Women often say that it's a man' world....well it's not. Ask any man who's been through the trauma of divorce. Regardless of whether it was his "fault"or not and whatever the behaviour of his former wife she will always win and usually (always) takes the bloke to the financial cleaners. She will inevitably keep the kids (unless she doesn't want them) who in all likelihood will lose contact with their dad. Two out of three men will lose all contact with their kids within two years of a divorce, that's not my opinion it's a government statistic, and it doesn't happen because dad doesn't try to keep in contact.
Most men will be left virtually bankrupt even if the divorce was not his fault. His ex-wife will almost always attempt to turn the kids against their dad and make it impossible for contact to be maintained, all the while pleading innocence of course. There is a recognised syndrome called "Parent Alienation Syndrome" that covers these cases which sadly have become the norm not the exception in Britain today. More details here Link to a good site dealing with men's issues
Hundreds of thousands of caring dads are left with no contact with their children and the court system is guilty of aiding and abetting this process. Of course the children's mother will put forward all the usual excuses and lies to plead that it's not her fault that this situation has arisen. The poor children are left disturbed and upset because often they are told a story that goes something like "Your dad doesn't see you because he doesn't love you anymore," while their mother blocks every attempt by their dad to keep in contact.
So begins the brainwashing. I've heard men admit that a divorce was their fault because they met someone else. They will freely accept responsibility and will truthfully admit that the marriage breakup was their fault. You seldom hear a woman admit such a truth, instead they rewrite history into a more palatable form that carefully paints her as the victim. The usual way to do this is to represent the father's departure from the marital home as him running out on his family. What has actually happened is that he has agreed with the children's mother that she and the kids can stay in the home for the sake of the children. He then ends up on his mate's sofa or back at his mum's while his wife, assisted by her lawyer, fleeces him of all he's got. The kids are told that daddy has run off and left them and that they now have a new daddy who has heroically rescued them from destitution. In one fell swoop she has changed herself from perpetrator to victim and their dad has been turned from wronged husband to runaway father.
How do I know all this? I haven't seen my children for six years despite taking legal action in an attempt to keep in contact. My ex-wife agreed to a divorce which I instigated on the grounds of her adultery to which she and her new partner (now husband) freely admitted to in court. On legal advice an informal arrangement was made so that I could see the kids every Saturday. This was never honoured by her and each time I rang to arrange to pick the children up I was greeted with excuses, lies and unanswered phone calls. I ended up seeing my children about ten times a year for a couple of hours at a time if I was lucky. At the same time she was lying to my children telling them that I didn't bother ringing as I didn't want them anymore. I tolerated this situation because I was advised by my solicitor not to take legal action as this often results in a loss of all contact, and in any case the courts rarely enforce contact orders against a belligerent mother. In other words the law is totally impotent (or unwilling) when it comes to keeping a dad in touch with his children.
This situation went on for six years until 1999 when things became more difficult. The excuses increased and my contact fizzled out to almost nothing. It was obvious that she was hoping that by messing me around I would tire of the fiasco and stop trying to keep in contact with my kids. She could then blame me for the loss of contact. This is a common tactic used by women. Because my grandma was dying of cancer I tried, in desperation, going to court to keep in contact with my children. Eight months later the case finally came to court by which time my ex-wife had been given plenty opportunity to alienate my children against me. I lost direct contact and was left with an order that I could send letters and birthday/christmas presents via my local priest. I particularly asked for this to ensure that they received them and that they knew where they had come from as I considered it essential that the boys knew that I still loved them very much. Despite the fact that I'm not a regular churchgoer my local priest agreed to do this for me only to be told by my ex-wife that she would not accept the presents. My sons then wrote to me asking why they had not received any presents or letters and stated to me that their mother was right all along and that it was clear I didn't love them. You can only imagine how I felt. After fighting tooth and nail to keep in touch it was me who was now getting the blame despite the problems being caused by their mother.
My grandma died in 2002 having not seen her beloved great-grand children for the last two years of her life. My father died in 2001. He had not seen his grandsons for five years prior to his death. My ex-wife had banned me from taking them to their grandad's because she had taken exception to an innocent remark made by my stepmother. Again this is typical female behaviour..... using children as a psychological weapon against someone who they have a dispute with. My dad missed his grandsons terribly, as all my family do, and we can only dream of being reunited with my sons who are now eighteen and fifteen.
 |
|
|
|
Click on the logo to visit the website
It was about the time of the court case (2000) that my ex-wife's new hubby decided to take matters into his own hands. He found it annoying that I had the temerity to want to see my own sons. After they had won the court case he decided to visit my workplace on several occasions during which he threatened me with violence in front of witnesses. My colleague rang the police who visited my ex-wife's husband and told him to stop harassing me. Following this warning he and my ex-wife started a hate campaign of following me about, harassing me and visiting my workplace as well as circulating malicious lies about me. I complained again and the police warned them both not to contact or harass me again. I wonder what would have happened if I had visited her workplace and repeatedly threatened her. I somehow don't think the police would have let me off with a mere warning. Over the last five years they have continued their spiteful harassment and threats despite numerous police warnings.
Some interesting facts about domestic violence
This is the folly of the situation and it's not just the children's dad who suffers. Grandparents, uncles, aunties are all left with no contact. Women often think that it is good that the courts system favours them so much. The trouble is that if they have sons they themselves may well be in my parents situation in a few years time. More than fifty per cent of marriages break down and of those sixty per cent of men lose contact with their children within two years. That means that if a woman has two sons she has a more than thirty per cent chance that she will lose contact with some or all of her grandchildren. Not good odds! Put into context like that the situation looks a little different doesn't it ladies?
I watched a TV programme this week which highlighted another serious problem affecting men. Recent DNA testing has revealed something that until now has not been talked about in public, although doctors have discussed this issue for years behind closed doors. The issue is the fact that modern DNA tests now prove that at least one in twenty of the children in maternity hospitals in Britain have not been fathered by the man who thinks the baby is his. Some studies show this to be as much as twenty per cent (one in five). The usual scenario is that a married couple have a baby which the mother's husband assumes is his when in reality the baby is a result of the his wife's sexual contact with another man. Her husband then brings up the child completely oblivious to the fact that he has no genetic link to the child. Even worse is the situation that exists if he gets divorced, he will continue to support the child financially, often with a crippling burden placed on him by the CSA which will last for many years to come.
One scientist who was interviewed for the programme revealed that this is not a new problem. He carried out blood tests whilst studying genetic illnesses during the nineteen-seventies. He was alerted by a colleague that thirty per cent of the babies tested were not related to the man who thought he was the father. Because of this the research was stopped.
This, of course, is a problem faced exclusively by men. Thousands of men are financially burdened by a child that is not his because of the deceit of his wife (or ex-wife). She, of course, gains hands down by this as she continues to enjoy payments under false pretenses after a divorce. The father can get DNA tests done if he has suspicions but this is only after he obtains a court order which is very expensive and emotionally traumatic both for him and the child.
The answer to this is simple. The only legal reason the CSA can pursue a man is because of a statement made by the child's mother when registering the birth. The birth certificate states that a man is the father and the law simply accepts the woman's word for it. I would suggest that this is not good enough and that now technology exists to clear up the matter once and for all. Simply give DNA tests to children and parents (an easy and painless procedure) as a mandatory requirement to register the birth. That way there would be no doubt. It will also assist the child's future medical treatment as many illnesses have a genetic component.
You may say that this is an invasion of privacy........so what about the right of a father to know that the child he is taking responsibility for is actually his? The government is in all probability going to introduce I.D. cards which in all likelihood will store DNA information, so why not start this process with new births and registrations? The government state that the only people to fear this new system are wrongdoers.
The Benefits System
In Britain single-mothers are rewarded by the benefits system to a point where they are better off than many married couples who are both in full-time work and have the same number of kids. This state rewarding scheme does not apply in the cases where the man lives as a single-parent, for example where he is a widower. The generous single-mother benefits mysteriously evaporate when it's a man who is the single-parent and he is told to get a job and forced to register as unemployed even though he has the same commitments and responsibilities as a single-mother. Women in the same situation are simply put on social security and awarded the various top-ups and freebies as a lone-parent. Getting a job is hardly mentioned as it is assumed that they are entitled to the status of victim regardless of their own culpability in finding themselves in that position.
A recent report by a female Professor who is head of The Office Of Strategic Studies (the goverment's own think tank) stated that a single mother with one child has the same income in real terms as a married couple earning £ 25,000 a year. This takes into consideration cash paid and all the freebies that single mothers obtain. Married couples also have to pay tax, National Insurance, Council Tax, school meals, prescriptions etc. Not so the single mother. Little wonder then that so many women and young girls opt for this lifestyle. Plus you do not have to bother with the tiresome business of working for a living and you can simply stay at home and watch Jerry Springer with your Chav boyfriend. Is this a message that the government should be sending out?
Women, it appears, are always cast in the role of victim even if they have partly, or completely, contributed to their own plight. This means that young women, and in a lot of cases teenage girls, are choosing single-mother status as a career option by deliberately getting pregnant knowing that these generous state benefits apply. You may say (as middle class career feminists often do) that no woman would do this deliberately. Well if you're a middle class person with a highly paid career you wouldn't, but if you're a young women (or teenage girl) living in a crowded council flat with your mum and her latest boyfriend you might view the opportunity of having your own home, your own income and independence as a positive step up the ladder (or a giant leap) even if it's at the expense of the taxpayer. If your only other career option available is working in a factory for the minimum wage the single-mother option looks even better. This is why there has been an explosion in the number of women and teenage girls in this situation. Why else has this happened? Are women suddenly being given ineffective birth control by mistake? Or are women suddenly ignorant in the means and use of contraception? I don't think so.
Of course the usual feminist mantra is that this situation is all the fault of men who cast their seed in the direction of some poor young girl only to clear off as soon as she gets pregnant. This view is jolly convenient for the feminist anti-male lobby as the young woman in question escapes all blame. The father of the child is in all likelihood unemployed or in poorly paid work. It is, therefore, more lucrative for the mother to let the state pick up the tab. They will often say that they do not know the identity of the child's father to get these benefits. If he is working she does a deal with the father to stop the CSA pursuing him. That way she gets to keep the state benefits and gets her hands on the extra cash the father pays her to keep her mouth shut. I know of several cases where this has happened.
Men And Politics
Politicians, particularly the government, know that all of these things happen. They will not publicly admit it as there is an unwritten law in politics which is "Thou shalt not criticize women". In the touchy-feely world of modern politics women's issues are seen as vote winners that's why politicians are not interested in anything that benefits men. Women must be portrayed as strong, intelligent people on one hand but poor, hard done-by victims on the other. This Ping-Pong effect is altered depending on the issue concerned. Therefore, women are clever, in control, achievers one minute and poor, helpless, unblamable victims the next. Anyone who expresses the truth, as I've stated above, will be called a misogynist and cast into the political wilderness. The law of political correctness wins and always overcomes truth and common sense.
There is a big problem for the government with this situation though and that is the spiraling cost of single-mothers to the taxpayer. The various secret government reports which have looked into the problem have come up with the same conclusions as I have. There are too many people drawing out of the welfare pot and not enough making contributions and this is because of the single-mother culture which has swept the nation. The cost of Housing Benefit alone is massive and 93% of it is being given to single-mothers (government figures not mine). There are also the social effects of the single-mother culture. More and more homes do not have a father figure or wage earning role model and a lot of these children have mothers who are lacking in even basic parenting skills. Their attitude to discipline is that it is someone else's problem unless their child makes the mistake of walking in front of the telly while she's watching "Trisha".
Bad behaviour, which has reached criminal proportions, manifests itself in most schools. Teachers, particularly primary school staff, state that the situation gets worse every year and is reaching crisis point. Studies show that children from single-mother homes are far more likely to become criminal offenders and lack many important social skills. Children from these backgrounds display behavioral traits such as shouting down a teacher or police officer and constantly interrupting anyone who tries to control them. It's not difficult to see where this behaviour has it's roots as many of their mothers react in a similar way.
This places the government in a difficult situation. On one hand they know that single-mothers are bleeding the exchequer dry and raising a generation of disruptive children but on the other hand they daren't admit it in public. They have tried to set up schemes where teenage mothers are not automatically given homes and money in an effort to stem the tide. They have also gauged public opinion about this.
Men And The Media
Another problem is that the media, particularly TV, are always women friendly and twist every issue to suit this agenda. You may ask why they do this? The answer is simple.....MONEY! Although men still earn most of the country's wealth (government statistics not my opinion, men account for 79% of income tax revenue paid into the exchequer). Women, however, spend most of the male earnings.
When advertisers started TV commercials in the mid-fifties the majority of adverts were aimed at women although in those days they were called housewives. This situation has not changed although the media now portrays women as strong, independent, go-getters. This is of course all hype as the gender roles have not change all that much. Most women (93%) marry men who earn more than they do (government census information not my opinion). This figure has not changed since Victorian times and it remains because women want it that way. Not many women want to marry a man who earns less than they do. Women also have choices in life that are not open to men. Women can work full-time, part-time or not at all. Men don't have any option other than full-time work except in a very few cases where it suits the woman to work and leave their husband at home to look after the kids. This is usually because she has a very well paid (enjoyable) career that she does not want to take a break from, and this is always her choice not his.
As most commercials are targeted at women there is blatant female propaganda in nearly all TV adverts. Men are always portrayed as unintelligent, weak, ineffective individuals and women are always intelligent achievers and constantly putting one over their male counterparts. Of course women viewers think this is great and start believing the hype never thinking that in actual fact the advertisers are cleverly manipulating them in order to sell a product which is largely paid for by male earnings. This, for men, is a catch 22 situation. On one hand we are expected to earn the lion's share of the family budget (sometimes 100%) only to have this money spent on products bought by your wife because of an advert that makes you, the man, look like a weak half-wit. This stereotyping would not be tolerated if the gender roles were reversed. Any advert that treated women in this way would never get past the TV executive censor.
This stereotyping is also prevalent in the TV programmes themselves. This is even more odious as it is done to appease the people who pay for the programmes....namely the advertisers. Their female friendly, male-knocking agenda spills into programme planning and production as the advertisers' money ultimately pays the costs and TV company's profit. Because of this situation the whole of TV now takes part in nightly male-bashing both in programmes and commercials. It's also OK to salute female violence as long as it's victim is a man. Violence perpetrated on men is viewed as comedy or justified in a way that would be banned if you reversed the gender roles. Commercials, like the recent Renault adverts, promote female violence against men as a means of attracting young women (the targeted market) to buy the product.
Conclusion
So where does all this leave men. We have to work to supply the money that is in turn spent by women on products bought because of adverts that portray us as idiots. In between the commercials are programmes that give a totally biased and unnaturally distorted portrayal of today's society. Men are always portrayed as criminals, weaklings and unintelligent buffoons whereas women are presented as clever, law-abiding, thoroughly good people doing powerful jobs. Of course the feminists always state that most criminals are men. Yes but who spends the money they steal......women. Most violent crimes are perpetrated by men....yes because women who commit similar offences are rarely prosecuted and when they are they are dealt with with sympathy not punishment. If you're a man and you're assaulted by a woman it's unlikely that the police will be interested. Not the same when it's the other way round even if the injuries are exactly the same. If you're a woman caught speeding by the police you'll get a warning, if you're a man you'll get a ticket and a fine. Women shoplifters are viewed as troubled victims not thieves whereas men in a similar situation will end up in court even if they have social problems.
This is a nice situation for women because despite their moaning they have managed to cherry pick the bits of male life they wanted, whilst keeping the traditional perks of womanhood at the same time. Equal pay yes....equal expectation to contribution to the family budget.... no. They want the ability to choose whether they work part-time, full-time or not at all but they don't want their husband to have the same choices. They demand equality in the work place...so why can they retire at sixty on a full pension but a man has to slog on until he's sixty-five? This means that although men account for the majority of pension contributions we actually draw a fraction of the money enjoyed by women, who of course retire earlier and live and draw pension for longer. Women pay less and draw more than men when it comes to the state pension. The feminists tell us that this is some kind of discrimination against women. If this is so how many women would swap with their man and be expected to work full-time until they are sixty-five while we men decide whether we want to work at all? How many women would swap the effects of divorce with their ex-husband? Would they be willing to work full-time in order to send a large part of their salary to their ex-husband and his new wife to support children she never sees while she is forced to live in poverty and debt?
The answer to all these questions is NO! .........So why are we men expected to? It's a man's world, I think not.
Dennis Hanna
July 2004
(updated August 2005)
