The Rights Of Man

THERE ARE NO FECKLESS MOTHERS WHO DENY CHILDREN ACCESS TO THEIR FATHERS...

is there Rt. Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP?

And of course Cafcass, family law courts, judges, solicitors and those feminists who think men/fathers are superfluous.

That's what Duncan Smith seems to be saying here.

FAIRNESS IN FAMILIES INDEX - THE FATHERHOOD INSTITUTE'S REPORT IGNORES FAMILY CHOICE AND THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR FATHERS

The Fatherhood Institute is an organisation that is hard to pin down in terms of what it stands for and whether it's definition of equality on fathers and mothers is based on coercion or choice.

It does great things like attacking politicians who just slag off dads  because it is all their fault and to encourage government policy to include fathers (the current family law review is absolutely crucial) but then produces a report last week - the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI) - that seems to say that Britain is down the league table last week (18th of 21).

This would not necessarily be a problem but it is the basis that it makes such an issue that is troubling as would be the unintended consequences of even more efforts to allegedly 'even' up the playing field. This would lead to even more discrimination against men and fathers than we have already.

The ranking is based on ten factors including the number of men in the part-time workforce, % of women in senior positions, % of women in Parliament and the gender pay gap, the amount of time spent caring for a child per gender, amongst other things. Basically, the lower down the figure, the lower the fairness score.

The problems with this are many fold.

Firstly, it by effectively suggesting that fathers and mothers should not choose their domestic arrangements when they have children unless it fits with variables in the Fairness in Families Index.

The Institute is basically stating that if a couple decide that the man as part of the family unit should be the one (if they have to choose of course) to work longer hours, or be an MP, be in a senior position, to invest more of his time in building a career etc , whilst his wife/partner chooses to spend more time bringing up their children then this a bad and unequal thing. If it does not fit the Index criteria then it is a bad thing.

Part of the genetic make up of men and women is that many women when they have children want to spend time bringing them up in their early years at least (thereby reducing their work) while the man works full time and does all he can to ensure the household is financially OK. Of course, and rightly, it happens the other way around or that both men and women work equally as hard and bring up the children.

To the Fatherhood Institute, their interest is in stereotypes and not about individual household choice. The reason there are less women in Parliament is because less want to be politicians and also it makes no difference to how 'man-friendly' family policy is (We had 13 years of an anti-male Labour Government and this government is no better!). Just because there are less women in senior positions or there is a gender pay gap (the biggest myth ever perpetrated to undermine men is to suggest the gap is due to discrimination) does not men there is not fairness in families if the father and mother make a mature decision about it.

It is almost as if the Fatherhood Institutes's view of family fairness is about circumventing mature and rational decisions made by the father and mother. They rae saying they want more women in management positions because it is fairer to the family, but that may not be what mothers and fathers in each individual family want for their family unit.

The second issue is of course our old chestnut - equality in the UK means that some people are more equal than others as well as the unintended consequences of the changes to 'even' things up are for fathers.

It counts as a fairness negative that there are not enough women in Parliament, in senior positions and too many work part-time (has the Fatherhood Institute asked those mothers working part time if this is something they and their husbands/partners are happy about?).

So to change things more quickly than they are already would mean more positive discrimination to get more women into Parliament and into senior positions. This means positive discrimination/action (do not be fooled by those who believe that positive action is different to positive discrimination - the latter is the outcome of the former). This means more all-women shortlists and gender quotas. To get more women into part time roles does this mean not employing men in full time roles (and switching topart time) or stopping women from choosing to work part time? 

All these would help improve the position of the UK in the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI) but to ensure this happens would mean discriminating against fathers and their families because it would make it harder for a father to be a MP, or be in senior position or work full time. Is this what the Fatherhood Institute want?

And of course, is this in the best interest of the family, the children and the mother. Of course not, but according to the Fatherhood Institute's index it would be.

In summary, the Fairness in Families Index is a PR wheeze looking for a headline and to give some sort of credibility to the Fatherhood Institute. But actually its definition of what is fair and what the policy response would need to be to make it even more fairer would damage fathers and their families.

The Fatherhood Institute needs to think a lot deeper about what it does and what it stands for.

Posted by Skimmington 

   

WOULD THE RADMACHER JUDGEMENT HAVE BEEN THE SAME IF SHE HAD BEEN A MAN?

Divorce and family rights has been in the news this week with the move to compulsory mediation, however, it was strikingly the pre-nuptial agreement issue that brought the issue of gender discrimination to the fore in my mind.

This week the Supreme Court upheld that the prenuptial agreement between heiress Katrin Radmacher and her ex-husband Nicolas Granatino stood.

While Radmacher was being hailed as a feminist (see end of article) icon because it will benefit women, there was interesting commentary on Wednesday's Today Programme (07.51) from Andrew Newbury, who said that courts were less sympathetic towards men in a diovorce situation.

And you have to remember the John Cleese case which was clearly anti-male to get a gist of what he was saying. Baroness Deech set out the unfairness against men.

The issue that is concerning is the fact that whether the Supreme Court would have come to the same decision if it was a woman trying to tear up a pre-nuptial arrangement in the same situation.

In the Independent article it is highlighted that Lord Phillips of the Supreme Court said that pre-nuptials could be torn up, while Baroness Hale suggested that this law 'change' would be unfair against the poorly partner - 'invariably, but not always, a "she'". This is a get out clause being put forward by Philips.

I have grave doubts they would have come to the same conclusion therefore if the genders in this case had been reversed.

In addition, and this blog like so many others will be now on high alert for any hint of sexism in the application of pre-nuptial agreements. If a woman in the same situation as Granatino is treated more favourably than he was, then it will prove sexism is rife in the British Court system.

Posted by Skimmington

 

POSITIVE ABOUT FATHER'S RIGHTS IN THE NATIONAL MEDIA SHOCKER

A week or so ago, this site reported on the comments made by Justice Wall, and the Observer followed it up with this fascinating and fair overview. Father's rights being seen positively and being reported fairly!

This is also on the back of the Family Justice Review which says that 'fathers and grandparents regulary tell us they do not feel well served under the current system'. Well over three decades and at last Governement is starting to catch up.

The articles are here and here.

Posted by Skimmington

 

JUSTICE WALL AND WILL THERE BE JUSTICE IN THE FAMILY COURTS?

 A week or so ago, the site raised the issue that the sudden interest in the figure highlighting that 40% of victims of domestic abuse were male was a surprise because it had been a fact for sometime.

The same could be said this week about the Lord Justice Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division, who at last weekend's Families Need Fathers conferenne said in his very powerful and lucid speech that in family court proceedings:

"Far more often, the parties are fighting over again the battles of the relationship, and the children are both the battlefield and the ammunitiom. Often the mother, who finds herself caring for the children, is able to use her power over them to deny the father contact." (para 15).

He also went onto to say that "the more intelligent the parent, the more intractable the dispute." (para 33). Maybe it is the upper middle class women being fed the nonsense in this book the new middle class feminist bible all over the papers...

The speech also shed much light on the role of the courts, the lack of judicial continuity, shared parenting, human behaviour, the infamous payne vs payne case and the other problem that forces so many men back into court - the pathetic lack of enforcement of contact orders.

He said that the courts were not anti-men but I suppose he couldn't say otherwise, even though, CAFCASS clearly are (indociriated by the anti-male ideology) and many of the judges are. Why do Batman & Robin feel they have to get on the roof of Buckingham Place? 

After the Times covered the story, the coverage continued throughout the week and some of it enlightening about the attitudes of women.

In Harriet Sergeant's Daily Mail article about her divorce a female friend of hers said: 'Why aren't you using the children against him?' and then said 'I would'. Comments on the article are worth reading.

However, the issue is that this subject has been around for over 30 years and more, its why Families Needs Fathers was set up. The secrecy of the family courts has meant that some were forced to set groups like Fathers4Justice, Real Fathers4Justice and the like. Men have been driven to suicide and bankruptcy while others because of obstructive mothers and the supine courts that side with them have lost touch with their children (Mark Harris' seminal book is always worth sending to unbelievers).

Just like the issue on domestic violence, for some reason the issue is triggered when it has been fact for decades and fair play for Justice Wall for being lucid and speaking in such terms. The challenge is to keep the momentum going because with the Family Justice Review being undertaken and the Coalition's Government's pledge for shared parenting ther eis much to play for. A shared parenting bill has already been laid by some MP's.

Maybe, just maybe, this can move forward...

Posted by Skimmington

Media articles - Daily Mail (plus debate), Telegraph, Spectator (Melanie Phillips) and BBC

 

 

EQUAL TREATMENT BOOK - THE MOST ANTI-MALE ANTI-EQUALITY BOOK IN BRITISH JUDICIAL HISTORY?

The one thing those of us cling on to when fighting the battle against the war on men is that we are equal before the law.

Now we know that is not the case where all sorts of positive discrimination clauses kick in, the bias of CAFCASS and magistrates and judges of fathers in the family courts and how male victims of domestic abuse are still treated poorly. However, it is still something to cling on to.

Sometimes, the game is up and there is no escape from the unbridled anti-male society we live and this now goes right to the heart of the British Justice system.

As revealed by the Daily Mail (also read comments), the English and Welsh judiciary have produced guidance that discirmates against men. The guidance laughably called the Equal Treatment Bench Book sets out how judges should deal with those that come before them. It says:

 "Its aim is to inform, assist and guide, to generate thought and discussion and, ultimately, to enable all judges to deal confidently, sensitively and fairly with all those who appear before them."

It was published in April 2010 before the new Coalition Government took over. It has the fingerprints of Harman, Baird and Flint stamped all over it.

The section on gender equality is unbelievably biased, it is almost as though men do not exist and where they do, they are so superior to women that only women need support and men do not. In all my years beavering away in this area, there has never been a more nasty, one-sided, anti-male document produced by any part of the state than this.

There is no mention of the problems that boys have with education, suicide, unemployment, teh denial of equal/shared parenting etc. It is the most classic example of anti-male bias by omission.

It does not explicitly say that men should not be treated as second class citizens, but by hardly including men anywhere in the document and calling for special treatment for women, then by definition it is anti-male. Anti-male by omission.  

On the issue of sentencing (6-11 to 6-13)  it makes clear that women should be given special treatment and that judges should bear in mind the problems that female prisoners have. That's fine, but no mention of male prisoners. Women can be shown leniency because of the factors that affect them, but men cannot.

ON the issue of domestic abuse (6.1.7), men are relegated to a footnote - second class victims as the ManKind Initiative said in the Daily Mail. They laughable anti-male authors of this report even use one-sided statistics from End Violence Against Women when they do not even use the British Crime Survey figures produced from the Home Office (see ManKind document), another part of Government. They know no shame.

If men cannot now rely on equal justice, equal treatment and equal recognition from the judiciary then there is no hope for equality for men at all. This is the most anti-male biased document probably ever. 

Posted by Skimmington

NSPCC ADVERT "EMILY'S CALL" BETRAYS FATHERS, GIRLS AND THEIR OWN CHILDLINE FACTS

Before reading further, please watch this new NSPCC advert (courtesy of You tube) called Emily's Call and produced by RAPP.

A common theme in the gender and sexual discrimination that men face in the UK is the stereotyping they face in the media and especially in marketing and advertising (Pink and MFI and explained in a cracking Daily Mail column).

Not just in the "men are stupid, throw rocks at them" type of way but in the way that myths are perpetuated and become the accepted truth (if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth) even if the facts are different.

So what is wrong with the NSPCC advert?

Simple.

Last year the NSPCC published research (covered on the site a year ago) that showed that girls who had rung its Childline had said they were more likely to be a victim of physical abuse from their mothers than their fathers. In fact, girls said that 37% of perpetrators were mothers and 25% fathers.

Or another way, for every five calls from girls about physical abuse, three said they had been physically abused by their mother and two by their father.

The report  said (page 10) "it can therefore be concluded that the children who call the Childline are most commonly phycially abused by a parent of the same gender."

To repeat, the NSPCC's own figures show that a girl is more likely to be physically abused by her mother than by her father.

But does the advert leave you with that impression? Of course not.

If the NSPCC advert was to more accurately portray a typical telephone call from a physically abused girl called Emily or portray the more likely scenario, the advert would be based on a call saying it was her mother that was hitting her.

But that wouldn't tug on the emotional heart strings as the NSPCC campaign wants to create maximum stress so it can raise more money. It would also go against the stereotypes and myths that society has about men and fathers and it is easier and less controversial (even if factually inaccurate) for the NSPCC to play along with that rather than worry about its own facts and experience (the NSPCC were probably worried about the Fawcett Society ranting to them as well).

The NSPCC is not concerned about wrongly portraying fathers, demonising men and reinforcing a stereotype/myth that its own figures have shown to be wrong. It is not interested in the truth.

In the war against men and the need to raise money, who cares about running hypocritical, misleading advertising campaigns. The NSPCC hypocrites certainly don't. It lets the poor girls who call down as well as it misleads people into thinking that fathers are more likely to commit physical abuse on them when its wrong.

Complaints about the advertisement should be made to the Advertising Standards Authority as the advert is misleading.

We look forward to them running a reciprocal though equally factually wrong advert called "Edward's call" about a boy being physically abused by his mother.Thought not.

Posted by Skimmington

THE RECLAMATION OF FATHER'S DAY FROM THE CLUTCHES OF THE ANTI-MALE FEMINISTS CONTINUES

Whether it is just me or that my eyes are slightly more open these days, but this year's Father's Day has continued the trend from last year and seen an upsurge in sentimentality and positivity about fathers and the role they play in our lives. And of course for any fathers out there, the role we play.

Certainly the media have moved a long way from publishing drivel from people like Gail Hornby (link) and the only nonsense I saw this weekend was unsurprisingly from Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian.

It does not seem to have been covered in any meaningful way in the UK as Father's Day is meant to be 100 years old today, having been started in Washington by Sonora Dodd in 1910. There's no problem of course with this understatement as most father's and men in general would not want fuss. If it was a female-related anniversary there would be marches, bra-burning ceremonies and all sorts organised by the Fawcett Society!

Fathers have become acceptable again despite the anti-male propaganda peddled by Harman, McTaggart, Flint, the Fawcett Society,, the Commission of Equalities and Human Rights and other members of our laughable metropolitan elite.

There have been articles all this week in the media (see end) and the BBC are running a series this week on Fatherhood (a great blogpost from the controller of BBC is here). Also there just is more in the shops, more special gift sets and features, noticeably more people out with their families and just more positivity about it.

It has been at the end of a  significant week for the family when the new Coalition Government announced it was forming a Childhood and Families Taskforce to be chaired by the Prime Minister (see Nick Clegg's speech here).

In the hands of the man-haters of the last Government and organisations such as the Fawcett Society who view the role of a man in a family as an inconvenience, this would be worrying. However, the Coalition Government as set out in their coalition document have said they believe in shared parenting, that grandparents have a role and that they want a fundamental review of family law (Cafcass will be shaking in their boots).

With both Father's Day and the announcement made on family law, the reclamation of Father's Day and the role of fathers for families up and down our country has started to be happen. No longer is the word Father, a dirty word.

Skimmington

Media: BBC on the Church, Daily Star,  Daily Mirror, Telegraph 1, Telegraph 2, The Herald, Telegraph 3

COALITION GOVERNMENT - WHAT IT MEANS FOR MALE EQUALITY AND THE ENDING OF MALE DISCRIMINATION

Just before polling day on 6th May, this site concluded that the Liberal Democrats had the most man-friendly policies and now they are in a coalition with the Conservatives, their influence can be seen as there is much that is man-friendly in the Coalition Government's plans which were agreed after their negotiations.

In fact, and it seemed to have been hidden away as it received no publicity, the Liberal Democrats had actually produced a short manifesto for men during the election campaign. Nick Clegg said "Men are often a forgotten group in political debates."

While there are many good things in the Coalition Governments plans, there are also some areas of great concern especially on pensions and the fact that there remains a Minister for Women but not one for men.

The good things

(1) Anonymity for rape defendants (unless proven guilty).

John has covered the opposition to this in his last post and it has also been well covered in the media as anti-male organisations such as the Fawcett Society stir up their hatred of men.

This issue is totemic because it is clear that the Coalition Government are aware of the inequality in British Law where the defendant is named and the victim (rightly) is not. The law may not have been changed though if it was not for the epidemic of false accusations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6   and 7 plus more here). It is those women who are to blame for this and it is those women who should be attacked by The Fawcett Society, the Women Against Rape Group and those who signed the Early Day Motion.

The Coalition Government must hold its nerve against the onslaught from the anti-male marxist feminists who don't believe in equality, justice and do not care about those innocent men who have had their names and reputations dragged through the mud.

This though is ground-breaking.

(2) Anonymity to teachers accused by pupils and take other measures to protect against false accusations.

This is another area similar to the rape issue and again, because the false allegations are normally against men, this is hugely significant and to be supported. It is also backed crucially by a whole swathe of organisations including the teaching unions.

There is a case though for it to be extended to those in the medical professions as doctors (and indeed dentists as shown in this case) are also at great risk of false allegations.

(3) A comprehensive review of family law in order to increase the use of mediation when couples do break up, and to look at how best to provide greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents and encourage shared parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy – including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave.

This is hugely significant because probably the biggest and long-standing injustice against men to have been used in the past two decades or so has been the deliberate denial of access to their children by  (some) mothers and the legal establishment (many family court judges) and of course Cafcass who have all acted in cahoots. It's why we ended up with Fathers4Justice and Families Need Fathers who have supported estranged fathers up and down the UK.

The review is greatly needed and should not only enshrine the concept of shared parenting when and if custody disputes come to court but also that there is actual enforcement of contact orders. Families Need Fathers are very supportive.

The not-so-good things

(1) Minster for Women but no Minister for Men

When Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 he introduced the extremely invidious position of a Minister for Women without having a reciprocal Minister for Men. It meant that for every single day that that Government was in place it discriminated against men.

Sadly, the Coalition Government has gone down the same path and as well as being Home Secretary, Theresa May is also the Minister for Women. There is no Minister for Men.

(2) Discrimination over Pension Age

Currently legislation shows that the state pension ages for men and women will be equalised in 2020 at 65 and then gradually increase together over time including both rising to 66 in 2026 (Covered by John here).

The Conservatives when in Opposition proposed that the state pension age should be moved forward to 66 for men with no change for women except for that planned (move from 60 to 65 for women in 2020 and then to 66 in 2026). The Conservatives were questioned on this at the time and it was clear that they had forgotten to think about women (it was Ok for men to see if their retirement age of 66 brought before by ten years - men are expendable of course).

The details in the proposed Pension and Savings Bill are still sketchy (until it is published) but the Government has said that the first move, to 66, "will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women", which obviously shows some backtracking.

After the battle led by organisation like Parity for the equalisation of pension ages and other benefits, if the state pension ages are not equalised by 2020 then this will be certainly be discriminatory. How the detail will be worked out before then will also be significant. We will be watching.

(3) Gender equality in the boardroom

The Coalition Government has said they will promote more gender equality in the boardroom. Much will depends on how this is done.

The anti-male feminist wants quotas and to use discrimination to stop men from getting into the boardroom by ensuring that places are set aside for women, irrelevant if they are the best candidate for the job.

If a Labour Government had become re-elected then this would have eventually been legislated for as it is in Norway and elsewhere (link). How the Coalition Government go about this will be crucial but even by promoting it, it will put companies under 'social' pressure to do so.

There has been some talk also that the Coalition Government will not implement the parts of the Equality Act that it disagreed with. These were on the gender pay audits for all firms with over 250 employees and also the (laughably named) ' positive action' clauses that allowed employers to discriminate against employees or potential employees (mainly men) when it came to recruitment. Let us hope they do not implement these parts.

(4) The Missing Pieces

There were a number of issues that were missing but if they can brave it out against the anti-male feminist on the false accusations issue, then perhaps they will introduce them later.

This includes issues around support men's health (especially ensuring GP surgeries have man friendly opening hours) and boys education for example.

Conclusion

While there will be dismay that there is not more for bringing about male equality and ending male discrimination in the UK, the moves on false accusations and shared parenting are real landmarks. Certainly if a Labour Government had been re-elected men would have been done for and certainly none of these proposals would have been put forward.

This site will be monitoring and commenting on the Coalition Government as it trundles along but so far it is good start, but it could and can do better. 

Posted by Skimmington

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS PROMISE SHARED PARENTING

It's been good to see so much interest in our articles on the party manifestos and I'm pleased we're even reaching an international audience. Today it's the turn of the Liberal Democrats to have their plans scrutinised.

Whilst the party''s views on education seem somewhat average, they at least recognise that schools are failing if not the fact that they're failing boys far more than anyone else. The proposals on healthcare are marginally better, for example noting that "people often struggle to get convenient access to GP services" though the only genuinely progressive solution from an equality perspective is to allow people to access their GP via email which is something I imagine would particularly appeal to men.

It's not until one reads the section on families that we get to see the most positive and genuinely progressive polices the Lib Dems have to offer. Most significantly there's a commitment to "introduce a Default Contact Arrangement which would divide the child’s time between their two parents in the event of family breakdown" No other party even mentions shared parenting in their manifestos so the Lib Dems are way ahead here.

The party's commitment to fathers is then reinforced by a proposal to "allow parents to share the allocation of maternity and paternity leave between them in whatever way suits them best", with the party actually noting how the current system give fathers two weeks off and whilst the mother get the whole year! There are also smaller commitments to fathers too such as giving them "the right to time off for ante-natal appointments.". Significantly, there's a clear acknowledgement that children are vicitms of family breakdown, although they don't actually list any of the actual consequences. Additionally, there's a recognition the importance of the wider family, such a the role played by a child's grandparents. Of course there are still big gaps, but the party really give the impression they've actually got an understanding of this issue and solutions to offer.

The Lib Dems have always had a strong commitment to civil liberties and their proposals in this area are reasonably positive. Unfortunately there's absolutely no mention of the issue of false allegations but they do at least match the Conservative promise to remove innocent people from the DNA database. Given the issue of false allegations and female sentencing discount, it's obvious the beneficiaries of such a policy will predominantly be men.

The final positive in the manifesto is the recognition that we need more men working in childcare, although disappointingly there's no clues as to how this will be achieved.  The document simply states that "they will support efforts by childcare providers to encourage more men to work in this hugely important and undervalued profession". That's a completely meaningless statement, and you'll never tackle the problem without first addressing wider issues in society such as the threat of false allegations not to mention the "all men are paedophiles" culture nurtured by the Labour Party. Despite such failings, by merely acknowledging this issue Lib Dems are actually ahead of every single party we've reviewed so far which is a quite damming indictment of those organisations.

Regrettably there are several downsides to the Lib Dem manifesto, though nothing too severe. There's the mandatory nonsense on the gender pay gap with the party noting how "women are still paid less than men" without noting the main reasons for this, the most obvious being the fact they spend significantly less time at work! The party claims that "no tax system should try to create total equality of income", yet you do worry there may be elements within the party more concerned with exactly that rather than actual equality of opportunity.

The section on science also has a gendered component, with the party promising to "tackle the gender gap at all levels of scientific study and research to help increase the supply of scientists." I don't deny that there might be a small amount of discrimination against women in certain sciences, but at the same time most women just aren't interested in the field or simply don't have the ability. If your sole objective here is to have more scientists, then you'd be far better off stopping the entire eduction system discriminating against boys, thus meaning the biggest pool of potential scientists dropped out long before even considering higher education.

Other than missing several key issues, such as men's health, false allegations and the gender education gap, perhaps the key flaw in the Lib Dem manifesto isn't any actual policy, but instead the wording and emphasis of some components. For example they state that "When a baby is born, the mother gets a year’s leave and the father gets just two weeks, meaning the mother has to take the lion’s share of the responsibility, even if their partner would rather share things more equally." The phrasing of this sentence tries to suggest that women are somehow the main vicitms of what is clear discrimination against men. The emphasis is totally wrong here, and the key consequences aren't so much the impacts on the mother, but the way the law forces fathers out of a child's life right from the moment they are born. Similarly, aspects such as the the excellent proposal on shared parenting really are far too hidden away in the document rather than a key component, with summarised versions of the manifesto ignoring them completely! One has to wonder why the Liberal Democrats don't make more of the fact they're the only party with such an incredibly progressive and important policy. It's quite strange to see how the campaign has given more emphasis on trivial topics such as the airbrushing of magazine images.

The trend of unfortunate phrasing continues in the proposals on shared parenting with the party adding caveat of "if there is no threat to the safety of the child." I'm not arguing for contact for abusive parents, but the fact is children shouldn't be in contact with abusive adults regardless of their particular marital status. Child abuse and parental separation are completely different issues, it's a bit like saying "we need more male teachers as long as they're not murders or rapists". Further still, the policy isn't actually a commitment to equal parenting and there's no specific mention of who the time is going to be divided. most children have their time divided between two parents, usually at a 20:1 ratio in favour of the mother!

There's also a tendency for the party to pick an choose, for example they correctly note how science education seems to be failing women, yet they choose to pretend the gender education gap doesn't exist.

In conclusion, although the emphasis of Lib Dem manifesto is wrong at times and at times slightly misguided, you really don't detect any of the same nastiness as with say Labour, none of the stupidity of the Conservatives, nor the disgraceful dishonesty of the Green Party. The document contains excellent commitments to shared parenting, fully shared parental leave, promises to remove innocent people form the DNA database and even hints at an awareness of the lack of men involved in childcare (though alas not in education). For the most part, the party does genuinely seem concerned with fairness and even the more dubious parts of the document, such as a focus on the gender pay gap don't actually propose any particularly harmful, or discriminatory actions.

There are obvious concerns such as completely ignoring key issues and they clearly lack answers in some areas. Similarly, shared parenting laws can still be rendered useless through false allegations, so that would be a concern too. Ultimately though, they do appear to understand family breakdown and the Lib Dems are perhaps the only party remotely worthy of any support at the election from an equality perspective. That really doesn't reflect well on the state of our democracy and it would be nice to actually have some sort of choice next time around.

John Kimble