After the Colston four, the Gill one?

[farfromtheland]

I would recommend some of this,
https://raddadzine.blogspot.com/

 

[winjim]

I just looked at the F4J website and nearly vomited but that aside...

Some friends of ours have recently started the process of divorce so we've been thinking about the implications for the children and such. Apparently recent research indicates that a 50-50 split is not so beneficial for the children as it's confusing for them. They need the stability of a base, a home, somewhere that's theirs and they can connect to. So it's probably in the best interests of the children for them to live with one parent and have regular properly scheduled time with the other rather than trying to equally split their time between two homes. It's possible to be a better parent by spending less time with your kids.

 

[mudsticks]

Steady on now - this sort of thing risks actually fixing the real problems, instead of inventing imaginary diversions that allow men to blame their exes for everything. How odd that it doesn't feature at all in F4J's campaigns!

I know soz about that - but just sometimes i allow my ideals to get the better of me...

 

[mudsticks]

I would recommend some of this,
https://raddadzine.blogspot.com/

Yebbut why is it still the guy piloting the bike ??

 

[farfromtheland]

Yebbut why is it still the guy piloting the bike ??

Perhaps cause it's important to get the blokes to read it?

We had 50/50 shared parenting after we split up when our child was 3. It was hard, but necessary, to avoid squabbling even more. Difficult times but the result is admirable.

 

[mudsticks]

I just looked at the F4J website and nearly vomited but that aside...

Some friends of ours have recently started the process of divorce so we've been thinking about the implications for the children and such. Apparently recent research indicates that a 50-50 split is not so beneficial for the children as it's confusing for them. They need the stability of a base, a home, somewhere that's theirs and they can connect to. So it's probably in the best interests of the children for them to live with one parent and have regular properly scheduled time with the other rather than trying to equally split their time between two homes. It's possible to be a better parent by spending less time with your kids.

All kinds of arrangements can work well - its largely about the grown ups being grown up though - and respecting the needs of the children primarily.

That's a lot more easily said, than done.

I'd imagine if your friends are thinking hard about it, and doing research even, rather than being driven by personal acrimony, then their kids will be fine however the final 'sharing' arrangement works out.

 

[mudsticks]

Perhaps cause it's important to get the blokes to read it?

We had 50/50 shared parenting after we split up when our child was 3. It was hard, but necessary, to avoid squabbling even more. Difficult times but the result is admirable.

Fair point - although a few here might call sexism on that one ..

As if they'd only read it, if it had a guy on a motorbike on the front...

Like yourself, i too have managed to co - parent fairly equitably - and the results also like yourself have been pretty good*.

*Although i also maintain that could be, in spite of my dreadful parenting - and or a bias towards thinking that your own kids are pretty ace -
- mine are - other people say so too

 

[Rusty Nails]

you, Rusty and the incoherent dude got all salty because you're sympathetic to these F4J creeps on some level.

Point of order.
I got "all salty" as you put it because of what I saw as a pejorative, gross over-simplification, or your shtick as you like to say. Please tell me what I said that showed that "at some level I am sympathetic to these F4J "creeps""? You have already failed to reply to my request to tell me how I was a fan of theirs as you previously said. Or is it just that anyone who disagrees with you must be linked together in some negative way?

LOL

 

[theclaud]

Point of order.
I got "all salty" as you put it because of what I saw as a pejorative, gross over-simplification, or your shtick as you like to say. Please tell me what I said that showed that "at some level I am sympathetic to these F4J "creeps""? You have already failed to reply to my request to tell me how I was a fan of theirs as you previously said. Or is it just that anyone who disagrees with you must be linked together in some negative way?

LOL

In case it isn't clear, if any reference I make to F4J appears pejorative, it's intentional. I've provided some links to outline what's wrong with the organisation and their activities. If you want a thread unpicking or arguing about any of this in more detail, I'm up for it, but for the purposes of this one I'm only really interested in the way a little illumination of the nature of the act impacts on the meaning of it, just as Googling Gill's name and finding out he was a wrong 'un has led to otherwise progressive people wrong-headedly (in my view) supporting an act of angry vandalism and attention-seeking. The thread title invites us to compare it to the Colston statue incident. I'm arguing that the two are very different. HTH.

 

[Cirrus]

Any time we end up in a situation where a parent is weaponising a child against the other parent (be that the mother or the father) then a happy ending is going to be elusive.

 

[Rusty Nails]

In case it isn't clear, if any reference I make to F4J appears pejorative, it's intentional. I've provided some links to outline what's wrong with the organisation and their activities. If you want a thread unpicking or arguing about any of this in more detail, I'm up for it, but for the purposes of this one I'm only really interested in the way a little illumination of the nature of the act impacts on the meaning of it, just as Googling Gill's name and finding out he was a wrong 'un has led to otherwise progressive people wrong-headedly (in my view) supporting an act of angry vandalism and attention-seeking. The thread title invites us to compare it to the Colston statue incident. I'm arguing that the two are very different. HTH.

So no explanation of what you mean by describing me as a fan of, or having sympathy at some level with F4J.
Please come up with an explanationor admit you were just making stuff up for effect.

I am happy to accept that F4J are a seriously flawed organisation.

 

[theclaud]

So no explanation of what you mean by describing me as a fan of, or having sympathy at some level with F4J.
Please come up with an explanationor admit you were just making stuff up for effect.

I am happy to accept that F4J are a seriously flawed organisation.

It's not 'flawed' - it's malign and dangerous. You get very exercised about my pointing this out.

 

[Rusty Nails]

It's not 'flawed' - it's malign and dangerous. You get very exercised about my pointing this out.

I get more exercised about being accused of stuff I didn't say and don't believe. You continue to ignore my pointing this out.

 

[theclaud]

I get more exercised about being accused of stuff I didn't say and don't believe. You continue to ignore my pointing this out.

I'm ignoring it because it's a tiresome overreaction to a bit of rhetoric. I mention that the guy is an F4J activist, and your first reaction is to worry whether I'm being mean to the organization? You could try being less sensitive on their behalf.

 

[matticus]

I'm ignoring it because it's a tiresome overreaction to a bit of rhetoric = just bantz. You're overreacting dear!. I mention that the guy is an F4J activist [if only that was all you said...], and your first reaction is to worry whether I'm being mean to the organization = making bigoted comments about a group of individuals whose circumstances will vary enormously? You could try being less sensitive on their behalf = calm down girls!.