A crisis of masculinism

The Independent Cambridge Student Newspaper since 1947.
The current demonisation of men can only have negative consequences.

Prior to August 2010, British Airways had a policy whereby they would not allow adult male passengers to sit next to unaccompanied children on flights, even if the man was travelling with others. Many other airlines still enforce such erroneous policies, which are doing nothing short of presuming all men to be potential paedophiles. I don’t recall any similar rule being applicable to women. More to the point, no rule of this kind should have been implemented whatsoever. Such political correctness gone mad has even resulted in one airline (British Airways) trying to separate a man from his own children on one occasion, namely a certain Boris Johnson.

Women’s rights are always at the forefront of the political agenda, and rightly so, but what about the rights of men? Is it really fair that men should be treated as potential sex offenders because of the sinister actions of a devious minority?
I recently heard of a book called ‘The Beautiful Boy’ by Germaine Greer, allegedly containing suggestive pictures of pre-teen boys who were subsequently labelled as ‘beautiful’. Greer claimed the book was “full of pictures of ‘ravishing’ pre-adult boys with hairless chests, wide-apart legs and slim waists”; a rather strange description by an adult author, wouldn’t you say. Ironically the boy on the cover of the book, Björn Andrésen, objected to the use of his photo.

I’ve yet to witness any controversy arising from such a publication. Greer may well have had harmless intentions when publishing her book, but if we’re going to label a man a potential sex offender merely for sitting next to a child on an aeroplane, then the publication of Greer’s book should be apprehended in a similar way.
Television programmes such as Loose Women don’t help but exacerbate the widening gender gap; gather a group of men to deride women and boast about their sexual conquests for an hour each day and there would be an outcry. Yet when it’s done to men it’s perceived as harmless, something to laugh about. Why? Because the social and political environment of modern times has been conditioned to allow it. When advertisements such as those for Kinder Bueno and Diet Coca-Cola depict men as nothing more than the object of a woman’s sexual desire, nothing is done, yet when the roles are reversed we hear the familiar “Ofcom has received a number of complaints” announcement on the news bulletins. Perhaps people feel such depictions of men are justified as karma for salacious men’s magazines such as Nuts and Zoo, but not all men read such magazines. And if I remember correctly, two wrongs never made a right.

OK, so men aren’t the best at conveying their views; just look at the actions of some members of the Fathers 4 Justice movement. Irresponsible behaviour such as throwing flour bombs in Parliament and storming television broadcasts merely helps to serve in the familial courts favour with regard to their decision-making. But when the government enforces such an anti-male bias in legislation what, in all their desperation, are men to do? How long will it be before we hear of yet another man ending his life and those of his children because of the injustices of the system?

Even excluding such acts of despair, the male suicide rate in the UK is significantly higher compared to that for women. Suicide rates for men amounted to approximately 18 per 100,000 population in 2008 (ONS, 2010), with females accounting for less at approximately 5 per 100,000. Aside from wrongful legislation, could this be because of the ‘put up and shut up’ culture we have adopted, whereby men are not meant to talk about their feelings and be devoid of any emotion?

Furthermore, the highest rates of male suicide are for those aged 15-44, the age group at which most divorces occur, and when adolescent males feel under the most psychological pressure. Research has shown that few men seek medical guidance or counselling prior to ending their lives, as opposed to the more pragmatic approach by women. Perhaps men feel they will be ostracised for expressing how they feel, or maybe they fear they will risk losing some warped notion of masculinity if they do so.

Unless some radical form of change takes place in the near future, the downward spiral of attitudes towards men is set to continue. It will only be a matter of time until male suicide rates multiply, male teachers surrender to bureaucracy, and we are reduced to an apartheid-style society where men have few or no rights.
Men and women should undoubtedly have equal rights, but it is important not to cross that fine line of equality.

Roger ‘The Court Jester’ Crawford at the MOJ protest yesterday


Roger ‘The Court Jester’ Crawford at the MOJ protest yesterday

Roger said ‘We had fourteen at this very low-key demo. But a huge (friendly) police presence, after Arch’s antics. And a lot of public interest. The security staff at the MoJ were laughing and joking with Arch, and we could not have had a more relaxed and interested reception at the MoJ’

‘I contacted the Ministry of Justice this morning and they will meet a representative from New Fathers 4J ustice, the Equal Parenting Alliance, and the various Grandparents groups on a day in the near future, to be confirmed’

General Statement From Representatives Of;

New Fathers 4 Justice, The Equal Parenting Alliance, Real Fathers for Justice, Grandparents Action Group And Grandparents Apart

FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE FAMILY LAW REVIEW PANEL

We are very concerned that there is no disenfranchised parent or grandparent on the Family Law review panel, or anyone affected by forced adoption. Some of our number here today are deeply sceptical of yet another review body looking into Family Law, and have mentioned that there may be some on the panel who may feel that their own interests are best served by keeping the ‘status quo’. However, we do earnestly hope that this review will take into account the views of people like these and others who feel wronged, damaged, and disenfranchised by the current Family Court system in this country.

We, as representatives of these people, believe it is in the best interests of families and therefore of society as a whole that the following two changes are made without any further delay.

These changes will go a long way to meet the financial reductions required of the Ministry of Justice, and free-up time and the staff to deal with serious child-care cases.

(i) Give each parent an automatic presumption, a right in law, to see their children after divorce or separation. This alone would stop up to 100,000 cases going to Court in the first place, and would in almost all cases enable grandparents to have a meaningful part in the lives of their grandchildren.

(ii) Make the Family Courts open and accountable, bringing them into line with the Crown and Magistrates Courts. Concerns over anonymity and privacy are unfounded as there are already measures to protect privacy in open court. This measure would stop the bias and corruption so many have experienced in the secret Family Courts.

As a ‘rider’ to this, we would recommend that agreements made in mediation should be recognised in the Courts if one party fails to keep to the agreements made.

We urge you to make these changes for the sake of countless children, parents and grandparents, and help therefore to make a fairer and happier society for everyone.

My name is Lisa Harris.

I’m responding to the ‘call for evidence’ questionnaire attached to the family justice review for myself and on behalf of my two sisters.

When we were children our parents separated, and because of how the family court system operates, we lost contact with our loving and dedicated father. For years we grew up without his essential input in our lives despite every humanly perceivable effort on his part to father us. Those lost years and contact are too precious to quantify, but we want to say emphatically, that it clearly harmed our childhood and quality of upbringing.

Our dad constantly fought against the intransigent family court system that continuously dismissed his claims, and evidence of how your court procedures harmed our upbringing. There was absolutely no justification whatsoever in our father being excluded from our childhood. He spent years exhausting his money, time and nerves trying gain justice for us whilst the court system spent the same years and wasted almost £1 million of public money maintaining their biased procedures against our interests.

During this period of estrangement the family courts endeavoured to keep secret the fact that our mothers boyfriend abused us while ignoring all of our wishes to see our dad. They also ignored us when we tried to tell them our mothers boyfriend was hurting us all and making our lives a misery. It was only when we were old enough to run away to our father did the abuse stop and we got our dad back.

You never listened to him; so now in your ‘call for evidence’ in this latest enquire, we want you to listen to us and take our testimony AS EVIDANCE. But, before any of that, for the sake of a little human decency. Stop saying the corruption and prejudice your institution practices, is in our best interest. It’s breathtakingly callous to hear that jingo, and it’s so untrue; you behave with the narcissism of holocaust deniers when you pronounce your prejudice as in the child’s best interest.

We take exceptional offence to any public official who sustains this anti-father bias by falsely claiming that it is in the best interests of the children. You should be deeply ashamed of yourselves for constantly fobbing off the public with that highly offensive jingo. To our experience, you appear to be callously indignant in the way you bully silence from those who try to plead reason with you. You abuse the power of your office, and facilitate harm to countless children all over the country, by what is clearly prejudice against good fathers and say it’s in the children’s best interest.

As young adults we have had time and mind to examine the huge collection of legal documents our father has collected from your procedures. We can see for ourselves how prejudiced and falsely condemning your institution is.

There is also more than enough evidence, statistical and anecdotal, from various groups and sources detailing the bias through which you operate, and we want you to regard it seriously.

‘Arbeit macht frei’; those are the German words found on the signs above the entrances of Nazi concentration camps. The meaning approximately translate to ‘work sets you free’.

We relate to the insincerity and insult of ‘work sets you free’ in a similar way to how your officials say “in the child’s best interests”.

Stop the destruction of the lives of multitudes of British children which has led to the creation of today’s broken Britain!

Stop rationalising your prejudice!

Stop issuing your insulting arrogant spin!

Stop wasting vast amounts of public money facilitating anti-father bias!

IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST.

Streatham dad’s rooftop protest

A rooftop protestor has hit out at “institutionalised child abuse” by British courts.

Dad Archit Ssan climbed an archway at the Ministry of Justice in central London yesterday dressed as the Incredible Hulk.

A spokesman for campaign group New Fathers 4 Justice said Mr Ssan, from Streatham, had gained access to the top of the archway using a ladder.

He then pulled this up after him and secured himself and the banner to it, to impede any efforts to remove him.

The group claimed his demonstration, held two days before the end of a Government consultation on family justice, highlighted a clause used by courts to block contact between children and dads if it is held to be in the child’s best interest. Protestors insist the measure is over-used.

The banner showed a skull in a judge’s wig and the phrase ‘In the child’s best interests’.
Mr Ssan said: “How can it be in the child’s best interest to have their right to know their father withheld them for no good reason? And yet this is what invariably takes place. It is nothing short of institutionalised child abuse.”

The protestor climbed on to the roof at about 1pm yesterday.

Scottish Activists message on Dumfries Bypass

 


Dads in demo on payments

>

Father’s Attempt To Find Cameron

>

Garry’s protest dressed as Pope

A FATHER from Derbyshire dressed as the Pope and joined a New Fathers 4 Justice protest outside the Child Support Agency in Birmingham.

Garry Roe, of Heanor, was among 12 activists who held aloft placards and demanded better custody rights for dads. Mr Roe, who has a two-year-old daughter, Ruby, demanded equal rights for fathers and public and press access to family courts.

He said: “We don’t mind paying for our children but we should be allowed to see them.”

The activists arrived on site at 6.30am to storm the building but were stopped by police.

In June Mr Roe dressed as Batman to protest outside Justice Secretary Ken Clarke’s home in West Bridgford, Nottingham.

He said: “The Pope’s visit has been all over the news so I thought this would get us more attention.”

Superheroes and religious leader drop in for CSA demo

12:30pm Tuesday 21st September 2010


A GROUP of dads, dressed as Spiderman, Superman, Batman and even the Pope demonstrated outside the Waterfront-based Child Support Agency in a bid for fairer rights for fathers.

The activists, from New Fathers 4 Justice, who are known for their high profile antics as they campaign for fathers’ rights, disrupted the Monday morning arrival of CSA staff, who they claim are targeting them for maintenance.

The dads and one mum travelled from all over the country for the demonstration as they called for increased and fairer rights for fathers.

Organiser Gary Roe, from Derbyshire, who dressed as the religious leader, said: “We do pay for our children and we don’t have a problem with that, but we would like to see them. Why should we have to go to court to get contact.

“I feel very strongly about the CSA, they used to tell me I wasn’t paying any maintenance for my child when I was regularly.”

He added: “A lot of people think we are a load of idiots who just get on roofs, but we have to get noticed as just writing to your MP doesn’t get you anywhere.”

A spokesman for the Child Support Agency, said: “The Child Support Agency arranges and collects maintenance payments on behalf of almost 850,000 children and will not be intimidated or deterred from that task.

“Child maintenance is a separate issue from the custody of children, which is a matter for the courts.

“All separated parents are free to make their own private maintenance arrangements if they are able to, or pay maintenance through the CSA according to a formula laid down by Parliament.

“If anyone feels they have been unfairly treated by the Agency there is an independent complaints process.”