"It seems that parliaments around Australia, both at a federal and state level are hell bent to legalise fatherlessness. There was a vote yesterday in the Lower House of the New South Wales Parliament to support Clover Moore’s homosexual adoption bill. This bill was, by default, an active promotion of fatherlessness and is bad policy for our children and a bad example to Australia. It is treating children as goods and chattels. It is all about adults rights and has absolutely nothing to do with children’s rights."

I need the author to explain this premise, because it makes no sense. How does a bill that permits same sex adoption actively promote fatherlessness?

I agree with the author that a good dad in a child's life is a wonderful thing. But is he claiming that gay men can't be good dads? And if so, on what does he base that claim?

Or is he interpreting "homosexual" to mean exclusively "lesbian?"

Given that child abuse overwhelming occurs in heterosexual family arrangements, (indigenous and non-indigenous) which are the dominant arrangements thus far in our society, perhaps it is time we gave other arrangements an opportunity to see if they can do better?

Abusing children is using them and denying them their rights. If this is a core concern for the author, perhaps he should focus on it, instead of making wild allegations about the bill as a promotion and legalisation of fatherlessness.

And since when has being fatherless been "illegal?"

Being fatherless myself, I'd really like that bit cleared up.

@Briar Rose - I think you missed (perhaps deliberately) this line: "yet disturbingly the Bill before the NSW parliament seeks to ensure that children can be raised motherless or fatherless"

I think the author's point was that by being adopted into a same-sex household children are guaranteed to be missing out on either a mother or father. I'm not sure if I agree with the overall argument of the article either but we should at least be fair and intelligent in arguing against it.

Some of the statistics sighted I'm sure would be affected by the fact that many people who grow up in fatherless environments also grow up in environments where many other negative factors affecting development exist. I have no doubt that a loving and involved father is better than one who is the opposite or not present at all. The statistics and argument for me though don't really convince that it's not possible to provide a loving and healthy environment that is something other than one father and one mother.

Children are already fostered into same sex households - allowing them to be adopted gives the adoptive parents and the children security, and the same rights as children adopted into heterosexual households.

If the author is against same sex adoption, he must surely be against same sex fostering?

I don't understand why he doesn't address this as I would expect it to be a problem for him, given his position. Doesn't he care if children fostered by same sex parents stay in an indefinite legal limbo? Or does he think they should all be taken away, and sent back to group homes until a heterosexual couple want them?

The premise underlying all arguments such as Mr Marsh's is the received wisdom that heterosexuals provide the best environment in which to raise children. We know heterosexuals can and too frequently do provide an appalling environment - but to suggest that the cause of this failure is their heterosexuality is ludicrous

...yet apparently it's all right to argue that anything that might go wrong in a same sex household is caused because the household is same sex.

Call me a romantic, but I believe love occurs and flourishes in very many environments, and I've seen this happen.

I'm very interested in the pathology of people who insist they know that this cannot be so, and are driven to impose their reductionist thinking on the rest of us.

Keep your own heart closed to other possibilities, that's your right in this democracy. But you don't have the right to insist that everybody else must close theirs.

I agree with briar rose. While of course fathers are important, Warwick Marsh seems to be arguing that homosexual fathers aren't as important as heterosexual fathers without actually establishing why.

As a father and grandfather, I love my kids and grandkids to bits and ensure that I'm there for them as much as is humanly possible. But my sexuality has nothing to do with it - I'm quite sure I'd feel exactly the same if I happened to be homosexual. Hey, if I was, my kids could have two 'fathers'!

What I think is far more important than simple biological paternity (or maternity for that matter) is that children have loving, responsible parents of whatever gender or sexuality who can provide for them emotionally and materially.

Fathers are certainly important, but there's no logical connection between that fact and gay adoption, despite Marsh's attempts to link them.

My children were bought up in a household where mum and dad were married. They lived in hell and they still wear the scars into middle age. Up to the late 70, it was considered in the best interest of the child to take children off single mums. It was OK to leave the children with widows and deserted mothers as long as they went out to work. The truth is that as long as children are in a happy home with people who love them and meet their needs, they will be OK. Role models can be found in the extended families, among friends and within their social life. No child is reared in isolation.

Question for Warwick.

What do you suggest should be done to heterosexual fathers whose children turn out to be gay?

Judging from your low opinion of gays, and presumably lesbians, straight parents who raise homosexual children should be held accountable shouldn't they? That's where it all starts, straights bringing gays into the world, how you gonna deal with that?

Hmmmm?

Ha ha, that's wonderful, Johnny Rotten! Really love that question.

Come on, Warwick and supporters. Answer it, if you've got the courage.

All these "I was brought up in this or that sort of household" arguments are really beside the point. What we are doing here is setting legislation. Legislation should be aimed at creating the best possible realisable framework. There is study after study showing that the best situation for children is biological mum and biological dad, then next best thing a mum & a dad. This is what we should be aiming for. Single parenting is difficult, and undeniably not the best for children - gay relationships are shown (repeatedly and undeniably) to be plagued by short term relationships, and particularly in the case of homosexual men, there can be a parade of (questionable) partners throughout a house and this has led to a significantly higher instance of child abuse in such situations (though the mainstream media doesn't print it). Now we all know that the greatest abusers of children are known to the child (relatives, friends of relatives) and hetero or homosexual situation both have shocking situations to their account, but why would we want to increase the chances (namely, gay men) of child abuse.

he No.1 criteria (and really, the only criteria) for legislation for parenting children should be what's best for children. It's not as if there is a dearth of people wanting to adopt children - this is not solving a need, just selfish ambition for gays. Yes there are a few people out there that would like to adopt their children who are gays whom have fostered children, but why create a law just for this minority group when the potential downside for so many children can be huge.

Disclaimer: there are studies promoted by the LGBT community & funded by gay organisations, which promote lesbian parenting but the studies are significantly in the minority and dubious at best in their objectivity.

Fatherlessness is a real issue. Biological parents is the key and we should be spending less time on creating unreal situations for children and more time and money helping biological parents fulfil their duties toward their children.

gpenglase, No you are missing the point. Just because a man and woman are married does not neccessary make them good parents. Back in the dark ages when children of an unmarried mother was called a bastard. It was community prejudice that cause the trouble, not the the single mother. Today it is the same commmunity attitudes that cause the problem, not the type of family a child lives in. What is important is that the child is with people who love and cherish it.

Warwick Marsh is to be congratulated for sharing the real lived experiences of men who expressed their feelings of desertion and pain in being left alone, being fatherless. The men are still profoundly affected and wounded in adulthood in recounting their childhood without their dads being present and available to them.
Fact: The same-sex adoption bill passed by the NSW lower house of parliament would enshrine fatherlessness into law. The main same-sex adoption argument promoted by independent MP Clover Moore was that social good would come from allowing re-partnered parents to have their same-sex partner's parenting role recognised in law. However the adoption bill is not so narrowly selective. It actually allows any same sex couple to adopt potentially any child. This means that the bill, should it become law next week, would allow children to be raised in same-sex homes without either a mother or a father being present for their balanced socialisation and development. This law would not preference the mum-dad model of parenting; in fact it effaces the traditional model.
Well meaning persons in charge of adoption agencies who intrinsically know the truth that children’s best interest is to have a mother and father, would not be able to discriminate positively to ensure children are placed in homes with their adoptive mum and dad. Most parents know implicitly from every day experience that the masculine and feminine bring uniquely different and rich benefits to their children's development.
The NSW adoption Bill harms the meaning of marriage and the two parent family model comprised of a mother and father. It allows children to be raised in a fatherless home and even a motherless home too. All the Labor and opposition MPs who voted in favour of this should reflect deeply about what they have done in law to erode protection of children and protection of the natural family. The NSW upper house should bring the Bill to a grinding halt and uphold children’s inalienable right to a mother and a father.

"Legislation should be aimed at creating the best possible realisable framework. " That meets the needs of the child, not the prejudices fo the leglistators and community.

We've established that heterosexual couples are the primary cause of gay children.

I take silence as agreement.

The next issue is that of straight adoptive parents - I understand from Warwick's article and the comments of other posters that biological parents, particularly biological fathers are the best hope for any child. Apparently being a biological father immediately confers the attributes of a saint bringing happy children into the world who may or may not be heterosexual - having already established that homosexuals are the progeny of straight couples.

Perhaps the best solution is to hasten the research and development into the artificial womb where real men can place their sperm with eggs taken only from good women, thus ensuring paternity and total responsibility for the raising of children. This will probably reduce the number of gays born because we all know that 'defects' are the fault of biological mothers, after all no red-blooded man produces gay kids. Do they?

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss such important and vexing issues, perhaps now we can move onto providing housing, food and education for the children of third world countries, I hear Pakistan is having a really bad time of it.

gpenglas -
Your argument that refusing gays the right to adopt will reduce the level of child abuse takes as its premise that gay men are the primary perpetrators of child sexual abuse.

Child abuse statistics will demonstrate to you that this is not the case, and that children are predominantly sexually abused in heterosexual environments.

There are plenty of women with children who have many boyfriends passing through their homes, often to the detriment of their children. Short lived relationships are not specific to gay men.

Apart from all that, there are many children who do not know or do not have either or both biological parents, for all kinds of reasons. Are you willing to tell them that because they've been so careless as to lose one or both biological parent, they don't have and can't have rights like other children have?

Are you willing to tell children currently fostered by gay couples, or the biological child of one member of a gay relationship, that they can't have any legal rights like all other children, because they aren't with both their biological parents and the people who love them and nurture them are the same sex?

Because if you are not prepared to do that, if you are not prepared to face these children and tell them these things, then maybe you should just walk away and let these children have the love and legal rights they deserve as much as anyone else.

Fathers are optional. Freedom. Eventually the state will make mothers optional too. Buy some ear plugs because the shrill will be deafening when that happens. Or change the channel and crack another brew.

Johnny Rotten <"This will probably reduce the number of gays born because we all know that 'defects' are the fault of biological mothers, after all no red-blooded man produces gay kids. Do they?"

Lol Mr. Rotten! The Sex Pistols would be proud of you!

Those words bring to mind my best friend who married a very religious man who enjoyed making gay jokes for years.
They eventually had a son, for whom I am Godmother.

This beautiful boy was quite effeminate in manner, from a very early age. He far preferred the company of girls throughout his schooling, and had problems making friends with boys.

Recently he 'came out' to his parents, admitting he was gay.
His mother was sad at the difficult life she saw ahead for him, but accepted and loved him as before.

His father was profoundly shocked and will not discuss it with his son.
His father doesn't tell gay jokes anymore though.

Briar Rose gives the usual dogmas to support her position

'Child abuse statistics will demonstrate to you that this is not the case, and that children are predominantly sexually abused in heterosexual environments. '

Next she will have us believe that most Priests who have molested boys are heterosexual. Obviously more children are abused in heterosexual relationships because of the overwhelming number of normal relationships. As for the rate of abuse I doubt whether you will get much truth from those who want to deny kids the rights to a mum and dad.

Runner you write: "Obviously more children are abused in heterosexual relationships because of the overwhelming number of normal relationships."

So heterosexual relationships in which children are sexually abused are "normal" relationships?

Normal for who, Runner? Not the kids, that's for sure. Not the adults either if they need to sexually abuse the kids to get their gratifications.

As for the priests, they sexually abuse male and female children.

You don't find a whole lot of heterosexual child abusers admitting to it, either, or do you think that because they're hetero they're more honest about how they sexually abuse children?

This topic manages to be offensive to both gays, lesbians AND adoptive heterosexual people.

"Biological fathers" are best? Only ones who are compassionate, tolerant, open, fair-minded, loving, giving, supportive and loving, I know I already said 'loving', but there is clearly a dearth of it here in Warwick Marsh's tiny little world.

Sexual orientation does not dictate how decent and caring a person is, however holding dogmatic religious beliefs clearly does place limits on compassion and acceptance.

What a vile topic!

Quite right Severin. If Marsh's 'Dads4Kids' wasn't just a thinly disguised front for fundamentalist Christian godbothering, Warwick would be advocating for the rights of gay dads as well as straight dads.

Welcome back :)

Happy Father's Day to all of the fathers out there. May this day be very happy and memorable for you.

Father by Ella Wheeler Wilcox
He never made a fortune, or a noise
In the world where men are seeking after fame;
But he had a healthy brood of girls and boys
Who loved the very ground on which he trod.
They thought him just little short of God;
Oh you should have heard the way they said his name –
‘Father.’

There seemed to be a loving little prayer
In their voices, even when they called him ‘Dad.’
Though the man was never heard of anywhere,
As a hero, yet somehow understood
He was doing well his part and making good;
And you knew it, by the way his children had
Of saying ‘Father.’

He gave them neither eminence nor wealth,
But he gave them blood untainted with a vice,
And opulence of undiluted health.
He was honest, and unpurchable and kind;
He was clean in heart, and body, and in mind.
So he made them heirs to riches without price –
This father.

He never preached or scolded; and the rod –
Well, he used it as a turning pole in play.
But he showed the tender sympathy of God.
To his children in their troubles, and their joys.
He was always chum and comrade with his boys,
And his daughters – oh, you ought to hear them say
‘Father.’

Now I think of all achievements ‘tis the least
To perpetuate the species; it is done
By the insect and the serpent, and the beast.
But the man who keeps his body, and his thought,
Worth bestowing on an offspring love-begot,
Then the highest earthly glory he was won,
When in pride a grown-up daughter or a son
Says ‘That’s Father.’

C J Morgan,
You seem to be very ready with name-calling and abuse of others. Must be something you picked up while lecturing.

Would you like to nominate an academic from an Australian university who has written one good thing about fathers. There are a lot of academics, so it shouldn't be too difficult, although I haven't actually seen anything written by an academic in an Australian university that does say one good thing about fathers.

Cornflower,
Thanks, and I think many other fathers would appreciate your kind words.

'Sexual orientation does not dictate how decent and caring a person is, however holding dogmatic religious beliefs clearly does place limits on compassion and acceptance.'

No doubt men and woman that have left normal relations to join a perverted lifestyle are just as loving and caring for those who change common decency to suit their dogma.

Happy Fathers day to all dads out there...
no matter what their sexual orientation.

We all love our children.

Cheers, Suze.

Warwick
Don't you love the use of statistics without all the other factors being known. Or what are the statistics of these social problems from children who came from motherless homes. How important is income or education on these statistics.

Most children don't come from fatherless homes there is usually a father somewhere in a shared custody arrangement. If the father has run off this is not the fault of a single mother. It is very hard to raise a child on your own and what we should be asking is how can we better support men or women who are raising children without the support of a partner?

It is not the fact that the child is from a fatherless home but from a poor home in many cases. It would be interesting to see the statistics of drug use or incarceration rates from middle and upper class single parent homes.

The lack of either parent is very difficult particularly in low income families.

Suxanonline,

Thanks,

However, how can someone be a homosexual father?

Also, what do you think about hm2's comment, about mothers becoming optional as well as fathers.

I can remember reading about attempts to produce an ovum cell artificially outside of an ovary.

<< Happy Father's Day to all of the fathers out there. May this day be very happy and memorable for you. >>

Thanks Cornflower.

I actually had an early 'Fathers Day' with my younger kids last weekend in Brisbane, which was lovely. Phone calls and Facebook messages today, and a Fathers Day barbecue put on by the local fishing club at the pub - I'm the treasurer. Food, drink, kids, dads, mums, grandparents, mates and the odd blow-in. Lovely day, except for the weather.

vanna, you really need to gain access to a university library. The answers to your questions are there, if you really want to know.

Vanka, there are many homosexual fathers out there.
They have sperm, just the same as other men.

Some homosexual men deny their true feelings and marry, and/or have children with women, before deciding to leave and live their life as they were born to.

Are you suggesting that once they leave the mother of their children, that they should no longer be a father to their children?
Wouldn't that be cruel to the kids?
Should we say the same to heterosexual fathers who leave the wife?

There are also many gay men who father children after being asked to do so by gay women or other women. Apparently most of them make wonderful, loving fathers.

Who are you to say who should or shouldn't be fathers?

CJ Morgan <"vanna, you really need to gain access to a university library. The answers to your questions are there, if you really want to know."

Lol CJ, you are naughty!
But please, don't encourage Vanna with the old university lecturer questions again!

Happy Fathers Day to you.

Cheers,
Suze.

C J Morgan,

You wanted the author to say something good about homosexual fathers's, but previously (on another forum) you couldn't find an academic from an Australian university who has published an article that said something good about the male gender.

Now you say that university libraries do have books that say something good about fathers (but you don't give the author names)

Basically, I don't believe you.

Suzanonline,
So it all comes down to sperm.

Sorry to upset your simplistic view of the world, but sperm may become redundant in the future, as well as ova.

Given this scenario, what would then make a mother or a father, or would they also be redundant in the brave new world.

Oh Vanna, you worry too much.

I wouldn't worry about the future of sperm or ova research.
Most of that technology will be used to help infertile couples have their own children, which is a good outcome of university research.

The old-fashioned ways of making babies are not under too much threat of becoming redundant anytime soon- given that there is pleasure involved in the act as well!

Suzanonline,
Just a type of footnote if you don't understand what I am on about, but it has to do with human cloning.

The advocates of homosexual adoption will often say that a child does not need a father.

With human cloning, a mother is not necessary also, and human cloning is not that far away.

Johnny Rotton,

'We've established that heterosexual couples are the primary cause of gay children.'

Hahhahahahah

Take the silence as astonishment!

Commonsense tells me that only heterosexual couples can produce naturally genealogical shared children and that heterosexual couples are also the ONLY cause of heterosexual children.

And unless you think being gay is odd you'd never have uttered your stupid and bigoted laden statement in the first place.

doh!

New technologies are producing artificial intelligence with an extraordinary development of including emotions.

Reproduction and parenting may quite definitely become obsolute.

I celebrate fathers day every day. It is truely a joy I share with at least one of my adult children everytime one of them contacts me or me them ... and that, unless something extraordinary happens, is currently daily.

I think the sad sacks here should try that for a truely unlimiting life experience.

Oh and I'm also h....sexual and focused only on my relationships with my kids and not on my own sexuality ...

Severin, you are right about the article being on a vile topic, and insulting to just about everyone except biologically intact fundamentalist heterosexual christian families.

Anyone who's gay, or has gay friends and relatives they love, must be appalled at this article, and the article on same sex adoption, and some of the responses to both in the forums.

Not to mention people who, not through any choice but of necessity, have to bring up their children by themselves, such as my good friend whose wife just died and now he's the single parent of three daughters.

Not to mention either, the children whose lifestyles, over which they have no control, are being so roundly condemned and marginalised by Marsh and the other bloke because they don't fit their paradigms.

But we live in a democracy, and free speech is one of our privileges.

OLO is a unique arena in which all viewpoints seem to get an airing. This is something to be proud of, even though the viewpoints can sometimes be alarming.

I always thought love was supposed to be inclusive. That love doesn't say: You can't have this because you don't fit the paradigm. That maybe love says, of course you can have it and we'll change the paradigm.

A very happy fathers day to all you dads and granddads, straight, gay, transgender, or just past it.

Keith, I'm pretty sure Johnny Rotten was being ironic.
I can't see anything offensive in his posts.

I really, really hope reproduction and parenting doesn't become obsolete, because then we won't be humans anymore, and that will be sad.

When an Aboriginal Elder says:

“Children need a mum and dad. Aboriginal culture is built around the family. Indigenous culture would never endorse such injustice because within our culture children are greatly loved and appreciated. This law is likely to create another stolen generation and this is simply unacceptable. Fatherlessness brings a curse to our children.”

He speaks for most of humanity. To go against this natural law and situation is to spit in the face of all of us. Specially those who have a very long tribal history where these traditions cannot be blamed on "white fella's"

So...those of you who think you can tweak society and muck around with such a precious thing as family in the true sense of the word "Mum, Dad and if they are able..kids" you spit in our faces, you trample our values, and you hurl mud at all we hold precious.

Sure..go ahead.. keep at it.. you never know, you might just get what you wish for.. but remember..the law of unintended consequences suggests you might just get a bit more than you wished for.

CJ MORGAN says:

"What I think is far more important than simple biological paternity (or maternity for that matter) is that children have loving, responsible parents of whatever gender or sexuality who can provide for them emotionally and materially."

and with that...he just ripped up all his academic qualifications in Anthropology and hurled them in the rubbish bin.

Apparently they had no impact on his understanding of humanity and society.

The mind truly boggles.

Why so, Boazy?

Does blatant homophobia trump years of formal study and research?

CJM

Of course homophobia along with literal interpretations of religious text trumps all research, knowledge, tests, evidence, common sense, applied knowledge - that is why neo-cons are incapable of learning - maintaining faith requires all their effort.

I was just sent this interesting link which will doubtless be ignored by those who would benefit and enjoyed by those whose cognitive faculties have not been locked into a chastity belt for the intellect.

OK - it concerns Republicans, but they do have a lot in common with their Australian equivalent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr6zjHdZpXY

PS I do hope all dads had a wonderful day yesterday with their families - irrespective of gender, marital status or creed.

C J Morgan seems to be on a quest to break the world record for saying "homophobia".

Just another name on his list for abusing other people.

He still hasn't found an academic in an Australian university prepared to say something good about fathers (or the male gender for that matter), and so much for his education and mind.

Keith

Ironical: pertaining to, of the nature of, exhibiting, or characterized by irony or mockery.

Briar Rose

I always like to use irony to separate the tossers from the astute.

Warning, warning, irony alert:

Vanna

Are you so utterly incompetent that you cannot find any literature that rabbits on infinitum about the majesty that is men?

This link should keep you deliriously happy for months:

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=great+men+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#hl=en&q=great+men+quotes&revid=2014896666&sa=X&ei=JISETLKqCoHCsAOR-Ij3Bw&ved=0CGkQ1QIoAQ&fp=5673716d440c1f33

Johhy Rotton,

You seem quite the abuser and name caller also.

Which Australian university did you attend,?

I’m not interested in Google. I want to see something written by an Australian university academic that says something good about fathers. Everything so far that I have seen written by academics about males or fathers has been negative of them.

Here is something your astute mind (?) may find interesting.

This is possibly the first homeless person (living in a car) to receive the Order of Australia.

Guess who.

http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/story/2010/08/26/homeless-dad-is-heading-to-sydney-to-accept-his-aw/

Vanna

FYI

Universities have websites which are part of the wonderful thing we call the internet - YOU can locate any of these by using any number of search engines, I happened to use Google, but YOU can use any means you like. Hey, YOU could even physically attend a university of your choosing and check out their curriculum.

For what its worth, I attended the University of Melbourne - not that this knowledge will provide any enlightenment for you.

Johhy Rotten,
I had best not go anywhere near the University of Melbourne if abusive individuals such as yourself are the result.

I have looked on websites from Australian universities, and everything about the male gender has been negative.

I think this bigotery, negativity and denigration of males eventually leads to situation, as with Tony Miller, of someone receiving the Order Of Australia while living in a car.

There are countless social workers and humanities lecturers etc in Australian universities, but not one to my knowledge made mention of the Tony Miller situation.

Why did none mention it?

It would be career suicide to mention it, when everything said about males and fathers has to be negative.

So much for academics in Australian universities.

Vanna, what is it with you and academics and universities?

Briar rose,
I’ll explain the story of Tony Miller, and it might help you to understand.

The article mentions dads for kids, but the founder of Dads 4 Kids was Tony Miller. He also worked tirelessly helping out various men and founded Dads in Distress. Many of these men had been through the grinder of the feminist conceived torture chamber, which is the Family Law Court, and had no one to get support from, so they turned to groups such as Dads in Distress.

Tony Miller also developed a suicide prevention program for men and got some government funding for it. It was very successful, and some other countries have modeled their suicide prevention programs on it. However groups such as Dads in Distress have been labeled MRA’s by various feminists harbored in universities, and eventually the government cut funding to the programs of Tony Miller.

Eventually he was left homeless, but the government then gave him an Order of Australia medal for his community work over the years.

Another group for men and fathers was operating in Brisbane and received the Logan City award 6 years in a row for its community work, but it was also attacked by feminists harboured in universities and labeled an MRA, and has never received government funding, and I think it has now shut down.

As I have also mentioned, out of the army of social scientists, political analysists, soicial commentators, social workers, humanitarians, and various other hangers on in universities, not one mentioned the fact that a homeless person was given the Order of Australia.

These hangers on are really of no use to anyone, and it is a sign of our times, that so much money is spent on them, while people such as Tony Miller who had a proven track record of actually helping people received nothing and eventually became homeless.

Thank you Vanna, I understand your position a lot better now.

While there are certainly a lot of useless dorks in universities, some of us are OK.

I would have thought Tony Miller, as a homeless man receiving the Order of Australia, would make a really good story for the media. I'm surprised it hasn't happened, or have I missed it?

Briar rose,
Well, someone receiving the Order of Australia while being homeless and living in a car probably would make a good media story, but the feminist devaluing of the male gender has been so thorough that the media considered it a non-issue, just like every academic within the university system so it seems.

Also, who trains the journalist who go into the media?

vanna and briar rose,

ex Google,
On PM:
"CONOR DUFFY: At Government House today Comcars and limousines queued up for a prestigious ceremony with the Governor off New South Wales, Professor Marie Bashir. Tony Miller was there to receive an Order of Australia medal. He arrived early, but had to convince security to let him in."

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2994558.htm

A very interesting, selfless human, it would be good if someone could interview him for an OLO article in the near future. I knew nothing of him until I read this thread, which is a little sad for someone who has earned the recognition and honour as he has done.

I read about Tony Miller's sad story in the media.

In the context of this discussion though, this claim from vanna is interesting:

<< The article mentions dads for kids, but the founder of Dads 4 Kids was Tony Miller >>

In the article, Warwick Marsh claims to be "the founder of Dads4Kids, a harm prevention charity". Is someone tellings fibs here? Was there a palace coup in Loserland?

As a "harm prevention charity", why would Dads4Kids let one of its founders end up on the streets?

Something doesn't quite gel here.

CJ is correct- although I did check the Dads4Kids official website, and it states that "Warwick & Alison Marsh-Founders of the Fatherhood Foundation (Dads4Kids)"

Excellent to see his wife noted as one of the founders as well.
I am glad the foundation is not full of divorced, bitter men.
All Board members are married with children, and are members of evangelical churches.

It certainly sounds like they do a lot of good for Fatherhood though.
Any foundation that works towards lowering the incidence of suicide in our country deserves to be recognised.

And look what I found Vanna! On the Fatherhood Foundation website- http://www.fatherhood.org.au/aboutUs.html
is the name and work of a University Professor extolling the virtues of Fathers:
"Dr Bruce Robinson
Professor of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA. Bruce is an internationally respected researcher in his field of medicine. He is also the author of 'Fathering from the Fast lane', as bestselling Australian book with practical tips and advice for busy dads.

A doubt from the great name caller and abuser, the one and only C J Morgan, who, if not calling someone homophobic, calls them a godbother or troll (and these are some of his more polite terms). His university experiences made a great and everlasting impression upon building his character (cough, splutter).

Tony Miller was involved in founding a number of organisations if you are interested.

Here is the website of Dads 4 Kids where you will find the most alarming and divisive articles such as “Love, laugh, listen & learn” and “Resources for Mothers” and “New Dads”.

http://www.fatherhood.org.au

Those evil MRA organisations run by those evil males

vanna - if Dads4Kids is such a wonderful organisation that is a "harm prevention charity", how can it be that one of its founders ended up on the streets? Why do Warwick and Alison Marsh claim to be the founders, rather than poor old Tony Miller, and why didn't the foundation look after one of its own?

Rather than attacking me as you usually do, could you please explain the inconsistencies between what Warwick March claims and your assertions?

Suzanonline,
Interesting that you made the comment of MRA organisations being filled with “divorced, bitter men”.

Almost evey word from university academics about men’s groups describes them in such terms, which is negative, and that has been a part of the devaluing of such organisations.

Just referring to some of the recent posts, it is difficult to understand why anyone would want to denigrate a man who has earned the OAM, or the organisation that delivered the needed services.

Surely we should all be mature and gracious enough to set politics or petty jealousies aside and applaud the the man and his organisation for the award.

excerpt from
"MEDAL (OAM) OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA IN THE GENERAL DIVISION

Mr Tony MILLER, Woolgoolga NSW 2456
For service to the community through the provision of support services for separated families.
Founder, Dads in Distress, 2000; provides assistance and advice to distressed males who have experienced a breakdown of their marriage/relationship; provides assistance in a manner that enables them to come to terms with the breakdown and to navigate the legal
system in a way that they might not have otherwise been able to do so.
Also established Mums in Distress, 2006; assists women in similar situations."

Vanna, I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter what anybody says, you are utterly dedicated to slagging off at anybody who has anything to do with universities.

From a communication point of view, this makes it very difficult for anybody to hear the important parts of your message. For example, it seems some of us didn't know Tony Miller's story and now we do because you told us.

But we have to wade through the torrent of academic bashing to get to it.

There are feminists in academia, along with a whole lot of other people with a wide range of philosophies. Personally, although I have taught units on women's issues, I don't feel the need to speak badly of men who feel cast adrift after marriage breakdowns, and I don't feel the need to bash men for being men. I'm also the mother of sons and have seen them go through relationship upheavals.

I'm mildly irritated by having to negotiate your unrelenting attacks on academics, of whom I am one, and felt the wish to speak up in self defense.

There are so many reasons to criticise universities, why get stuck on one?

C J Morgan,
Why don’t you send an email to the author and ask him your questions. However, due to the fact that you have abused him so much in various posts, I’m not surprised if he didn’t bother to answer.

Briar rose,

Certainly there are many reasons to criticise universities, as they are becoming of less use to anyone in time.

There has been increased funding going to universities, and Australia’s trade deficit has grown proportionally.

Some good increased funding has done, and it does appear that most of the money going to universities has mostly been of benefit to the academic staff.

Universities also like to run lots of social science courses, because they are cheap to run, and there would be more social scientist per square mile in a university than anywhere else in Australia.

The fact that not one person from an Australian university made any public statement when someone living in a car received the OOA is testimonony to the usefulness of those social science courses.

I don't think there is anything of any reliability now from an Australian university.

Did anyone else watch ABC's Catalyst last night.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/fatherhood/

Research has shown that father's are important in a child's life in particular in regard to play. Mothers and fathers are both important in different ways.

In view of that research it really hits home the effects of divorce on younger children.

Pelican,
It is interesting that, in these times, fathers now have to justify their existance, and there have to be TV programs to show their importance.

I wonder how that developed.

I grew up with a loving dad and mum. I had a wonderful childhood. I experienced difficult moments of course but overall it was wonderful.

I am now a dad and share the responsibility of raising my children with my wife whom I treasure. I know the importance of the balance that my wife and I bring to each other in the awesome but challenging task of loving and equipping our children.

From my experiences as a child and as a dad, I firmly believe that children are far better off with a full time mum and dad.

vanna
"It is interesting that, in these times, fathers now have to justify their existance, and there have to be TV programs to show their importance. I wonder how that developed."

I reckon it was those female academics at university.

Seriously though - here is a positive message about fathers and you rubbish it. If it was about the importance of mothers you would be bemoaning the fact that fathers are ignored in the media.

The sky isn't always falling in vanna, get out and take a breath of fresh air.

We've all been to university. There's no point telling us to go to the library or pretending universities aren't an environment that encourages bashing of men.

Anyone who's been to university has endured hundreds of lectures where the subject of how bad men are has been squeezed into the material, sometimes using extremely long bows to do, sometimes just pedantically. If you've had that experience, regardless if you're a man or a woman, gay, straight, or some combination of these, you do find it to be a stretched point. It's boring and small-minded, and it feeds the imagination only of those who can't grow up, or who are fixated on a negative complex that they have developed and which is fed by bashing men.

We don't socially accept that sort of behaviour towards respect for women, and we shouldn't accept it towards the gay members of the community either, or towards men. If an argument that respect for people regardless of gender (or race, religion, or other characteristics) is to be made, then it's disingenuous to excuse any gender from consideration, including men.

It's high time women especially developed some integrity and opposed treating men this way, regardless of whether it's a university or not. It's hypocritical and undermines the integrity of anyone who accommodates it. Having been subject to oppression isn't a valid justification for actual or notional abuse of others on an ongoing basis, even if you perceive them as a group that offends you. Until such time as womens' culture develops a moral code that includes proper treatment of the other genders, it is going to be the sad duty of anyone reading texts in defence of women to read them as uneven depositions. That's unfortunate, but it's like dealing with any politically motivated statement, you can't be a responsible reader and not hold it as valuable only within the conceptual space it is written for.

Fortunately, many women are now throwing off that sort of tired old sexism and no longer entertain unprofessional poisonous invectives, and good for them for doing so.