It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mens Rights in the UK

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I don’t want to offend anyone in this topic
or anything just to make that clear

for decades women have fought for the rights that were stricken from them in the UK surfer jets and so on.

These days I seem to see and read allot in the news how courts are more biased towards women in the UK and other western countries

examples Range from
Children in divorce cases in almost all cases the mother gets custody but the father almost gets none

or where the wife gets almost everything even if they haven’t contributed anything in the first place,

(there was this one report where a woman was complaining that she only got half the property from her ex because she want married to him and only gets support for her kids from him)
lucky him

also the most recent is the Embryo court case where the person didn’t want his ex using his frozen sperm to fertilize his ex. frozen eggs,
because of emotional ties it would start.

Also we have a recent one where a woman doesn’t have to tell if she pregnant or that she’s giving the child away for adoption to the biological father.


news.bbc.co.uk...


Im bored and i was reading the bbc site and thought this would be something neat to discuss.

edit spelling

[edit on 23-11-2007 by bodrul]

[edit on 23-11-2007 by bodrul]




posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
I don’t want to offend anyone in this topic
or anything just to make that clear

for decades women have fought for the rights that were stricken from them in the UK surfer jets and so on.

These days I seem to see and read allot in the news how courts are more biased towards women in the UK and other western countries

examples Range from
Children in divorce cases in almost all cases the mother gets custody but the father almost gets none

Mothers are generally instinctively better at it all than blokes, tests proven. I know a mother who had her kids pulled away from her, but that was because her bloke was a smack head.



or where the wife gets almost everything even if they haven’t contributed anything in the first place, (there was this one report where a woman was complaining that she only got half the property from her ex because she want married to him and only gets support for her kids from him)


One of the more interesting cases involving Cherie Blair, she was trying to stop a bloke getting loadsa cash, talks are on about who contributes what to a marraige.



also the most recent is the Embryo court case where the person didn’t want his ex using his frozen sperm to fertilize his ex. frozen eggs,
because of emotional ties it would start.

He should take care of his own emotions.


Also we have a recent one where a woman doesn’t have to tell if she pregnant or that she’s giving the child away for adoption to the biological father.

It was a one night stand and he didn't give a toss then.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
The idea that 'men' as a gender are somehow systematically discriminated against in the UK today is, IMO & speaking as a man in the UK today, laughable.

At just about all the significant material points in life women can look to having simply less than their male counterparts for no other reason than being female (in large part because of all that comes with that in terms of bearing children.....one might conclude that the 'man's world' doesn't really value women and children - which, I would suggest, is in large part to blame for the declining birth rate here).

In broad terms (because obviously there are exception on both 'sides') men get higher earnings, have better jobs, get better pensions, are more likely to end up owning their own homes etc etc.

The idea that because a relative few men fight for custody of their kids (in a world where far to many are only to happy to abandon them with the abandoned wife/partner/mother) it is somehow wrong that courts award custody of children more often to mothers and that this 'proves' discrimination is also IMO utterly wrong & again IMO completely laughable.

BTW I think you're wrong about the frozen sperm & eggs case you're citing there. It was the other way around, the man successfully stopped the woman using frozen fertilized embryos

Unless you have a link to some other case I just don't see how this shows anything but the man retaining control over his genes despite the woman (a cancer suffer and unable to produce any more eggs) wishing to make use of the stored embryo.
She did not get her way, he did.

But I have to say in view of the specifics of this case even if it had gone the other way it would have been because of such specific circumstances that to claim it represented a generalised discrimination against men would be wholly inaccurate and a gross misrepresentation of what the case was about.

That's the problem with such assertions, they invariably ignore the specific facts of a case to try and shoe-horn them into a general and sweeping generalisation.
It's quite wrong IMO.


A British woman who was left infertile following cancer treatment cannot use her frozen embryos to have a baby against the wishes of her former fiance, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

Natallie Evans and her former partner Howard Johnston had created six embryos using their eggs and sperm during fertility treatment, but Mr Johnston withdrew his consent for them to be used after the couple broke up.

Ms Evans, 35, says the embryos represent her only chance of having a child of her own and that refusal was a breach of her human rights. But the European Court upheld a High Court judgment that the continuing consent of both man and woman was needed throughout fertility procedures.

link



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Alot of generalising in this thread about Men, what they can or cannot do with regards to bringing up children and also with regards to how family assets should be split.

Personally, i think that each case should be dealt with individually, but as is demonstrated by the above two posters, there is some belief that men are somehow less capable parents and as a result, get stiffed. This not only offends me, but demonstrates how society thinks, quite wrongly too.

I split from the mother of my child some 3 years ago, but lucky for me, I share everything 50/50 with her. If anything, I am described by any and all as a much more capable parent than the mother, yet the system favours her no matter what. Also, my father raised me and my bro and sister when my mother walked out when i was 12.

The system NEVER chased her for any money, and she went so far as to stop allowing visits by us when I was 14. Haven't spoken to her since. She left my dad with a mountain of debt, two mortgages and in quite a poorly condition. Where was the system then?

You never get it chasing wayward mothers, just the fathers it seems, even if the father is TRYING to be involved, but is being blocked by a bitch of a mother.

I know of other fathers who, despite being caring, loving fathers and willing to do more, are simply not allowed by "the system" and get one day a month "access", but are expected to stump up hundreds of pounds and leave themselves in poverty, whilst the mother gets the child support money, all the benefits and the tax credits, living quite a good life.

Quite often, it isn't based on any kind of factual study of the individual case, but merely on rather tall and inventive lies spun out by vindictive bitches who use the kids as a weapon against the man.

I have personally been threatened by my ex in the past who used my daughter as a weapon to get what she wanted (quite often money). Fortunately, I've taken steps to ensure this doesn't happen again, but it shows the power women have over the system, especially where shafting an ex-lover for the sake of it is an option.

So, lets keep the generalising out of it, shall we?

The system favours women, that cannot be argued against, at least in regards to family law. Many good men are stripped of all they possess, whilst the ex is given it all, whilst still receiving maintainence off the father, who is forced to live in a bedsit living off pot noodles until the kids grow up. Either that, or women can just up and leave with none of the problems that face men should they want to get out the marriage.

I've even heard of women, who themselves had affairs, not the men, who then go on to strip the husband of his assets AND only allow him to see his kids 4 times a year. Is that justice? If you think so, then your sick.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Personally, i think that each case should be dealt with individually, but as is demonstrated by the above two posters, there is some belief that men are somehow less capable parents


- I agree cases should be dealt with on their own merits and I absolutely disagree that there is any innate reason why men cannot be less capable parents.

I have and never would say that.

What I have and do say is that sadly in the overwhelming majority of cases it is deadbeat dads that are the problem.

Which is nothing like the same thing.


Originally posted by stumason
I split from the mother of my child some 3 years ago, but lucky for me, I share everything 50/50 with her. If anything, I am described by any and all as a much more capable parent than the mother, yet the system favours her no matter what. Also, my father raised me and my bro and sister when my mother walked out when i was 12.

The system NEVER chased her for any money, and she went so far as to stop allowing visits by us when I was 14. Haven't spoken to her since. She left my dad with a mountain of debt, two mortgages and in quite a poorly condition. Where was the system then?


- You're not comparing like with like.

Things like the CSA did not exist back then to chase after an errant parent (mother of father).

IIRC there was a small part of the benefits system where they tried to chase errant parents and make them pay the weekly benefit going to the kids but that was a small scale effort.


Originally posted by stumason
You never get it chasing wayward mothers


- Actually the CSA produced stats at one point about this, it's not true they did not ever go after errant mothers.

But because there are generally speaking so few of them compared to errant fathers where do you expect them to place their efforts and allocate scarce funding and priorities?


Originally posted by stumason
just the fathers it seems, even if the father is TRYING to be involved, but is being blocked by a bitch of a mother.


- Unfortunately this crosses into the other elements here, the legal side of things (which includes access and all that).
That has nothing to do with the benefit situation or attempts to recover maintenance.


Originally posted by stumason
The system favours women, that cannot be argued against, at least in regards to family law.


- I disagree.

You can cite specific examples all you like stu but 'the system' as we see it merely reflects the norm, the general reality.

Sometimes good dads are, effectively, punished because of the wasters (as usual), there's no point pretending it's a conspiracy or somehow 'women's fault'.

As a man it saddens me to admit it but it guys that are responsible for this situation.....and every waste of space tos*er you ever met down a boozer who ended up bragging about his umteen kids he did a runner from is precisely why things are as they are.


Originally posted by stumason
Many good men are stripped of all they possess, whilst the ex is given it all, whilst still receiving maintainence off the father, who is forced to live in a bedsit living off pot noodles until the kids grow up.


- No, many mothers who are left to raise and bring up the kids do so in the most appalling hardship.

That's what the award of a maintenance, domicile in the family home or the award of property within in the home is supposed to be about.

The home usually doesn't become the mothers unless it's part of an overall settlement - and if you can give houses away, well, ok,
a - stupid - guy hoping to take everything and walk away with it would consider that a big 'loss' I guess but the total property must have been something of large size in the first place.

The myth of the woman living the 'life of Riley' is just that, for the tiny minority that do there are many many that do not and live a life about as far removed from that as it's possible to get.


Originally posted by stumason
I've even heard of women, who themselves had affairs, not the men, who then go on to strip the husband of his assets AND only allow him to see his kids 4 times a year. Is that justice? If you think so, then your sick.


- I don't doubt it stu.

Wrong things happen and have happened in all areas of life. Such is life.

But using a tiny minority of cases to depict an overall situation when the majority of cases are nothing like that is just plain wrong.



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join