The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Men in the age of feminism > Comments

Men in the age of feminism : Comments

By Peter West, published 22/10/2010

Men can never be feminists - millions have tried and nobody did better than C+.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 36
  7. 37
  8. 38
  9. Page 39
  10. 40
  11. 41
  12. All
Antiseptic "Second, once conception has occurred, it is entirely the woman's decision to allow gestation to proceed. If she chooses to abort against his desire to have a child, then there is not a thing he can do about it. On the other hand, if he doesn't want a child, there is nothing that he can do to make her abort."

Some of the imbalance could be reduced by future financial support being contingent on the nominated fathers acceptance of that at some point during the pregnancy - not perfect but a step forward especially where the parents were not in an ongoing relationship.

whistler "Listen closely to males who claim grievance against the Family Court or the Child Support Agency and you'll more than often find an obsession with the minutiae of the circumstances and perceived obligations of the mother and very little about offspring" - I don't doubt that's what you would find. The reality is much more diverse. There will be some men doing the wrong thing, there will be others who have had an absolute gutfull of hypocrisy of hiding behind children to further adults interests. Much of the grief with the FC and FMC is about the abuse of the idea of children's best interests to flagrently advantage one adult's interests over the others often at the expense of significant components of the childrens interests.

Those who make a lot of noise about children's best interest's overriding any needs of the parents don't seem to fly the same flag when it comes to women staying in a non-abusive but unsatisfying marriage. They don't seem to fly the children's best interests flag when it comes to mum's wanting to take a sea change. They rarely seem to fly that flag on any issue where the mothers needs are the ones being asked to be sacrificed for the sake of the children.

All to often "childrens best interests" is a pathetic cover for people advancing their own interests with little or no real regard for the children.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 7 November 2010 12:25:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert I have to disagree on that point.

The children's best interests should always be paramount to the selfish wants of adults and arrangements should be worked out to be fair to both adults but not if there is some contingency that causes greater hardship or pain for children. Even shared arrangements don't suit all kids and many have to endure in silence the disruption of moving from house to house each week/month etc. Most kids seem to adapt and older kids should be able to have a say in where they want to live most of the time.

I do agree that the best interests of children are best served when the two parents stay together except for obviously abusive and dangerous situations. You only refer to women wanting a 'sea change'. I assume that the same applies to men (?) who take off for the mid-life crisis sea change when family life becomes too inhibitive on those primitive desires.

Most adults with a bit of effort should be able to work out their differences or make some sort of agreements to stay together for the sake of the children - there are numerous counselling services. Unfortunatly one can't legislate for selfishness and in some cases if the home environment is too unpleasant it might be worse for the children if people stay together. There is no one size fits all.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 7 November 2010 1:11:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican "The children's best interests should always be paramount to the selfish wants of adults and arrangements should be worked out to be fair to both adults but not if there is some contingency that causes greater hardship or pain for children."

Is there any degree's in that or is it absolute's?
It appears to be used at times as an absolute in way's we would not dream of applying to other situations. A useful catch cry which is to often selectively abused.

I get the impression that kid's do better when the parents stay together but you are unlikely to see the "childrens best interests" lobbyists pushing for a tightening of laws around divorce to make it more difficult regardless of the potential benefit to children. Sea changes can taken by either party and can be damaging to the kid's regardless of who does it.

My point is that there the idea of childrens best interests is applied very selectively by those who tout the phrase most loudly. It generally boils down to mum getting most of the family assets and dad paying whatever can be gouged from him regardless of his needs, it's rarely an issue to those who make much of the phrase when it comes to other choices. The fathers's groups have used the term but less so than the mum's groups in part I think because it's already become such a farce.

Please put my comments in context with whistlers earlier response to the idea that the outcomes should be fair to both parents where that can be achieved without the children being disadvantaged (and I think that the idea of disadvantaged needs some degree's to it as it does in the rest of life).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 7 November 2010 2:55:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who gets to decide, what is in a childs best interests?

How do we measure it, because it is one of those global statements that can mean anything.

What I think is in a childs best interest maybe totally different to another person.

Perhaps one to the sadest things in our society is the shear lack of boundary setting.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 7 November 2010 5:15:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi JamesH, a judge of the Family Court gets to decide a child's best interests measured according to parental means in the minuscule proportion of bitterly contested cases which can cause irreparable harm to children brought before the bench, otherwise mum's and dad's in a fluid conglomeration of family business decide mostly equitably.
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 7 November 2010 10:18:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When a child is in an intact family, it is assumed that their interests are best served by supporting that family to be prosperous. It is only after the family breaks down that somehow a child's best inteterests are seen as independent of the outcome for its parents, which is an obvious nonsense.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 8 November 2010 7:13:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 36
  7. 37
  8. 38
  9. Page 39
  10. 40
  11. 41
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy