graham I am so sorry, and I definitely believe you. Definitely, and thank you so much for your answer, thank you for sharing this with us.
"This is your real father", (what should be said to children asserting otherwise)
- Thread starter grahamg
- Start date
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
No need to be sorry, (I'd be delighted with your allowing me the freedom to post about my experiences without too much criticism!
).
Alexei Karenin, Anna Karenina's husband was one of literature's most despicable characters. He was sarcastic, vain, passive aggressive and verbally abusive. He had married Anna only because he felt a duty to marry someone at that point in his career and was mentally cruel to her thereafter.
Even his relationship with his son was entirely about the boy's education. His ultimate cruelty to the little boy was to deny any visitation with his mother, then later told him his mother was dead.
He was unloving and puritanical, judgmental about all others while constantly bragging about how morally superior he was. He only had one friend, a woman who willing listened to all his hate filled discourses about Anna and offered him sympathy.
Anna was mentally beaten down and starved for affection when she met Vronsky, which made her vulnerable to the love he offered.
I think Tolstoy would be surprised to know you took her husband's side and thought she was merely bored.
Even his relationship with his son was entirely about the boy's education. His ultimate cruelty to the little boy was to deny any visitation with his mother, then later told him his mother was dead.
He was unloving and puritanical, judgmental about all others while constantly bragging about how morally superior he was. He only had one friend, a woman who willing listened to all his hate filled discourses about Anna and offered him sympathy.
Anna was mentally beaten down and starved for affection when she met Vronsky, which made her vulnerable to the love he offered.
I think Tolstoy would be surprised to know you took her husband's side and thought she was merely bored.
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
Della Quote:
"I think Tolstoy would be surprised to know you took her husband's side and thought she was merely bored."
Grahamg quote No. 1:
"Mentioning my ex., (again intended for the kind new member all this stuff), puts me in mind of that great book by Alexander Solzinitsin called "Anna Karenina ", where a woman bored and unhappy with her marriage turns to the affections of Oblonsky, (or was it written by Tolstoy,..., I only got half way through forty or so years ago, is my excuse for memory fade!).
Anyway, you'll be thoroughly familiar with the tale of love, betrayal, the behaviour of the jilted husband, seemingly buoyed up by his loss of a wife I seem to remember, and being a moralistic tale it all ends badly I believe for Anna Karenina, (apologies if I've made a hash of such a hugely influential time!)."
Grahamg quote No. 2:
Would anyone mind if I were to ask if you're cognisant that this is the thread topic, as listed above, (with a request those feeling negatively towards fathers/parents rights, or my posts on the topic in general try to restrain oneself from arguing or criticising "as per usual"!)!
Grahamg comments:
Is it odd that the OP gets completely ignored, whilst my recollections of a book I've confessed to only half reading forty years ago, and got the author wrongly identified initially, the name of the lover wrong, (and no doubt plenty more besides), gets such critical treatment?
"I'm only telling you what I thought I'd remembered", and as I recall the jilted husband was a stiff character, (and the whole book, or the part I read, was hard enough for me to make sense of, and I only attempted to do so because I was off work with a cartilage operation, and was told by my godparents, who leant me the book it was a classic)!
The film based upon the story I found hard to watch too, but please let me apoligise for failing to identify the real fly in the ointment as I was suppsed to do, thus offending your sensibilities to the extent I obviously have, (taking precedent over the thread topic!
).
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
I have decided to try to give you a better response than my previous one, (or at least use your post for my own purposes!).
As far as your description of my daughter goes everything you've said about her is accurate, and you could argue that without the reference to my grandchildren, her offspring of course, everything you've said applied equally as well when she was twelve years old, (though till that age my daughter telling me I was horrible, and she hated me was always followed by "Keep coming daddy"!).
As to what it might indicate, (so far as me as her father goes being the implied question), I can repeat what my daughter told both my parents aged twenty one, when visiting their farm to be told I was next door if she wanted to see me, and she said, "Her mother and stepfather were against it, and she had to live there"!
At the next opportunity to meet, a couple of years later, similarly at my parents farm, I was told I was permitted to be present, but no explanation given for the change of heart on whoever's part, (my belief being her mother didn't like my parents being told the truth two years earlier, hence paying lip service by allowing me to be there, but then my daughter treating me with indifference I think it is fair to say, fulfilled the bill for the other interested parties!).
Moving on to pointing out some anomalous situations thrown up by the way UK family law is framed now, in order to try to undermine some of the blind faith shown in it, and the legal principle its based upon, it is true that:
"A man who has not abused his children, and did all the things listed in the OP who is dying of cancer, cannot have a court decide on compassionate ground to allow him contact with his children as the decent thing to do, but rather has to try to argue why it might be in the children's interests to see him".
"Our queen, when Prince Charles and Princess Diana were separating prior to divorcing, faced the prospect of not being allowed to see Prince William and Prince HarryHarry, (this being discussed on the BBC by royal observers and experts). Thus even being a head of state in a monarchy does not confer any rights to contact with grandchildren in the UK, regardless of the service to our country our queen is being so rightly praised for so much now, (to be topical, though in the event Princess Diana's love and respect for the queen meant she never created any obstacles to the grandchildren seeing her).
Those two statements above, should be added to the words of Goldwater, the young Canadian lawyer in 1992, describing the need for privacy in close personal relationships meaning I believe it was harmful to those relationships for the state to deny this, (and Goldwater went further, pointing out "the moral failure in smugly asserting children have tights, whilst ignoring their obvious vulnerability to manipulation and control").
Finally a contributor to the world congress on the child, organised by the united nations I believe, almost forty years ago, was addressed by professor Akira Morata who told the gathering "it was the relationship with the patent that the child needed, not some notion of children's rights"!
Thus laws based solely on the interests of the child, or putting them above all else all the time, ignores a fundamental factor inherent to bonds with our children, the interdependency and mutual interests aspects of each ultimately cooperating with the other, ("through thick and thin"!).
How is a subject you brought up suddenly off topic if someone else has something to say about it?Della Quote:
"I think Tolstoy would be surprised to know you took her husband's side and thought she was merely bored."
Grahamg quote No. 1:
"Mentioning my ex., (again intended for the kind new member all this stuff), puts me in mind of that great book by Alexander Solzinitsin called "Anna Karenina ", where a woman bored and unhappy with her marriage turns to the affections of Oblonsky, (or was it written by Tolstoy,..., I only got half way through forty or so years ago, is my excuse for memory fade!).
Anyway, you'll be thoroughly familiar with the tale of love, betrayal, the behaviour of the jilted husband, seemingly buoyed up by his loss of a wife I seem to remember, and being a moralistic tale it all ends badly I believe for Anna Karenina, (apologies if I've made a hash of such a hugely influential time!)."
Grahamg quote No. 2:
Would anyone mind if I were to ask if you're cognisant that this is the thread topic, as listed above, (with a request those feeling negatively towards fathers/parents rights, or my posts on the topic in general try to restrain oneself from arguing or criticising "as per usual"!)!
Grahamg comments:
Is it odd that the OP gets completely ignored, whilst my recollections of a book I've confessed to only half reading forty years ago, and got the author wrongly identified initially, the name of the lover wrong, (and no doubt plenty more besides), gets such critical treatment?
"I'm only telling you what I thought I'd remembered", and as I recall the jilted husband was a stiff character, (and the whole book, or the part I read, was hard enough for me to make sense of, and I only attempted to do so because I was off work with a cartilage operation, and was told by my godparents, who leant me the book it was a classic)!
The film based upon the story I found hard to watch too, but please let me apoligise for failing to identify the real fly in the ointment as I was suppsed to do, thus offending your sensibilities to the extent I obviously have, (taking precedent over the thread topic!
You were using Anna Karenina to reinforce your points and the characters in the book are actually opposite. This is a book I've read several times, the first at Oxford University with the guidance of a professor whose subject was 19th Century Literature. You're right, it is hard to understand, and the characters are nuanced and complicated as in most great literature.
So first I was talking about it because I love the book and enjoy any discussion of it and second, because it actually was on topic. Anna's husband being a man who got full custody of their child in a period where that was the most common thing, something I expect many people are unaware of.
-------------------------
I don't know where you got the idea that once you begin a thread you own it and get to dictate not only the subject but that everyone who speaks on the thread must agree with you!
That's not how internet message boards work.
If you want to set the terms and silence alternative opinions you might want to start your own website. Youtube channels are available, you could film yourself talking about men's rights on a daily basis and delete any negative comments. Honestly, I really think you'd get a lot of followers.
Everyone enjoys your presence here and your interesting threads. I'm just saying the rest of us get to speak freely without your permission. That's all up to Matrix.
Last edited:
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
You may have noticed a discussion took place on this thread concerning farming(?).
No one is surely arguing that this thread is now about farming, so how is my contrasting the lack of response to the OP to your getting het up about my misinterpretation of Tolstoy's book, (as you read it I'd say, because having read only about half of it I'm still convinced the husband was pretty boring (and not very loving, though by the standards of the day maybe not so different from many others where social position was probably all important, and the jilted husband Alexei Karenin had some position of authority I believe, and the condemnation of "fallen women" as they were once seen weren't they, was severe).
In the UK, according Gibson's divorce law 1935 a woman leaving her husband for another was unlikely to be given custody of any children, (presumably because this was considered to be in the child's best interests, because otherwise the children may be lead to understand being an unfaithful wife was a better option than staying put, etc., etc. etc.). The good old days hey, how would people today survive under such laws, (they wouldn't have the grit and dogged determination my own mother told my father's friend she needed to cope with the stresses she faced).
So there we are, the thread is what it is, but ignoring the whole point of the thread "probably isn't cricket is it"
?If I may jump in here for a moment. I have to disagree that Karenin was the most despicable character in literature. He was a man of the time, he felt he had to live up to certain standards and yes, he was boring and did not know how to show affection to Anna.
Do you know Tolstoy suffered bouts of deep depression and this comes across not only in Anna Karenina, but also War and Peace.
Anna was depressed, trapped in a marriage with an older man whom she could not leave because of Russian society. By the time she met Vronsky, she was borderline personality disorder. For her to have her son or even visit with him for long periods would have been detrimental. Karenin was protecting their son.
You know the rest.
Farming? The whole point of the thread is farming? If so, why did you title it, "This is your real father..." I thought it was about Darth Vader at first.So there we are, the thread is what it is, but ignoring the whole point of the thread "probably isn't cricket is it"
{ I'm glad someone likes old Karenin, his sarcasm when he talked to Anna was what I hated.}
If you're referring to me, I didn't say I liked him, I was being fair to him.
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
Yes, farming appeared on the thread thusly:
"Blessed wrote:
“I would like you to start a new thread and tell us about your work life. I would love to hear about the farms you work at and the animals you care for.”
Grahamg wrote:
“……., are you any kind of "cow girl" yourself, (I could tell you of "the time I roped a steer" though I'd be lying to you as we don't tend to rope our cattle as done in the wild west shows, but I have a story about being run ragged by a strong ewe, and banjaxed by a lamb!”)
Blessed wrote:
“No, not any kind of cow girl. I did grow up with a Shetland pony in the backyard. His name was Sam and he did learn how to open the back screen door with his teeth. My Mom was not happy! My sister had a horse as a teenager but it was not nice for anyone but her. I did ride horses as a child but never hers. A neighbour would sometimes buy a calf and raise it in their yard. No one got attached to them because we knew it would be headed for the butcher. We also had a few chickens at one point, they were fun.
My older sister has chickens now, they are pets, but they do enjoy the eggs. She has large dogs but they don't ever bother the chickens when they are allowed to roam outside the coop. I don't have a clue how she managed that.”
Yes, I read all that the first time. I didn't question whether farming had appeared on the thread. I questioned how it became "the whole point of the thread."
So are you now saying that if something "appears" on the thread it then becomes "the whole point" and we're intended to disregard the title and OP?
By that definition Anna Karenina appeared on the thread so maybe now it's the whole point and the only thing we should talk about!
So are you now saying that if something "appears" on the thread it then becomes "the whole point" and we're intended to disregard the title and OP?
By that definition Anna Karenina appeared on the thread so maybe now it's the whole point and the only thing we should talk about!
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
I dont think that is what I intended to say at all, just that you'd ignored all the things I'd suggest should concern folks at taken umbrage at something almost ridiculously petty, (and you've seen others disagree with your firm opinions on that subject too, so it didn't get you very far, unless your whole aim is indeed to take the thread away from a topic you're uncomfortable with being aired here!).
JaniceM
Well-known Member
- Location
- still lost between two shores..
There are people who post for the purpose of "sowing discord," but I know you're not one of them so I'll respond:
I'm glad you've never encountered this issue, but if you had you'd know what I said was accurate. Similar to other brainwashing, kids don't "grow out of" it or "snap out of" it.
Also, I might owe @grahamg an apology- I thought you'd mentioned PA/PAS in older threads as applying to you/child's situation.. I'm sorry if I was mistaken about that.
I'm just blunt. I know when I'm wrong though & apologized to @graham. I'm blunt because, well, I feel like I'm running out of time so try to get to the core of things fast. Thank you for realizing my intentions are good.
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
No aplogy necessary, and certainly PAS has been mentioned often on many of the threads I've started about fathers/parents rights, but whenever anyone couches what happened so far as my daughter that way I shy away from the idea, not least because she was such a generally happy child, (kept you busy keeping her occupied but not a bad fault was it), and she's gone on in leaps and bonds afterwards>
You've got to remember too, so far as the UK is concerned there is a lot of resistance to accepting "PAS" exists, as any kind of disorder, and though I'm ambivalent as to whether it should be or not, I do think if some level of rights were granted to try to correct the balance between the parents, (where its safe to d s etc., etc., etc.), then some of the troubles seem would just go away, as simple as that! Dont allow one side to have more or less the whole say in everything, either because in practise no one wishes to go against a residential parent, or parent with custody, if the child is settled and doing okay, even in a modest way, (you wouldn't have had to lock my ex up to get her to cooperate better than she did, or prevent her making a mockery of the whole system as she did!).
Last edited:
I didn't take umbrage at anything. You brought up a fictional character, one I happen to find particularly interesting, so I expressed my point of view. Simply that I found Anna's husband to be one of the most despicable characters in literature. (Not the most as has been said.) It's fine with me that Morgan disagrees with me and adds to the discussion with biographical information about Tolstoy. Perhaps my dislike of the character has been influenced by the way he's been played in some film adaptations I've seen. I may have him all wrong.
In my experience that's how discussions about literature go. We each bring our own experience to the book and so come away with different impressions. I don't think there's usually a definite right or wrong about it. You seem to feel personally insulted by my opinion about this character which I hadn't intended.
I wasn't trying to "get very far" with my comments. Where would I have been trying to go?
My "aim" wasn't to change the topic but actually to go with a topic you brought up, even as an aside.
I'm not sure what topic you think I'm uncomfortable with, farming or children estranged from their fathers. I haven't had a bit of experience with either one. I'll just bow out of this now unless you have something else you want to say to me.
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
If this thread is you not taking umbrage at anything then please accept my apologies because I'd not understood that at all.
Now all I'm really after anyone saying on the thread, or in response to the OP is whether or not they agree it would be appropriate to give decent dads, (and mums), some legal rights or protections beyond what is allowed now, (in the UK there are no statuary rights for example).
Here I'm referring to those parents who do not have their children living with them, for whatever reason, and they haven't abused them or anything like that, and in fact whilst having contact with their children they can make an assessment, and in the case of my own daughter I will freely assert no one abused her in any way, (because she was always open, spoke her mind, and was full of confidence, never withdrawn and mainly showing herself as being you'd have to say the precocious child she was!). In the UK those parents who have their children living with them have something called "common law rights", (meaning the way the authorities treat them, and dont generally interfere with their parenting, means they have rights even when they are not expressly written down in law, (i.e. statutory rights).
I believe the narrative would change when court welfare officers were called upon, and had to treat the non resident parent who has a minimal statutory right with more respect, (with all kinds of stipulations as to how those parents got granted any minimal rights they were given). All I'm talking about really is just a "rebuttable presumption in favour of contact" for those who were married to the other parent, prior to the split, and already had a long term involvement in the child's life when the courts were called upon, (thus showing their commitment etc. etc. etc., as I covered quite well I feel in the OP
)
Last edited:
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
Here is the OP again just to refresh everyone's memory:
I believe children, "at any age" should be told the following, if they assert, (or behave), as though someone other than this kind of man is their "real father".
Quote:
"He planned a family with your mother long before they were married to one another"!
"He found it within himself to show love and commitment towards you for many years, even after the marriage disintegrated for reasons outside his control"!
"He did not doubt he was your father, and hence is unique and irreplaceable in that regard, (as much as your mother is irreplaceable using the same criteria)"!
"When being usurped as a husband and then as a father by someone motivated to keep themselves in your mothers good books, he did not abandon you, nor did he allow any new partner he found, (or their children), to take over your place in his life, or interfere with your relationship and contact with him in any way"!
"Anyone judging him as a father does not love you as he does, hence their right to judge you should be constrained, and they shouldn't be allowed to assume they know better than he, what may be in your interests, and what should be said to you when you speak disloyally about your loving father"!
" Many children have fathers/parents who do not love them for whatever reason, or are unable to find sufficient love within themselves, and those children suffer as a result, "a law protecting your right to be heard in court proceedings, should not cause more potentially loving fathers/parents to abandon their interests in their own children because they feel they cannot win against such a legal system""!
"This man is your real father whatever anyone ever says to the contrary, (including yourself), and no one has the right or power to saw otherwise without just cause, and the English language does not need to be changed to pander to any feelings you might express on this subject, so whether you like it or not"!
"By denying this man who is your real father any recognition you may automatically cut off your children from a loving grandparent"!
"These are the things this state believes anyone acting on its behalf should be saying to any child they encounter in your circumstances"!
(please note I am serious about not wishing to stir up those likely to respond negatively to this thread, so please feel free to ignore it, because it isn't intended for you!)
I believe children, "at any age" should be told the following, if they assert, (or behave), as though someone other than this kind of man is their "real father".
Quote:
"He planned a family with your mother long before they were married to one another"!
"He found it within himself to show love and commitment towards you for many years, even after the marriage disintegrated for reasons outside his control"!
"He did not doubt he was your father, and hence is unique and irreplaceable in that regard, (as much as your mother is irreplaceable using the same criteria)"!
"When being usurped as a husband and then as a father by someone motivated to keep themselves in your mothers good books, he did not abandon you, nor did he allow any new partner he found, (or their children), to take over your place in his life, or interfere with your relationship and contact with him in any way"!
"Anyone judging him as a father does not love you as he does, hence their right to judge you should be constrained, and they shouldn't be allowed to assume they know better than he, what may be in your interests, and what should be said to you when you speak disloyally about your loving father"!
" Many children have fathers/parents who do not love them for whatever reason, or are unable to find sufficient love within themselves, and those children suffer as a result, "a law protecting your right to be heard in court proceedings, should not cause more potentially loving fathers/parents to abandon their interests in their own children because they feel they cannot win against such a legal system""!
"This man is your real father whatever anyone ever says to the contrary, (including yourself), and no one has the right or power to saw otherwise without just cause, and the English language does not need to be changed to pander to any feelings you might express on this subject, so whether you like it or not"!
"By denying this man who is your real father any recognition you may automatically cut off your children from a loving grandparent"!
"These are the things this state believes anyone acting on its behalf should be saying to any child they encounter in your circumstances"!
(please note I am serious about not wishing to stir up those likely to respond negatively to this thread, so please feel free to ignore it, because it isn't intended for you!)
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
It is just possible to make a hash of things just by being "blunt" because all our words are open to misinterpretation, and you can see in the above posts good examples of this, (I'm speaking of the "misinterpretation of posts" bit if you follow me!I'm just blunt. I know when I'm wrong though & apologized to @graham. I'm blunt because, well, I feel like I'm running out of time so try to get to the core of things fast. Thank you for realizing my intentions are good.
).
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
This has some vague relevance to the thread too:
fwiw, it seems that All of the info from tens of thousands of parents and lawyers and pastors and teachers and etc etc etc
can not overcome all of the info used by "the system" -government, agencies, etc-
for their own goals, purposes, power, and money.
The government should NEVER have gotten involved in most of what they do - they continually have broken up millions of families, harmed millions of adults and children, and
made it much more difficult to do what is right for all involved, especially when or if any lawyers get involved - with their own specialty or purpose or motives.
can not overcome all of the info used by "the system" -government, agencies, etc-
for their own goals, purposes, power, and money.
The government should NEVER have gotten involved in most of what they do - they continually have broken up millions of families, harmed millions of adults and children, and
made it much more difficult to do what is right for all involved, especially when or if any lawyers get involved - with their own specialty or purpose or motives.
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
You've got me into trying to defend the system I want to see changed now, though the things you say have resonance too.
Without boring you too much, "In my case", the lawyers I used when getting divorced, was really very good to me, and I actually saw him when I was in the downward spiral after my wife had left, (she may even have been still at the marital home, "waiting until the man she was leaving me for managed to move his second wife out of the house he lived in"!). He said he'd never seen anyone in as bad a state as I was, and he was a very experienced lawyer, but to cut a very long story short, the lawyer knew I wasn't ready to divorce straight away, so there was a period of about three years when he took his time about things, "until I got strong enough" so the divorce became more or less a paperwork exercise!
Now my daughter's teachers did interfere a bit, though the rules in the UK say they should not take sides, and then the law that had protected my contact with my daughter at the outset in 1986/87/88 was changed and a new law slowly ushered in that I feel weakened the position of the non-resident parent, (so all I'm really about now is trying to redress that balance somewhat, not change the system wholesale).
I'll leave it there because it will only get too complicated to go further, but all the best to you, and thank you for your kind post.