'In spite of what radical feminists may say about the ills of patriarchy, involved and loving fathers are foundational for the development of healthy children and strong families.'

This is deceitful rhetoric. It reads as if feminists say that involved and loving fathers are NOT foundational for the development of healthy children and strong familiies. Feminists - radical, moderate or otherwise - don't say this and never have.

In fact, feminists have always argued the opposite - that patriarchal society itself has kept men from their children, both emotionally and physically, while foisting by far the greater burden of child rearing onto women.

Arthur N

'And of course when my time [for fatherhood] comes I will have no example from which to proceed.'

Don't be hard on yourself. Look at it this way ... You have the advantage of being able to decide your own guidelines for fatherhood, based on your own feelings and experience. You will also find that the father void of your childhood will be the very motivation that drives you to participate more fully in your children's lives.

My father died when I was young, so I totally relate to your memories of 'something missing' growing up. Perhaps not so coincidentally, my husband's mother died when he was young. Without wanting to generalise, I believe this not only made us very involved parents, but our memories of childhood loss quite possibly made us more empathetic to our children's inner worlds.

This does not have to be reduced to a "men" against "women" debate....a subtext of many articles on "fatherhood". It saddens me that for many that is translated into "feminists", or "mothers" somehow wanting men and fathers to have less power.

My view - as a sole parent of two boys - and the child of divorced parents with "evil" step-father in the mix - is that modern relationships are very complex.

Often, we don't have the skills needed to tackle modern parenting - or even fulfilling the myriad of roles - as partners and providers - that we have to shoulder.

Poor relationship skills means the many challenges posed by our children and partners are fraught and exhausting.

Yet skills can be learned and practiced. Extra support for all concerned (not offered with a welfare mentality though!) is critical - and not only when the baby is new!

Sadly, many more friends are separating too.

My wish is that we learned the lessons of being human - and having good relationships - with far less loss and brutality - than is normally envoked with marriage/relationship breakdowns. Even when the parties set out with good intentions.

Authors such as Harriet Lerner - and Stephanie Dowrick - and Celia Lashlie's "He'll be OK - growing gorgeous boys into good men" offer good perspectives for men and women.

My view is it does take village to bring up children. Somehow we need to find ways to do that, in spite of the load modern mothers and fathers have to carry.

Ironically, Robert Putnam's social capital theories, and the acts of joining clubs and being involved with your community, offer hope even though the theory seemed based on hokey small town life in the USA (something I have experienced).

So, my message is: there is more than enough "work" and "attention" needed by today's children - and families - whatever their shape, for all to remember our joint humanity, and to see the peril in debates equating stronger relationships as fathers as necessarily meaning weaker relationships as mothers!

Another perspective on the role of fathers from the Melbourne Herald-Sun just before Father's Day.

Worth a read - and worth a thought about the many thousands of children for whom Father's Day is a real challenge.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,24289626-5000117,00.htm

Fatherhood - good. Thankfully most fathers are good and a positive force in their children's lives - and I note that indications are that younger men are doing great things in relationships with their children.

Thanks to those posters above who clarified the feminist
position.

I think what is scary is that many men who are simply anti-feminist are joining these groups that pose as family positive organizations, but the real agenda is to regain male control over women and children. That is, their priority is not the wellbeing of their children, with whom they were minimally involved before divorce anyway, but themselves - what they have lost; what they want; them, them and more about them.

This article and writer lost credibility with me when he lauded Warren Farrell.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell.htm

HRS: Read this all, if you have the courage:

http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/Supportingseparatedfath.doc

(If the link doesn't work I'll repost).

It's a scholarly article by Michael Flood.

Pynchme, it does not really help to be referecing gender warriors like Liz and Dr Flood. Farrell makes some good points and gets some stuff wrong, Liz seems to have made an industry of trying to discredit him without addressing the valid points he makes. I've got the view that he is taken out of context on some stuff and deliberately painted in the worst light as an excuse to ignore the valid points he does make.

Flood has majored in trying to keep the debate about DV genderised rather than getting at the causes. Flood has made some good points but has also in my view taken a very one sided approach to the issue and very clearly not being even handed. In the article you referenced he takes the same approach to the mens rights movement ignoring the very real help provided by some groups. I doubt that you will find a similar article by Flood attacking the mothers groups who all to often have played "the childrens interests" for the sake of mothers benefits.

Flood seems to assume that the only reasons that men are to do with the mens own failings. Having seen the gender bias which existed in the family law system first hand I'm quite confident that there are other reasons. I don't know how much has changed in the last few years but not that long ago it was in practice a very genderised system. There were also very few resources on official channels designed to help men understand the system in compasison to the resources specifically targetting women.

TBC

R0bert

Part 2

Mens rights groups were about the only place a male could go for help if it became obvious that an ex was intent on playing the system for her own benefit.

There have been excesses in some of those groups, some men have placed far to much blame on feminism and ignored the reality that maternal bias is a spin off from paternalism rather than feminism. Likewise many feminists have supported or turned a blind eye to gender bias. I assume thats out of a sense of solidarity or on the basis of assumptions about some men which may not apply. The men as child abuser dead beat dads who were not involved with their kids prior to seperation image that many such as Flood try to perpetuate.

As a father who has always played a very active role in my sons life and who tried to be fair and honest in his dealings with his ex and the family law system the assumptions that the system ran with was a nightmare in the face of someone who assumed that child residency and associated benefits were her right.

I'm hoping things have changed, in my experience with child care providers and others there has been a dramatic shift in recent times. The divides on this forum seem to have softened.

R0bert