Obviously my perspective differs from yours, and I see an imbalance the other way, we cannot use taxpayers’ money to promote our views, nor can we take down websites we don’t like – as has happened in other jurisdictions and has been attempted here.

I certainly take your point that many new fathers need help to be fathers because they do not have the example of their own fathers to follow. I am concerned, however, that our society has reached a point where men have to be told that its ‘ok to be involved’. Can you imagine reaching a point where mothers need to be told that? On this point therefore I think you are wrong: a father being allowed to be a father is indeed now a freak show.

I understand why you see the site as slightly patronising, and to some extent I agree – but I think there are a lot of new and young dads out there who don’t necessarily have the confidence to be hands on dads because they don’t have experience of it from their own dads. And I value that this site tells them that its ok to be involved and helps them to do that – even though for you, your dad, my other half and lots of others it might all be a bit obvious or patronising.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with a site like this having government backing, but I’m not sure exactly what you are suggesting the implications of being ‘funded and run by government are’. If there is some secret government agenda behind it its a pretty benign one I think.

You suggest one of the roles of dadinfo may be to counter the claims of other more campaign based websites – perhaps, but from where I’m standing it adds a bit of balance to what is otherwise quite a skewed selection of resource available on the web. There is room on the web for each type of site.

Now to business. I can’t help but notice that there is a proliferation of websites now, patronisingly purporting to help dads and give them advice (funny how my father managed to change nappies – not disposable – without such help). There are really only two reasons for producing websites for fathers; the first is for the purpose of running a campaign for legal reform, and the second is to counter the claims made by such campaigns (while suggesting that fatherhood is something the state needs to monitor closely).

The first are run for their members, with funding from their members (unless you sell out, as some have done) and the second are run and funded by government (though they often cover their tracks well). I doubt very much that there is a third kind, run for purely altruistic reasons, and without funding other than by the owner.

Dadsinfo appears to be independent, but its content follows a familiar touchy-feely pattern (politically uncontroversial), and its owner, Duncan Fisher, was (is?) the chief executive of Fathers Direct (now the pretentiously named Fatherhood Institute) which is a government-run agency. Other contributors have a Fathers Direct background.

Just an observation.

Is that because he wears nappies?

(Read the post below, carefully)

Dr. P. Dant