being fought tooth and nail by the juggernaut of Government funded Feminist organisations. These people are primarily working class people men who as about historically discriminated as that term gets. I would ask you who is the powerful and who is the oppressed here. Your post is an attempt to nip a grass roots organisation in the bud from a position of Feminist power. Playing the oppressed card on your part is nauseous.
Also perhaps the number of supportive post reflects public opinion on this issue, an issue you have put little effort into investigating.
Equality is a double edged sword that has swung round to expose its other edge to the Feminist movement. To counter its effect the term “Substantive Equality “ was invented for when equality was not to their liking. As George Orwell said in Animal Farm, some of us are more equal than others
and btw “bigotry” is defined as :-
“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.”
Recognise it? And Lili (the post above) perhaps you’d like to read the definition as well?
Kindest regards
ZimbaZumba
From ZimbaZumba on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 10:16pm
I was divorced 17 years ago – four children and an ex that was sent to jail for assault. Sporatic to no maintenance. I married a wonderful man, excellent father who tried diligently to have a piece of his childrens lives.
Take it from one who knows. I had a volatile divorce and horrible experience. I was in emergency BUT my husband has been put through soooo much more. He has been mentally abused to the point where I can’t believe this is possible. And finally when things should be reasonable; the courts make him pay almost entirely for a post secondary education and continue to pay his ex – its small in the big scheme of things but “the straw that broke the camels back”? I’m amazed that any of these “men” (but please incllude me in that group), have anymore fight left in them!
From Brenda Hisey on May 3rd, 2011 at 6:44pm