Do men need rights also?
Feb 19 2009 16:36
#32
Mareika wrote:
Thunk wrote:
As for the poster above me -- most parents have good intentions...They all have good intentions. They love their kids. That doesn't translate into good parenting.I may have the wrong opinion of what you say but I get the impression you think [parents] think of themselves before their children.
^^^Not sure if you read what I said.
Mareika wrote:
Thunk wrote:
States have terrible reputations when it comes to children as well, don't get me wrong...The state doesn't have the best interest of the child in mind full stop. The state cares about itself.
^^^Once again, not sure if you read what I said.
I'm not saying parents don't love their kids. I'm saying even terrible parents who do horrible things to their children usually do so out of a delusional sense of love. They do it because they think what they are doing is right, or is helpful, etc. There can be a zillion parenting books, that doesn't translate into parents necessarily using them. You might be a great parent, I have no idea, as far as I'm concerned you're some lady who lives inside my computer. But making an enemy out of the state, rightly or wrongly, does not justify the sort of false dichotomy you have set up with "state=bad so parents=good". I think they can both be terrible, and society needs to rethink the roles both of them have towards children.
Like I said before, I argue for more communal oversight in the event that a child is being physically or emotionally abused. Perhaps also promote measure to help children who have been shat all over to gain emancipation and get on their feet once they leave their folks' house. It simply isn't fair that children have to pick between food/shelter and love.
Feb 20 2009 23:38
#33
madashell wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
but i don;t think anyone on here, or anyone i know for that matter would claim that men don;t have the right to see their kidsI would.
Nobody, man or woman, has a "right" to see their kids, because kids are not property or bargaining chips. What matters is the welfare of the children, not the feelings of either parent.
Eh?What I said was
Its a complicated issue, but i don;t think anyone on here, or anyone i know for that matter would claim that men don;t have the right to see their kids (excluding situations where this harms the child or puts them or the other parent at risk obviously
And no i think people do have a ''right'' (i can call it ''freedom'' if you'd prefer) to see their kids if they pose no danger to them.
I think parental bonds (the social act of parenting that is, not merely biological) are important and that society should respect them and maintain them unless a child is at risk.
.
Feb 21 2009 01:11
#34
Mareika wrote:
Quote:
Anarchism involves a society without wages and money, so in an anarchist society you wouldn't have to worry about the potentially punitive financial element of child support. Also its fair to say that a lot of the financial concerns that stigmatise relationships, eg joint mortgages, careers, the monetary costs of having children and so on would disappear.How wonderful. It will also take generations of people to pay for the money owed to the banks alone. That is not the legacy I want to pass down.
Anarchism is a society without money. You wouldn't have banks, and you wouldn't have debts.
Feb 21 2009 16:52
#35
cantdocartwheels wrote:
And no i think people do have a ''right'' (i can call it ''freedom'' if you'd prefer) to see their kids if they pose no danger to them.
I'd agree that it's usually in the best interests of the child to stay with their parents, but it doesn't follow from this that parents have a "right" to this, once you start venturing into the "rights" or "freedom" of the parent, you've forgotten what matters.
Feb 21 2009 18:51
#36
I would suggest that in a state vs. parents vs. schools vs. whoever else dispute over which not-the-child-person gets control over the child, the ideal solution is to increase the freedom that the child has.
Obviously children at various ages aren't cut out for freedom in the same way that adults are, but they can and do still make judgements and have feelings about their own well-being, which while not perfect, aren't always worse than what some adult decides.
One way to institutionally expand the freedom of children would be to have larger, looser 'families', i.e. have maybe a dozen people sharing the task that currently falls principally on two people or even one. If a child had 5 or 6 alternative 'households', they would be able to respond to ill-treatment (or just head-up-the-arse behaviour) from one 'parent' by spending more time with another one. They'd also be exposed to a greater range of personalities and worldviews in their formative years.
Feb 21 2009 22:28
#37
I am grateful that this can be a discussion without judgement. If, by chance, I start being pushy, can someone pull me up. I haven't yet been in this sort of position.
I'll be back to this when I have a bit more time today.
Jun 18 2009 22:10
#38
The main issue here is that, in the form of family typical of class societies, children are property of their parents or tutors.
The unjust treatment of custody to any of the two parents after the divorce can only be possible because children are considered as property. But to abolish the property of children can only be possible by abolishing the bourgeois family, and this can only be achieved by proletarian revolution.
But what do we do until that moment?
It's true that some women seek to hurt their ex-husbands by keeping their children away from him. Women's oppression cannot be an excuse for some women to behave like this, driven only by hate to their ex and doing massive psychological harm to the children in the process. And be against women's oppression cannot be an excuse to shut up about it.
We must be against children be used as a spoil of war, whether this is done by their mother or their father. And I don't see this in any way contradictory with the liberation of women and fight against sexism. The transitory solution is to abolish the favoritism of custody for the mother in divorces and vindicate the 50/50 joint custody.
Because the favoritism of the mother that takes place today is also bad for women. The whole burden of the raising the children falls on the mother, while the father see their children once a week and buys them off with presents, trips, etc., things that the mother cannot provide them because she has to work and be for them most of the week.
No, nor would I want to have children.
I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying here. Social services as it exists today is fucking shit, I wouldn't defend it for one moment. However, I do think that even in a stateless society, there should be community controlled organisations who can intervene in the event that a parent is, for whatever reason, failing to care for their child adequately, and that the "right" (leaving aside arguments about the bourgeois nature of rights for a moment) of the child to be cared for properly should be the driving force behind any decisions made by such a body.
Of course it's generally better if a child can be cared for by their parents, but this is not universally true, look at the Baby P case for one very prominant example of why some people should not be allowed to care for children.