Challenging the "gate keeper" role, said the be a mothers prerogative

grahamg

grahamg

Old codger
Location
South of Manchester, UK
I remember reading it stated by "experts" in family law, that women/mothers tend to be gatekeepers in regard to any relationships a child might have with others, including the fathers, in intact relationships between the parents.

In this way the idea the patents are "equal" is undermined, I hope you'll agree, (not that I'm a fan of the term "equal" mainly because it can mean whatever anyone wishes it to mean).

Forgive me for saying I object to the idea my relationship with my child depended upon the wishes of my wife, considering herself to be entitled to be a gatekeeper, (I don't doubt she was controlling in her nature, and well prepared to act in the manner described).
 

Shortly after our first daughter was born, I was driving to the grocery store with my wife and newborn child. A silver Torino topped the hill in front of us losing control of his car that slammed my car into a ditch. I blacked out until the paramedics were loading into an ambulance when I saw the driver of the Torino, my wife and my daughter were being transported to the hospital together.

At the time of the accident my wife was expecting our second child 14 months after the first one. Our first daughter, less than one-year-old needed to be cared for and pregnant with our second on top of physical therapy two times a week, my wife grew to resent our second daughter when she was born.

Our second daughter has a similar type of mental illness as I do, as well as other symptoms unrelated to mine. I believe the home environment affects everyone, especially children. Looking back to my home environment growing up, parenting is the single most important responsibility of adults when raising children. Unfortunately, poor parenting and negligence goes unnoticed, until in my case, many years later and too late for reconciliation.

My wife admits less favorability toward our second daughter, however, given the sensitivity of the matter, I prefer to listen rather than comment.
 
Ideally children get input from both parents. But we don't live in an ideal world. And not everybody is able to actually put the needs of their children first. It is a shame, but it is reality. Personally i think that unless a father is physically abusive (i'm talking beatings for minor crap not controlled spankings for breaking major house rules) it is better for all concerned for children to manage their own relationships with estranged fathers. And same applies for other relationships--unless the person is an actual threat to the safety and well being of the child--parents need to let the kid form their own relationships within certain parameters depending on age and living arrangements. These days i read about more and more couples (my son and DIL are examples) who are co-parenting pretty well despite the changes in their relationship with each other. i'm always happy to see that.

When a couple is in seperate homes and one has custody but the other gets visits...it is in everyone's interest to foster the child's relationship with both parents, and while they can have distinct 'house rules' about minor stuff they should co-ordinate on major things and present as united a front on things like dating and curfews, underage drinking. If one parent is not a dependable person---kids will figure it out. And they're not as likely to build up the less present parent because they aren't there for the daily struggles/discipline. But they also don't get see the less present parent thru the custodial parents negative view if they harp on it either. Rather they should get to construct their own view from experience with each parent.

My mother was quite sensible about that with me & my much younger half brother. She often told me my Dad loved me, but that his own childhood issues made him bad at long distance relationships of any kind (Yet she took me far away). Altho, i'd figured that at by my interactions with his family. By 5 or 6, my much younger half brother knew his Dad was not a man of his word, didn't really want to spend time with him--often leaving him with the childless couple friends he'd tried to convince Mom to give 'the baby' up to for adoption when she refused to have an abortion. While they doted on him and he had fun with them--he wanted his Dad. Mom never tried to keep him from his Dad. (Hell if he took Jay for the weekend after i was out of the house it meant she didn't have to get me to come home from NYC or a hire a babysitter).

For that matter i happen to think that a lot of the things people view as problematic today stem from the fact that younger generations often do not grow up with the kind of 'extended family' exposure that previous generations had. i may be more aware of that since i'd only met extended family member briefly before i was 10 and my parents divorced. Mom moved us back to NJ, where most of my contact was with my paternal relatives but also with two (very different from each other) maternal aunts. Mom was closer to Dad's family than her own, but she was always happy to let me spend time with relatives from both sides (again it allowed her to feel better about her socializing--i was a latch key from 11 on and by 12 i often spent from Friday after school till Sunday morning home alone) and i got a lot out of babysitting younger cousins and spending time with my maternal Aunt who was a slightly more grounded, sensible 'Aunty Mame' character till she married at age 40. When you get to spend a lot of time around Aunts/Uncles/Cousins you get see the variety of ways married couples interact with each other and various parenting styles. That better prepares you for the realities of marriage and parenting than fairytales and rom-com movies, or even 'nitty-gritty romance movies'.

Plus, if you pay attention you come to realize your parents did the best they could considering how they were raised. This is why i keep photos of my parents as children prominently displayed in my home. To remind me they were young and innocent at one time and shaped by both the times, their economic status and their families. It help me let go of any hurts i'd felt they'd visited upon me.

I don't blame you for resenting what happened (is happening?) with your daughter. Tho i don't know, and don't need to know all the details in principle i totally agree children benefit from forming their own relationships.
 
Last edited:
They are saying that they are gatekeepers (and I agree)--not whether they should be the gatekeeprer. Without reading more, the experts are reporting how mothers interact with the others, not whether they ought to do this.
 
Victor said:
They are saying that they are gatekeepers (and I agree)--not whether they should be the gatekeeprer. Without reading more, the experts are reporting how mothers interact with the others, not whether they ought to do this.
Click to expand...
Thank you for making that point. Further they can only make conclusions about the women they studied. So i should add that we'd have to know how many women were in the various studies and how they became participants before forming any notions of how common it is. When i did an independent search on the topic, i turned up studies going back to the 70's and 80's, yet i don't remember it being talked about in my course work in psychology in the 90's, tho it may have made it's way in at some later point.

i'm sure the guys would (quite validly, IMO) object to studies about deadbeat and absent (sometimes emotionally distant or absent to children even when the family is intact under same roof) being cited by a wife/mother trying to garner emotional support from others. And no matter how many findings about incompetent parents of either gender those findings can not be translated into assumptions that all of either gender behave that way.
 
Victor said:
They are saying that they are gatekeepers (and I agree)--not whether they should be the gatekeeprer. Without reading more, the experts are reporting how mothers interact with the others, not whether they ought to do this.
Click to expand...
You have hit the nail on the head there.

When I signed up to marry, my wife and I agreeing to love and honour one another, (and of course my future wife agreed to "obey" me too, or at least she said the words, whether she ever meant them being extremely doubtful!), I'd not cottoned on to the fact my partner, and after five years of marriage to her, the mother of our new baby or child, would consider herself entitled to decide whether or not I had any relationship with the child(?).

It is the case, strong a character as my father undoubtedly was, my mother had the most influence upon me as a child, (I fought it like hell, but must admit the truth of the situation, and my father conceded some areas of the upbringing of their many children were best left to her to decide upon, such as my mother's total and implacable faith in education). Had my parents ever separated or divorced, completely unthinkable a thing as this would have been, because "as a child I just knew they would always stick together", giving their children a great sense of security I think), I doubt my mother would have obstructed contact between my father and his children.

However, my mothers ideology was very different to the ideology of my wife, so indeed, as commented above, they could not be generalised about as "gatekeepers", though as stated in the OP, the experts did only say "women/mothers tended to be the gatekeepers of the relationships between their children and others in intact families"!
 
I tried to search for the views of Desmond Morris (the author or so many books on human behaviour), as to whether women/mothers were gatekeepers. I'm not sure whether I found an answer but came up with the following comments:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...fferent/574ee154-d7b0-4cfa-8fb1-4677f7923e8a/

"What I'm doing is taking a look at every aspect of the relationship between men and women," explained Morris from his home in Oxford, England. In Monday's opening program, "Different But Equal," Morris sets out to explore whether sex differences, including the fact that women live longer than men, are biologically or culturally based. He is particularly keen on footage that displays the different ways a male brain and a female brain work -- "You can see the brain light up in different ways," he said -- and implies that humans are born with brains that react this way, although the two adults whose brains are examined presumably have life-experience. Females use both lobes, are more verbal and are better at juggling many tasks at once, he says, while males tend to concentrate on one task at a time and are better at pursuing long-term goals. Yet he apparently believes that can be modified: "Male writers learn to use the more verbal sides of their brains, and thus their brain patterns would resemble those of females. Brains of competitive female athletes who concentrate on long-term goals become more like men's."

Break

"The Wednesday night installments, "The Maternal Dilemma" and "Gender Wars," may have the most resonance with American women trying to balance marriage, motherhood and career. Morris is sympathetic and believes that in today's world, the relationship between men and women has become "distorted." The division of labor which made us different but equal, the equality we had {in ancient times}, was based on division of labor. Each was done in its own sphere. But without cooperation, it wouldn't work. "That presumably idyllic arrangement -- men out hunting, women in charge of the home and children -- has given way to "cultures which unfairly favor males. The male dominates, which is uncharacteristic of our species. Women have tried to compete with men, but we should relish our differences -- if we accept them, it's the best of all possible worlds."
 
Mr. Ed said:
Shortly after our first daughter was born, I was driving to the grocery store with my wife and newborn child. A silver Torino topped the hill in front of us losing control of his car that slammed my car into a ditch. I blacked out until the paramedics were loading into an ambulance when I saw the driver of the Torino, my wife and my daughter were being transported to the hospital together.

At the time of the accident my wife was expecting our second child 14 months after the first one. Our first daughter, less than one-year-old needed to be cared for and pregnant with our second on top of physical therapy two times a week, my wife grew to resent our second daughter when she was born.

Our second daughter has a similar type of mental illness as I do, as well as other symptoms unrelated to mine. I believe the home environment affects everyone, especially children. Looking back to my home environment growing up, parenting is the single most important responsibility of adults when raising children. Unfortunately, poor parenting and negligence goes unnoticed, until in my case, many years later and too late for reconciliation.

My wife admits less favorability toward our second daughter, however, given the sensitivity of the matter, I prefer to listen rather than comment.
Click to expand...
Your post reminded me about how my Mom treated me as opposed to my older brother and sister. She had picked my brother's name before he was born. She got pregnant with my sister 11 yrs later and had always said if she ever had a girl she had a name already picked for her
Then 2 yrs after my sister was born my Dad said he would love to have another child. She wasn't too pleased but to make my Dad happy she got pregnant with me. Unfortunately, she lost my twin in her second month. She didn't think I would survive, but I did. She carried me full
term and I weighed 7 lbs 14 ozs.She didn't have a name picked out so my dad asked the nurse what her name was. She said her name was Barbara and that's how I got my name.
 
grahamg said:
I tried to search for the views of Desmond Morris (the author or so many books on human behaviour), as to whether women/mothers were gatekeepers. I'm not sure whether I found an answer but came up with the following comments:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...fferent/574ee154-d7b0-4cfa-8fb1-4677f7923e8a/

"What I'm doing is taking a look at every aspect of the relationship between men and women," explained Morris from his home in Oxford, England. In Monday's opening program, "Different But Equal," Morris sets out to explore whether sex differences, including the fact that women live longer than men, are biologically or culturally based. He is particularly keen on footage that displays the different ways a male brain and a female brain work -- "You can see the brain light up in different ways," he said -- and implies that humans are born with brains that react this way, although the two adults whose brains are examined presumably have life-experience. Females use both lobes, are more verbal and are better at juggling many tasks at once, he says, while males tend to concentrate on one task at a time and are better at pursuing long-term goals. Yet he apparently believes that can be modified: "Male writers learn to use the more verbal sides of their brains, and thus their brain patterns would resemble those of females. Brains of competitive female athletes who concentrate on long-term goals become more like men's."

Break

"The Wednesday night installments, "The Maternal Dilemma" and "Gender Wars," may have the most resonance with American women trying to balance marriage, motherhood and career. Morris is sympathetic and believes that in today's world, the relationship between men and women has become "distorted." The division of labor which made us different but equal, the equality we had {in ancient times}, was based on division of labor. Each was done in its own sphere. But without cooperation, it wouldn't work. "That presumably idyllic arrangement -- men out hunting, women in charge of the home and children -- has given way to "cultures which unfairly favor males. The male dominates, which is uncharacteristic of our species. Women have tried to compete with men, but we should relish our differences -- if we accept them, it's the best of all possible worlds."
Click to expand...
Only more modern discoveries tell us that it was what women gathered that kept folks alive when game was scarce. And also that women warriors were more common than previously thought.

And i'm sorry, he makes sound like women just woke up one day unhappy with their 'lot in life' and decided 'compete' no mention the war widows, and then divorced women--which is not always the woman's idea by along shot and sometimes she leaves to stay alive or protect her children. As recently as the 1950's divorced women were looked down on and they had to work to support themselves and kids, especially women in lower economic classes where often even if he wanted to the ex-husband couldn't pay as much in support as needed.

The way the brains modify in response to lifestyle, career orientation is just another bit of evidence of Neuroplasticity. Which means biology does not have to be destiny. The reason women can multitask more efficiently than men is that our corpus collosum which is the communication link between the hemispheres is on average larger in females allowing for more efficient communication about more than one thing at a time between hemispheres.
 
feywon said:
Only more modern discoveries tell us that it was what women gathered that kept folks alive when game was scarce. And also that women warriors were more common than previously thought.
And i'm sorry, he makes sound like women just woke up one day unhappy with their 'lot in life' and decided 'compete' no mention the war widows, and then divorced women--which is not always the woman's idea by along shot and sometimes she leaves to stay alive or protect her children. As recently as the 1950's divorced women were looked down on and they had to work to support themselves and kids, especially women in lower economic classes where often even if he wanted to the ex-husband couldn't pay as much in support as needed.

The way the brains modify in response to lifestyle, career orientation is just another bit of evidence of Neuroplasticity. Which means biology does not have to be destiny. The reason women can multitask more efficiently than men is that our corpus collosum which is the communication link between the hemispheres is on average larger in females allowing for more efficient communication about more than one thing at a time between hemispheres.
Click to expand...
There is no point is there, in my defending Desmond Morris in any way, and he is well able to defend himself still I believe, so could do a far better job than I ever could.

I will say this though, I believe Desmond Morris was right fifty years ago or so, when declaring the relaxation of divorce laws would lead to an epidemic of lonely, or broken hearted people. I believe he said this because psychologically human beings have evolved to develop strong bonds with our partners, or those we have children with, as this was the only way those children were likely to survive in times gone past, (human nature believed to be something that doesn't change much too).

In a sense, it is easy to throw out all that was learned in times past, by saying: "I don't want anyone to suffer as I have suffered", (I think this helps motivate continued relaxation of divorce laws, as we've seen recently in the UK).

Returning now to the business of whether women/mothers are gatekeepers of the child's relationship with others including the father, and my maybe foolish view I never signed up to this.

Are my thoughts and feelings about my child always subservient to someone else's view?

If I thought that way I believe I'd be betraying my child, and automatically denying them the close relationship you'd hope to forge with your child, (a relationship maybe capable of moderating the excesses of the parent where the child normally resides).
 
@grahamg everyone is different as well as the circumstances we find ourselves in. My advice is universal do the best you can with what you have. If you can do this to the best of your ability, there should be no regrets. By the way grahamg, be kind to my friend. 😎
 
Mr. Ed said:
@grahamg everyone is different as well as the circumstances we find ourselves in. My advice is universal do the best you can with what you have. If you can do this to the best of your ability, there should be no regrets. By the way grahamg, be kind to my friend. 😎
Click to expand...
I am being as kind as I can on this topic, and chose to put forward a range of expert views on the "gatekeeper role" raised in the OP.

Everyone is of course different, and for my money that should be celebrated, but laws cant really be made to suit individual people, to the exclusion of all others obviously. Our UK family law acolytes putting forward ideas like "women/mothers" tend to be gatekeepers etc. etc., may just be reflecting reality, and mentioning it because the subject arises when they do their work in family law, and make their decisions, (so that can be defended).

However, the idea one parent has to allow another to rule over them in all circumstances just wont do will it(?).
 
@grahamg said "However, the idea one parent has to allow another to rule over them in all circumstances just wont do will it(?)."

Of course not and i agreed about that in my first response to this thread. Which you ignored, but then moaned about mild disagreement with Morris. Shouldn't discussions be as much about finding points of agreement as debating the ones we disagree about???

i would not be who i am today (nobody significant/important in grand design of the world, but a human being who does her best to help and be kind to other human beings) without the input and example of my Dad in my first decade of life. So i know how important fathers are. i have always supported the idea that sometimes the Dad's should be the primary residence of the children or some of the children--depending on many factors but most importantly emotional stability and having some common sense about how to raise children. i have ranted about the US court system which seems to be biased in favor of maternal custody because it more often rules in favor of Mom having residential custody. i won't side track the discussion by bringing the unintended consequences of that tendency particularly in lower socio-economic middle class, and just plain lower socio-economic class (working poor) families. Because my point here is that i have long advocated for how important fathers are and how parents where-ever their relationship goes need to put the emotional as well as physical well-being of their children first.

But, i can't agree with the new Morris point you brought up: "... when declaring the relaxation of divorce laws would lead to an epidemic of lonely, or broken hearted people." Seriously? You think it is healthy for anyone, especially children to live in a contentious, unhappy household where the parents are not getting along at all? Do you have any idea how many people are living in marital houses and STILL lonely and heartbroken because it is not meeting their expectations (hopes/dreams) about marital bliss???? Many of the unrealistic expectations are fostered by movies and books that all too often end the romance story with marriage--when the working at it part begins.

i agree that people in recent generations too quickly resort to divorcing. But the logical solution is not to make divorce harder, but make getting married harder. These days the 'blood tests' in general not nearly as important as premarital counseling---with a goal of having the couple talk about all the truly crucial realities of married life: finances, division of labor (both in and outside home), children (way too many couples get married without even discussing if they both want children, much less on how to raise them); what house rules should be in place for kids at various ages, what kinds of disciplines will be used; discussing house rules for guests should be discussed--both family and friends. In the long run society benefits when the number of stable intact, loving families increases. But we have to acknowledge that sometimes love is not enough, at this point there are already so many 'walking wounded' (emotionally) in western cultures that often people's 'issues', if they don't both fully commit to working on those issues individually and together, keep them from being able to be happily together. Open, honest communication is crucial.

Let me be clear, while in general i think we are each responsible for our own levels of happiness, it is undeniable that unpleasant interactions particularly within intimate relations can be a huge roadblock to mere 'contentment' or 'peace of mind' much less actual joy in life. One should not expect anyone else to 'make' them happy, but it is also reasonable to request your most intimate partner not constantly erode, obstruct you finding your own level of well-being. (And you should be trying to facilitate them finding theirs).

And i repeat for the third time in this thread that i agree with you about the 'gatekeeper' thing: Just because it occurs does not mean it is the way it should be, that it is healthy for anyone. But neither parent should the 'rule' in anyway over the other, including the other's relationship with their joint children and including if they divorce, rather they should co-operate in the best interests of the children. (Proper premarital counseling might help more couples discover how much they disagree on what is in the best interests of future children---and in some cases that might be that those two people not marry and reproduce.)
 
@ Sassycakes and @Mr. Ed

Reading your stories choked me up. Virtual hugs!

My own mother was an unplanned 'accidental', fourth (& last) child in the 1920s, her mother never let her forget she was 'unwanted'. So i've seen the damage that sort of lack of parental affection and positive interactions with a child can cause. Knowing that helped me let go of grievances over my mother's inconsistent parental skills. But in time as i learned more about my grandmother's life i was able to release most of my il feelings toward her as well.

But that family history (and Dad's more complex) is part of why i was 27 before i had my boys and why i focused on the emotional well-being of my children as i was raising them.
 
feywon said:
@grahamg said "However, the idea one parent has to allow another to rule over them in all circumstances just wont do will it(?)."

Of course not and i agreed about that in my first response to this thread. Which you ignored, but then moaned about mild disagreement with Morris. Shouldn't discussions be as much about finding points of agreement as debating the ones we disagree about???

i would not be who i am today (nobody significant/important in grand design of the world, but a human being who does her best to help and be kind to other human beings) without the input and example of my Dad in my first decade of life. So i know how important fathers are. i have always supported the idea that sometimes the Dad's should be the primary residence of the children or some of the children--depending on many factors but most importantly emotional stability and having some common sense about how to raise children. i have ranted about the US court system which seems to be biased in favor of maternal custody because it more often rules in favor of Mom having residential custody. i won't side track the discussion by bringing the unintended consequences of that tendency particularly in lower socio-economic middle class, and just plain lower socio-economic class (working poor) families. Because my point here is that i have long advocated for how important fathers are and how parents where-ever their relationship goes need to put the emotional as well as physical well-being of their children first.

But, i can't agree with the new Morris point you brought up: "... when declaring the relaxation of divorce laws would lead to an epidemic of lonely, or broken hearted people." Seriously? You think it is healthy for anyone, especially children to live in a contentious, unhappy household where the parents are not getting along at all? Do you have any idea how many people are living in marital houses and STILL lonely and heartbroken because it is not meeting their expectations (hopes/dreams) about marital bliss???? Many of the unrealistic expectations are fostered by movies and books that all too often end the romance story with marriage--when the working at it part begins.

i agree that people in recent generations too quickly resort to divorcing. But the logical solution is not to make divorce harder, but make getting married harder. These days the 'blood tests' in general not nearly as important as premarital counseling---with a goal of having the couple talk about all the truly crucial realities of married life: finances, division of labor (both in and outside home), children (way too many couples get married without even discussing if they both want children, much less on how to raise them); what house rules should be in place for kids at various ages, what kinds of disciplines will be used; discussing house rules for guests should be discussed--both family and friends. In the long run society benefits when the number of stable intact, loving families increases. But we have to acknowledge that sometimes love is not enough, at this point there are already so many 'walking wounded' (emotionally) in western cultures that often people's 'issues', if they don't both fully commit to working on those issues individually and together, keep them from being able to be happily together. Open, honest communication is crucial.

Let me be clear, while in general i think we are each responsible for our own levels of happiness, it is undeniable that unpleasant interactions particularly within intimate relations can be a huge roadblock to mere 'contentment' or 'peace of mind' much less actual joy in life. One should not expect anyone else to 'make' them happy, but it is also reasonable to request your most intimate partner not constantly erode, obstruct you finding your own level of well-being. (And you should be trying to facilitate them finding theirs).

And i repeat for the third time in this thread that i agree with you about the 'gatekeeper' thing: Just because it occurs does not mean it is the way it should be, that it is healthy for anyone. But neither parent should the 'rule' in anyway over the other, including the other's relationship with their joint children and including if they divorce, rather they should co-operate in the best interests of the children. (Proper premarital counseling might help more couples discover how much they disagree on what is in the best interests of future children---and in some cases that might be that those two people not marry and reproduce.)
Click to expand...
Please accept that my belief Desmond Morris stated "the relaxation of divorce laws in the UK fifty years ago would lead to an epidemic of lonely or broken hearted people ", was just that, "my recollection" and it may not reflect his views accurately then or now!

However, if you or anyone else on this forum truly believes folks "marry for life", as of course so many of us vowed to do, then taking the view between 30% and 50% of the population divorcing won't lead to plenty of broken hearts seems counter intuitive to me.

If I've avoided engaging in direct discussion with comments others have made on this thread, such as yourself, I can excuse myself I believe because the arguments I'm putting forward are " well worn ground" for me. I have to admit too, some responses I've had remind me of my ex's views, or even my daughters views as a ten year old telling me, "If you're unhappy in a marriage you just get divorced", (to which I said " If you believe that dont get married").

BTW, thank you for restating you agree someone setting themselves up as a "gatekeeper" isn't the way it should be. However we part company when it comes to any solutions argued on the "best interests of children", not least because stating it should be based on this ideology implies others know better what it might mean and care more about our children. I obviously don't want to see children harmed, but I do want to keep what I'll unkindly described as "busy bodies" out of our children's lives, and our own family or what's left of it after divorce.
 
Last edited:
grahamg said:
Please accept that my belief Desmond Morris stated "the relaxation of divorce laws in the UK fifty years ago would lead to an epidemic of lonely or broken hearted people ", was just that, "my recollection" and it may not reflect his views accurately then or now!

However, if you or anyone else on this forum truly believes folks "marry for life", as of course so many of us vowed to do, then taking the view between 30% and 50% of the population divorcing won't lead to plenty of broken hearts seems counter intuitive to me.

If I've avoided engaging in direct discussion with comments others have made on this thread, such as yourself, I can excuse myself I believe because the arguments I'm putting forward are " well worn ground" for me. I have to admit too, some responses I've had remind me of my ex's views, or even my daughters views as a ten year old telling me, "If you're unhappy in a marriage you just get divorced", (to which I said " If you believe that dont get married").

BTW, thank you for restating you agree someone setting themselves up as a "gatekeeper" isn't the way it should be. However we part company when it comes to any solutions argued on the "best interests of children", not least because stating it should be based on this ideology implies others know better what it might mean and care more about our children. I obviously don't want to see children harmed, but I do want to keep what I'll unkindly described as "busy bodies" out of our children's lives, and our own family or what's left of it after divorce.
Click to expand...
Will be brief as possible .
So i'm disagreeing with what you 'recall' Morris saying more than Morris himself. i was an adult when he was popular i refrained from talking about what i recall because i didn't feel like doing the fact check on it this morning.

Certainly divorce leads to much emotional pain. But for some, perhaps many people the pain of separation is a lesser stress/pain to that of staying together. Yes many go into thinking they 'marry for life' but why is that? Because it is a cultural norm, it is 'expected'---less so with Gen X and beyond generations--but it's still with us. People go into it with unrealistic expectations. (Like your hope about your wife 'obeying' you. i refused to say those vows in my two Justice of Peace ceremonies. It would have been dishonest.) This is why making marriage a more difficult process would likely reduce the problems at the other end by reducing number of divorces.

Child's best interest--NO parents do not always know best. i sought out all kinds of advice to help my sons deal with their fathers death when they were just 3 1/2 yrs old. It helped me prepare for their later revisiting of the subject as they gained understanding and had more questions. The final decision about things is of course generally left in the hands of parents but why would any one resist learning everything they could to benefit/enhance their child's quality of life???? (Not to mention the people who go 'off the rails' --Moms and Dads alike who decide that if their child can't be with them the child should live at all! Then there's those believe that prayer will keep their children healthier than a good nutrition and certain vaccines (which i wish had been available in my childhood--because my messed up immune system is likely due to having measles and age 4). Sometimes we do know best, but not always and it is our responsibility as parents to do our research about both physical and mental/emotional issues, about signs of being neuro-atypical and things that can help those children.


Since you don't seem to really want to have discussions, but to put kindly seem to just need to vent about you particularly situations i'll refrain responding to any other of this type of post for you. Do not want to stress you further.
 
I'm not stressed, because as you've witnessed, and I've confessed to, I'm not attempting to argue points about "children's best interests", I'm challenging the legal principle itself.

I am intolerant of arguments others know better than I did, or any decent parent does, yes, because to do otherwise undermines all parents in my view.

There are of course others on this forum who have ventured opinions on this thread, so it doesn't have to be you and I thrashing things out, and I know most will support your arguments over mine, (some experts speak of the almost mythical power of the "best interests of the child legal principle" too, so I'm up against it on that score too!). :)
 
This piece of information regarding those prying into other people's families is purely anecdotal, and you could say secondhand at that, but for what its worth here goes.

A former nurse living in the south of England, told me a story about an old boyfriend of hers, (I'd met the lady through a singles group called "Sinners", standing for "Safety IN NumbERS" I believe).

She said he had gained custody of all four of his children following the breakup of his marriage, and the girls were just young teenagers when the marriage failed. What happened the nurse told me was that the children were very much dysfunctional, and those girls eventually ended up having teenage pregnancies and other difficulties in their lives, (drugs I think).

Anyway, in relation to the authorities brought in to monitor the children, the nurse said their behaviour in the home towards one another etc. was absolutely appalling, but their father had them trained so that when social services arrived they all behaved as an "idyllic family".

As I've said its only anecdotal, and my recollections from twenty years ago when I heard the story, but I believe it was told faithfully. If you assume it to be true, then my guess is all the emphasis that had been placed on that broken family by those in authority charged with the responsibility to act in the children's best interests could be made into a mockery. I dont know if the mother who lost custody of her four children was a good mother or not, but I can imagine a manipulative father like the one described by the former nurse, could have "played the game" and convinced them just how good he was for those children, and how poor the mother was.

I'm just speculating of course, I've no idea really, though prying busy bodies, albeit with the best of intentions, create a dynamic of their own in my view, because people cant really live their lives as though some outside agency is monitoring their every move.

A female barrister from Canada called Goldwater, in the early 1990s wrote about "the need for privacy in close personal relationships" but I think her words were largely ignored by those framing our family laws, in the UK at least.
 
Can I just throw in one more comment someone might wish to consider(?).

Without sounding too silly, "There is a reason why human beings evolved using heterosexual interactions to create the next generation"!

Who could argue with that, as we obviously didn't evolve using "asexual reproduction methods" (as some species did).

A feature of human infancy is the length of time taken to reach maturity compared with other mammals of a similar size. Delaying the offspring reaching maturity has evolutionary downsides, as obviously the young need to be protected for much much longer etc. However these downsides were overcome because of the advantages gained in allowing children (or the "young"), much more time to absorb knowledge, and hopefully gain wisdom.

Now to return to this "gatekeeper" business and whether women/mothers should assume this role is their prerogative without their being challenged at all(?).

Obviously, in intact families, an opportunity arises for the father to try to point out to his wife, or partner, the mother of the children, why they might wish to moderate whatever "mothering role" they might be pursuing. Added to that the father might be there to allow the children an outlet to express their own frustrations about their mothers, whether they do anything about it or not.

Just my thoughts, so no one needs to listen to them of course! :)
 
Sassycakes said:
My husband and I always discussed any issue we had about our children and then come up with how to handle any situation pertaining to our children. I always felt we should make a joint decision.
Click to expand...
Your solution is very sensible in my view.

It occurs to me inculcating into children "Its every man or woman for themselves in this world", is one of the main factors, (my own dad telling his children this maxim repeatedly, "whilst acting largely as though it wasn't the "full story").

If you want or need to be "top dog" in every situation, as so many do, then this too frustrates sensible policies such as the one you described.
 
An article from 2004 in an Irish newspaper one or two may be interested in as it explains really well what "Fathers 4 Justice" were about:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fathers-act-was-deeply-responsible-1.1141787

Quote: "Although, at worst, F4J has given Mr Blair a timely warning concerning his security.............. Break
...........to abuse children by acting as gatekeeper in the relationships between those fathers and their children ..."

(I will try to come back with a better extract from the article)
 


Back
Top