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 > Government creating a fatherless society > Comments

Government creating a fatherless society : Comments

By Warwick Marsh, published 15/3/2012

Taxpayer funding for those who want to send the laws of nature into free fall.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
Go study science Warwick if you want to understand what "natural laws" really are. Since Australian parliaments are predominantly male does that mean a majority of men are legislating against themselves?
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Thursday, 15 March 2012 8:53:34 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
What a load of complete and utter rubbish. It's difficult to imagine how someone can live any kind of normal life and be this wrong; there is so much wrong with this guys twisted (and dangerous) ideas I can't even begin to address them, there's not enough space here, or in the day.
Posted by E.Sykes, Thursday, 15 March 2012 9:17:01 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
Utterly brilliant article, this should be emailed to every Australians inbox.

It's truly amazing that conservative, traditional people haven't got together and started a news organisation (TV channel, website, youtube channel, Facebook page - the works!)that reports (i.e. goes out there and makes the news) on the crazy things that come out of the leftist mind and then put into practise.

Fatherless families aren't sustainable without heavy government intervention, in other words, social liberalism and fiscal conservativism cannot co-exist yet many younger people think this way - getting this across should be the main role of the conservative news services to come along in the future
Posted by progressive pat, Thursday, 15 March 2012 9:53:13 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
As the psychiatrist in Fawlty Towers said, 'There's enough material there for an entire conference'.

Wow. I wonder where the fear really comes from.

'Gender complementarity in a life long committed
marriage between a man and a woman is good for
the economy as a whole.'

Well I'm sold! As long as it isn't costing the economy $20 billion dollars a second, I'll stay hetero.

But if it's so good, I reckon we should not allow divorce.

'Many have left the homosexual lifestyle, and restoration to wholeness
can occur. While it may well be a slow and difficult process, substantial
healing and freedom is possible, as experienced by many thousands
of former sufferers of gender disorientation pathology. '

Seriously? I reckon with all the taboo and such, if a guy is happy to try it, he's not likely to change his sexual orientation. Perhaps you got the sack because it's probably not good for the mental health of gay guys to be told they have a 'gender disorientation pathology' and need a 'restoration to wholeness'.

' In doing so they are bent on destroying the natural family'

I dunno. I think there will always be enough heterosexuals wanting to form 'Natural' families. Do you really think gayness is a fashion or you can catch gayness?
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 15 March 2012 10:17:37 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
So, there are "groups that are operating in our society" who want to over-ride the Law of Gravity as a way of "destroying the natural family and our children's biological birthright to a mother and a father".

If we can stop a parent hitting the ground at terminal speed, their children will have their right to a mother and father maintained.

Got it!
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 15 March 2012 12:15:29 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
Out of morbid curiosity, I took a peek at the link to Dr Laura Schlessinger’s ‘brilliant article’ on why feminism saddens her. Maybe I’ve been reading too many porn posts on OLO, but I couldn’t get past this example of how she advises her radio listeners to get their husbands to fix the plumbing:

"The next time your husband does something around the house, bring him lemonade, spill a little on his neck and lick it off . . . he will spend the rest of his waking hours finding things to fix in the house.“

Hmmm. No wonder feminism saddens her. It does have an annoying tendency to want women and men to treat each other as mature equals, rather than as sex-starved children to be manipulated at will. Personally, I’d rather just call a plumber and save on lemonade.

And if the author is so concerned that too many kids are being raised without fathers, perhaps he could lobby the government to ban 50-hour+ workplaces, mortagages, football, golf, cricket, pubs, boats and wars.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 15 March 2012 12:56:33 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
Warwick, it is actually quite safe to jump off a very tall building. It just needs a little planning.

Parents who find themselves without an opposite-sex partner are not dooming either themselves or their children to a squishy end. But they do have to ensure the family has the parachute of regular engagement with adult role models - of both genders - to support the single parent or same-sex parents with nurturing.

The good news is that the most authoritative research shows that children of same-sex parents actually do as well as kids with opposite-sex parents on some scores of developmental outcomes, and significantly better on others.

This may be a result of same-sex parents being aware they are in a minority, are pioneers, and hence are under scrutiny. So maybe when same-sex parents are accepted as normal and the pressure is off, test results will even out.

But for now, you cannot argue that children in unorthodox families will inevitably be disadvantaged. The evidence is the opposite.

For example, from the American Academy of Pediatrics. There are others. Just google same-sex parenting, then weed out those studies with a barrow to push, either pro-LGBT or anti.

And for quick snapshot, here is an impressive 3-minute eye-opener:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

So let's celebrate gravity rather than fearing or loathing it. That descent from the skyscraper can be not only perfectly safe, but quite exhilarating as well.
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:25:20 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
With our Parliament stacked with fornicators, idolators, feminist, lesbians, homosexuals, adulterers you are very unlikely to get a commonsense approach. We are reaping decades of immoral humanist calling the shots. What Warwick speaks is 100 per cent correct but unfortunately exposing the degradation of others lifestyles is only allowable if you are mocking a fundie Christian. Why do you think the humanist hate Abbott so much? Most of our pollies and educators are far more comfortable with darkness than light. That is why you lost your job Warwick. Keep up the good fight but comfort yourself that the Just Judge will have His way. In the end children are the ones sacrificed again at the altar of selfishness.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:32:57 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
'Personally, I’d rather just call a plumber and save on lemonade.'

Why doesn't that surprise me.

So joyless.

BTW: Many a porn film starts with a plumber...
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:47:36 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
There is so much wrong with this article that it is hard to know where to start. But my real problem is that this is such an emotive, badly written,unsubstantiated piece of garble from someone who seems in sore need of some counselling for his anger issues, that I wonder why it was published.
Posted by Jodolena, Thursday, 15 March 2012 3:18:34 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
'That descent from the skyscraper can be not only perfectly safe, but quite exhilarating as well.'

So can that slippery slope we're always being warned about.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 15 March 2012 4:44:03 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
It's incredibly easy to get people to huddle together in families: just keep them poor, ignorant, powerless and servile. Oh, and it helps if you appoint some Morality Police to stone them when they get out of line. But oddly enough, that doesn't seem to make people any more loving and supportive of their children. I wonder why?
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 15 March 2012 5:01:01 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
A well written and well articulated article Warwick.

Your critics are so full of a sense of self entitlement that they can't engage on any rational level; so they attack the messenger. That is an old ploy for women - attack the man, his masculinity, his very sense of being. Do anything - just win. Win at all costs.

Men have a sense of fairness that many women just don't have. We have lines that we won't cross. It shows what a mistake it was to trust women as our equals. To ask them to wield power responsibly. They will destroy a man rather than let him win. There has never been a sense of chivalry, a gentlemen's agreement, a handshake, the concept of dying for your word or honour among women. How could we suddenly expect them to be fair now? They just don't have the faculty.

You have challenged their sense of privilege and superiority. You have called into question their sense of entitlement. And look at how they respond: bewilderment, confusion, anger, disbelief. Women just can't seem to put themselves in someone else's shoes. I think it reveals an emotional immaturity, a preoccupation with the self as the centre of the universe. Some women even resent having children because it takes the spotlight off them; forces them to grow up and put someone else first.

Your article forces them to make similar considerations. It asks them to put their own considerations aside and to think of someone other than themselves. Of course, the enormous ego of modern women finds that very hard to swallow. After decades of victimhood they are not about to give it up now.

In any case, their venom is your success. Well done.
Posted by dane, Thursday, 15 March 2012 5:08:54 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
'You have called into question [women's] sense of entitlement. And look at how they respond: bewilderment, confusion, anger, disbelief.'

You left out tedium, pity, disdain and disgust. Your 'gentleman's honour' is in very short supply with that vindictive little piece. If I were a man I'd be deeply embarrassed and insulted by it.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 15 March 2012 5:42:05 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
Warwick, Warwick, Warwick. We know you are trying to get back at everyone afte4r being sacked as health embassador. We know you want another monent of fame that will help you say "see told you I'm important" to Nicola Roxon. But really, do you need to keep hating on gays? As far as i can see you just diog your grave deeper, and deeper, and deeper.

You start with 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters in which you promote hate against gays by saying they are all prone to be pedophiles. Then in 21 reasons you claim all homosexuals are suffering from gender confusion disorder. Now, after the failure of 21 Reasons you try to court the female love of marraige/weddings by saying that women will no longer be able to get married if gays are allowed to be married. And if all that werent going too far you suggest that all children will be without fathers if we allow homosexuality because all men will suddenly become gay and wont want to be dads.

How about you get over you sacking, and your gay hate. and stop dragging the public into your internal drama.
Posted by PaulG, Thursday, 15 March 2012 5:53:18 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
Killarney,

'Your 'gentleman's honour' is in very short supply with that vindictive little piece. If I were a man I'd be deeply embarrassed and insulted by it.'

That's my point - you wouldn't be embarressed because women have no sense of honour only entitlement. However, it could have been worse, I could have said:

"I want to see a women beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in her mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig"

But I guess it's only vindictive when men question women's privileges not when feminists like Dworfkin spew hate against men. In today's world, women, having convinced themselves of their own superiority and victimhood at the same time (logic is not a feminine virtue), may say whatever they like. That is equality.

But I do agree with your statement about gentlemen's honour being in short supply when it comes to feminists. Maybe it has something to do with me having to work longer, harder and die earlier to support women's 'choices' and then being told I should be bludgeoned to death with a high heel shoe.

You'll have to forgive me for the misapprehension about men's lives being valuable too.
Posted by dane, Thursday, 15 March 2012 6:29:30 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 Alan,
my experience is that feminism isn't just attacking marriage.

Recently I entered a competition on a radio station where the announcers wanted people to relate their most dariong act.

I'd sailed from Newcastle to Brisbane after I'd obtained a yacht. I'd never set foot on a small boat before.

I didn't win and copped criticism for doing something that wasn't 'safe'. Had someone enquired they'd have realised I understood the nature of the sea and had undertaken my adventure with great prudence.

There is now a new definition of daring. Be daring but make sure you are safely in the hands of others. I've been laughing at that stupidity.

The attitude, the world can be made safe, has arisen with the rise of feminism. A totally natural expectation of 'baby bearing and baby raising' women. So unlike the totally natural male expectations of knowing the world isn't safe... and challenging oneself by 'taking on' the environments and expanding boundaries.

Changing the nature of marriage and child rearing is just another such stupid attitude.

I raised my kids. I learned from the women and their children we'd encountered. My kids sourced what the couldn't from me from the other adults in our world. They were encouraged to do that. They encountered homosexual couples along the way. We aways openly discussed their reactions and attitudes. From all accounts such openess and encouragement just isn't evident from the individuals who endorse 'same sex' parenting. Challenge them ... you'll soon see closed mindedness.

I'd defy any homosexual couple to allow their children to have the same experience as my kids.

Can't happen. Ask any psych. Aberrant sexual behaviour leads to denying your own sexuality. Once you do that you do tend to live in a warpped controlling world.

My kids as adults are successful. My daughter's about to become a mum and my son is a daring well adjusted Electrical and Computer engineer with a degree in Applied Science (Mathematics). They both choose to spend time with me and are intent on forging an adult relationship with their mum.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 15 March 2012 7:10:30 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
>>It takes a mother and a father to raise a child.<<

Really? Then how do we explain all the well-adjusted, contributing members of society who were raised without a mother and/or father? Are they just freaks? No, let me guess: they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

>>This is the Government, at its best, creating a fatherless society.<<

If one father is good it stands to reason that two is better. Shouldn't you be out there encouraging more young men to shack up together and start a family? Seeking to deny gay men the right to raise children is a direct attack on fatherhood: aren't you supposed to be in favour of that, Warwick?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 15 March 2012 11:27:17 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
This is a tough one. It would be great if we had a perfect society, where a man loves and cares for a woman for life, and a woman does the same for her man, and together they can raise happy, well-adjusted and successful children. Well it doesn't always work out that way, and there seem to be more and more single parent families, and increasing divorce rates. Now the added question of same-gender couples raising children.

Ultimately, I think the fitness or otherwise to raise children comes down to the individual(s) concerned, and no perfect prescription is available - though it would be helpful if society could avoid promoting aberrant families of any kind, in general. So that wholesome family situations could be promoted, and aberrant family situations deterred - through the relevant construction of government support mechanisms. Tough love?

The main question is the motivation behind same-gender or hetero couples wanting to raise a child, or children. If it stems from that old desperation to 'save' a failing relationship, then it is wrong. If it is to 'reinforce' a solid and successful relationship, then , as with the situation in a hetero-relationship, this could be sound - if both partners are intent on, and capable of providing appropriate role models. The dangers here are not restricted to same-gender couples.

Personally I am not in favour of same-gender or single-parent families, or of unwanted pregnancies - and would prefer if there was an effective way to dissuade 'movements' or government programs which promote the introduction of children into unsatisfactory family situations of any kind. Some same-gender families may be fine, but in general I have reservations. Some of the related 'feminist' attitudes towards males are truly disturbing, and I sincerely trust similar 'malinist' attitudes do not exist - and that any males or females holding such attitudes never have anything whatsoever to do with children.

As with the rise in diabetes and asthma, it would be great if some problems would go away, but it appears we may be 'breeding' or 'feeding' ourselves into an increasingly fragile society.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 16 March 2012 2:32:45 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
Warwick identifies one aspect of Second Generation Communism, the basic idea though is to make every person interchangeable in every respect.
As a Polish acquaintance of mine points out "Communists don't want everyone to be equal, they want them to be IDENTICAL", of course he means they want US to be identical drones led by a wealthy, urban elite party.
The first goal of all the communist "Isms" is the destruction of the family, the raising of children by the state, the very first point the Gay Liberation Manifesto makes is on the eradication of the heterosexual family.
As pointed out the homosexual family cannot stand beside the normal family without massive state or party intervention and support, it has to have exceptional legal status, special support programs, a massive education and advertising budget and special laws to protect it from criticism or examination.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 16 March 2012 6:08:05 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
dane

The missing context of that Dworkin quote is a no-brainer, except to the lead-blinkered misogynists who dominate these OLO gender threads. It's typical reverse-gender rhetoric, designed to shock men into empathising with the dehumanising of women in a lot of pornographic material and arguments that deny the culture's underlying acceptance of violence against women. A quick google search reveals that the quote has been cut'n pasted from a few dozen misandry-obssessed websites that spew hatred towards women - especially feminists - over men's perceived lost entitlements and privileges. But why bother to provide the source of the quote, or the context in which Dworkin said it, or whether it's been correctly quoted? Much easier to just let viral bigotry do its job.

No doubt you will respond to this post with more of the same bigotry, and other misogynists here will probably back you up. That's been the pattern to date. As bigotry can't be reasoned with, I've said all I intend to say on this. The board's all yours.
Posted by Killarney, Friday, 16 March 2012 6:20:10 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
"Of great concern are the pictures of the fridge magnets"

The solution is simple: get rid of fridges, then fridge-magnets will cause no harm!

Everything around us is unnatural, fridges being just one small example. According to natural-law we wouldn't have a society of millions or billions, but men and women would naturally live in tribes a few dozens each. According to natural-law, if you fill the planet with that many children, then something has to give and one (or more) form or another of a catastrophe is inevitable.

Living the unnatural way we do in every aspect of life, Warwick, you can't isolate and attempt to cure just one symptom in isolation, such as "fatherless society". Perhaps homosexuality is a natural response crying "stop breeding, there are way too many of us already, enough is enough!"
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 16 March 2012 8:05:02 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
"Mother: My Son Had No Chance to Prove His Innocence"
http://womenagainstvawa.org/mother-my-son-had-no-chance-to-prove-his-innocence/

<Relda and her son thought that he would have a chance to prove his innocence. But within twelve hours of being released, Relda said that her son was back behind bars. And this time he wasn’t getting out anytime soon.>
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 16 March 2012 8:05:58 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
You should be grateful Warwick… Saltpetre has given you an excellent example of the way to set and argue a debatable contention; acknowledge complexity and nuance in the real world; and still hold a respectable opinion.

And I say that as a gay man who was – (ahem) the result of an unwanted pregnancy, though never in my upbringing given any reason by my parents to think I was an unwanted child – so I strongly disagree with Saltpetre on that point at least, though there are others. (Grammatically it should have been 'masculinist' but that's a quibble)

No one so far has commented on: "…the lie that you don't need a mummy or a daddy and that gender is not important. Having experienced the pain of fatherlessness first hand, this is something I profoundly disagree with and I have paid dearly for my beliefs."

In the spirit of empathy, I am sorry for your fatherlessness and its obvious detriment to the success of your life, relationships and thinking – but I've met too many people who experienced fatherlessness who were not failures to think it's as simple as you're pretending.

I've also met too many people for whom the presence of their father was a physical and psychological curse.

Wouldn't the world be perfect if we could all just preselect better parents?
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 16 March 2012 9:11:55 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
Wm Trevor,

Your measured and sensible candour is like a breath of fresh air on this thread.

I was also (ahem) the result of an unplanned pregnancy...and was adopted out. So I had two parents (good-o), but my non-biological father "was" a psychological curse - he gambled and drank and basically made our childhood a misery.

A mum and dad may be the ideal, but it certainly doesn't guarantee anything.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 16 March 2012 9:59:19 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
The feminist agenda is clearly portrayed here - and Warwick provides a true picture of the reality. Other unbiased research like that provided by the AIHW confirm that children fare best in a family of their natural mother and father who are in a loving, committed and stable marriage. The question must be asked: why do not governments and political parties take on board this reality and adjust their policies accordingly for the sake of the society it wants to govern? I fear the answer is as Warwick Marsh and Tempe Harvey highlight - an ideology that reflects 'third-wave' feminism and big-government. Both are anathema to a liberal society where both sexes work together to nurture their children and thus provide the best social capital for the nation.
Posted by The Ox, Friday, 16 March 2012 11:34:24 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
Stick to your guns, Warwick. Don't be intimidated by the attacks from the armchair experts sticking their boots into you.
Posted by RDM7174, Friday, 16 March 2012 11:38:43 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
The Ox,
I don't think too many people have really studied what went on in the USSR and China and the extent to which these "feminists" of both sexes are still in the thrall of those long dead monstrosities.
Homosexuality is not the issue, it's the fact that we have a state approved definition of a family which seeks to supersede by force all other commonly held beliefs on the matter.
By all means, get rid of the marriage act, all official procedures such as tax returns and parenting payments now use the word's 'spouse or de-facto" anyway and let things find their own level
...ah but that's not what these people want is it? They don't want freedom of choice , they want power and control over all opinions, they want an "educated" inner urban socialst elite as managerial state between the capitalists and the "people", (which is a polite way of saying the uneducated, soulless Goyim, the Cattle).
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 16 March 2012 1:27:26 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
Killarney,

Sorry I forgot to mention the context of Dworkin's quote. Maybe at some point you'll enlighten us poor men folk about when exactly it is ok to beat a man to a bloody pulp and shove a high heel in his mouth.

I can't imagine even the darkest bogeymen of the feminst movement (Schopenhauer,Hegel?) even coming close to Dworkin's vile remark. Certainly, if a man said znything remotely similar today he'd be dragged before some kangaroo court for hate speech. Of course, men are treated as adults and held responsible for their actions while women like Dworkin may say whatever they like.

I'm pleased you don't have anything further to add becasue you didn't have anything intelligent to say in the first place - just the usual tired old rhetoric about misogynist, bigotry, blah, blah...

In any case, I never post on feminist issues like this to debate feminists. I realised a long time ago that most women lack a fundamental sense of fairness that many men posess. Most women may not agree with what Dworkin said but won't go as far to reject that sort of hate speech. And as they are content to silently reap the rewards of such hate speech they are just as complicit. So I don't post for you - I post in the hope that younger men start to regain their confidence and act a bit more like men again.
Posted by dane, Friday, 16 March 2012 1:54:54 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
How sad that so many people commenting on this blog have simply played the man (Warwick) and not engaged in the real debate.
While anyone can quote a few (very few and very small) social surveys that suggest otherwise, (mainly done by lesbian activists) - the vast majority of social researchers clearly show that children need and do best when raised in a stable married environment by THEIR biological mother and a father. To deny this obvious truth is child abuse.
To claim that homosexual sex is natural also denies basic biology and anatomy.
It is time we used common sense and facts, rather than feel good, politically correct, nonsense that is detrimental to children.
Posted by Peter Stokes, Friday, 16 March 2012 3:24:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>the vast majority of social researchers clearly show that children need and do best when raised in a stable married environment by THEIR biological mother and a father. To deny this obvious truth is child abuse.<<

So divorce is child abuse? Then why don't the 'please, won't SOMEBODY think of the children' mob argue against divorce with the same tireless zeal that they devote to arguing against gay marriage? Is it just because their heart isn't really in it? That they don't have the same visceral revulsion for children being raised by step-parents that they do for homosexual relationships of any stripe? Or are they just hypocrites?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 16 March 2012 3:58:13 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
Thanks Warwick for having the moral courage to speak out and cut through all the PC bull! We have feminist governance dominating in politics and bureaucracy and universities controlled by radical feminist ideologues who are hell bent on destroying not only the family but the male sex. Most male politician’s are either feminists or puppets under feminist control, those who are not often dare not speak out.

There is a commonly accepted myth that feminism stands for gender equality (and many of the so called “fun feminists” believe this) but at the true heart of modern feminism (Radical or Gender Feminism) is a doctrine of hate, female supremacy and genderocide.
See http://radicalhub.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/ a number of prominent Australian feminist academics contribute to this site some including Shelia Jeffries and Betty McLellan who comfortably peddle hatred under their own names, the others hide behind pseudonyms.

But things are changing and will continue to change as the number alienated fathers, dispossesed, falsely accused, discriminated against and disillusioned men grow in numbers. They talked about a "gender war", but there was no war, men did not show up. Now men are starting to it remains to see what will eventuate, time will tell.

Greg Canning
Townsville
Posted by rper1959, Friday, 16 March 2012 4:04:23 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
Dont be fooled by Marshs feined courage. He takes on feminists and other topics such as the need to protect women's right to have a wedding, all in order to regain his status after he was sacked for insisting homosexuals are prone to pedophilia in his 21 reasons Why Gender Matters. He talks a lot about weddings, the badness of feminism, and the problem of child abuse ertc only in order to enlist freinds who will excuse his hatred of gays. His scheme has little to do with feminism and very much to do with getting supporters for his hatred of gays.
Posted by PaulG, Friday, 16 March 2012 6:04:35 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
Why is it that the world's most powerful and influential men's rights forum, A Voice For Men, is strongly against feminism yet embraces homosexuals in its fight against feminist hegemony and social misandry? http://www.avoiceformen.com/

There is nothing morally courageous about hating on gays or speaking out against gay marraige. Nor is it valid to claim that gay marraige is a plot driven only by feminists. this kind of bigotry would not be considered courageous at a voice for Men, and in fact would not be tolerated. Morally courageous men reject bigotry and undeserved hatred against a demographic.
Posted by MRM, Friday, 16 March 2012 6:42:19 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
Thanks Warwick, courageous effort to take head on the issues of radical feminism, gay marriage, the underhanded & unilateral repeal of shared parenting reform and the proposed implementation of gender laws in The National Plan to reduce violence against women and their children (not men) all of which lead to the mass criminalisation, incarceration, marginalisation & impoverishment of men as a class.

Hopefully, people are beginning to realise this is part of the agenda of this radical feminist/gay dominated government to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family.

Militant streams of the Gay Rights movement have combined to take this agenda one step farther. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.

“Destroy the family, you destroy society” I.V. Lenin. And a $trillion Carbon Tax provides the means to rebuild it into a big gay friendly androgynous union.

Contemporary feminism has aptly been described as “Marxism without economics,” since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed.

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” present the idea as a civil rights issues, a step forward for tolerance and respect. But recent developments place that interpretation very much in doubt. Gay marriage is not a stand alone policy.Consider the Family Violence (sole custody) amendments to the Family Law Act guillotined through the Senate in the dead of night after the news cycle without bipartisan support or scrutiny for the first time ever in Parliamentary history.

These amendments fiddle with DV definitions & contrive statutory considerations to effectively remove the presumption of innocence and protections from false allegations, that is, the fundamentals of Western jurisprudence. The justice system, the basis of civilised society, has been trashed supposedly to protect women.
Posted by Howard Beale, Friday, 16 March 2012 11:48:33 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
In reality they are Emily's List pork for feminist votes (70% of unmarried/divorced women vote for the welfare protection and social justice [wealth redistribution] of the Big Sister party) and a disgraceful contrivance by the lawyers union to keep their multibillion dollar gravytrain alive and well. The LIBS (weak) shared parenting reform had reduced litigated divorce (profit) by 22%. In countries implementing a presumption of equal shared care it dropped 50%.

In short the Family Violence Bill increases divorce for female votes and re-election funding.

Further the National DV Plan proposes to implement the subjective & thereby infinitely elastic definition of DV of the Federal Family Law Act into all State legislatures.

The definition of family violence demonstrates an Orwellian willingness to redefine meanings and that cheapens the suffering of real victims.

The expansion of the Federal definition of family violence to include non-violence and the removal of the requirement that fear must be reasonable allows virtually any subjectively negative state of mind – as simple as I'm fearful - offered in evidence by a mother against a father as sufficient reason to deny children meaningful relationships with the father.

In short, family violence can be virtually anything. Under lawyer-feminist pressure, legislators are redefining abuse into meaninglessness, which gives lawyers,law enforcement, child protection the leeway to prosecute virtually anyone for anything they choose to construe as a crime.

This creates a vast $100M/yr National DV Plan bureaucracy as a full-employment entity for feminist lawyers and social workers and is a boondoggle for feminist organizations. It indoctrinates judges, prosecutors, law makers, teachers, and school children in an anti-male, anti-family ideology and channels billions of taxpayer dollars to Left voters. All that, without protecting abuse victims.

The divorce-DV industry now costs taxpayers an estimated $12B/yr in massive single parent welfare, the mass criminalisation/incarceration/impoverishment of men and dealing with the Pandora's box of personal & social pathologies directly associated with 40% of children being fatherless
Posted by Howard Beale, Saturday, 17 March 2012 12:01:11 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
With more than half of all marriages ending in divorce, it's impossible to believe that the majority of divorcing fathers are violent or the Family Court finding that 83% of Australian fathers are unfit to share in the parenting of their own children after separation.

Society can no longer afford this legal scam of a privileged legal class who produce nothing - the modern robber barons - plundering the life savings of working families by holding our children to false allegation ransom

Gillard's FV amendments & National FV Plan are “Hate Men” laws, the WMD of family, the Holocaust of Fathers, the end of shared parenting and a betrayal of children's right to have meaningful relationships with both biological parents. They are the social policy disaster of the 21st century akin to "no-fault" divorce in the 20th - also engineered for family lawyers for profit.

Men might suffer first but women will also be victimised, bribed to breed, deprived of their choice to stay at home to be mothers and forced back into the workforce with 3 month old kids dumped into communist-style daycare for 12 hours a day – 40% pay increases for child care workers.

“Thus camouflaged as human rights, the champions of other people's children make an end-run around more visible clashes over gay marriage, internet pornography, late term abortion, and school curriculum. But the bottom line remains: never before has a government created a legislative & bureaucratic apparatus whose primary purpose is to separate children from their fathers.”

The conservatives must commit to a rebuttal presumption of equal shared care after separation in government - reduce litigated divorce by 50%, save families, save taxpayers $6BN/yr.
Posted by Howard Beale, Saturday, 17 March 2012 12:18:28 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
Quite right too, Howard Beale <"The conservatives must commit to a rebuttal presumption of equal shared care after separation in government - reduce litigated divorce by 50%, save families, save taxpayers $6BN/yr."

Let's drag all those kiddies from one parent/house to another , week about, for the rest of their childhood, whether they are happy with that disruption or not. Just so we can appease those Fathers aye?

Sorry, but the courts are there to deal with the children's welfare first, whether you or Marsh like it or not.

If that means that the children are placed mostly with their mothers, then you need to come to terms with those judgments on a case by case basis, and not believe in the juvenile notion that there is some sort of mad 'conspiracy' out there to keep kiddies from their fathers in all family law cases.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 17 March 2012 1:48:56 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
@susieonline
"Let's drag all those kiddies from one parent/house to another , week about, for the rest of their childhood, whether they are happy with that disruption or not. "

Oh Susie , do the math.

The current default alternate weekend contact regime requires children change residence at exactly the same rate as equal shared parenting, but only mothers (resident parents) are happy. When parenting is shaved equally 90% of children surveyed are happy with the arrangements.

Howard and Warwick are correct the current system is a social engineering exercise to destroy the traditional family for the sake of the hateful ideology of feminism and it is starting to be seen for what it is.
Posted by rper1959, Saturday, 17 March 2012 8:11:46 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
The author, Howard Beale,rper1959 and others, I'll take a punt and say that you all are fathers. When you and you're wife had kids, who stayed home and looked after the children? Back to the subject the author simply hates guy people no other reason for his stance. People hate gay people for mainly three reasons.
1)Religious bigotry guilt for own failing = lash out at easy target = hate gays.
2)Religious bigotry and they are gay = self-loathing = hates gays.
3)Never been hit on by gays= lash out at gays.
Funny really, same motivations for people who hate equal rights for women.
Conservatives by their very nature don’t like change. How many times have people who are afraid of change, preached doom and damnation, the end of the world, but it doesn’t come.
What was it last time oh black people voting and before white women, and before that white men that didn’t own land, and before that......
Posted by cornonacob, Saturday, 17 March 2012 10:33:04 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
Warwick is no friend to those fathers wanting changes to family law that would result in fairer and less damaging outcomes.

Those changes are not about fundamentalist religious vies of the family, they are not about kicking another group wanting fair andequal treatment before the law (and the gay lobby tends to do the same with those wanting pluralistic marriages).

There are plenty of fathers around wanting a system that does not ensure discriminatory outcomes for them based on simplistic slogans or arguments but which accepts that the realities of the choices families make vary enormously.

For example the previous poster asked about staying home to look after the kids, in my own case and that of a lot of dads who have an ex who plays the system for personal advantage that was never a real option. Exs would never have agreed to trade the stay at home role for the grind of a job that earned enough income to keep the family going. The question ignores all the out of work hours parenting done by many (not all) working dads. It takes a single point that simplifies a complex reality into convenient spin.

There are enough cases of dads doing the wrong thing and mums who have tried their best but some could be asking why its so overwhelmingly men who find family law discriminary and damaging.

Its a self serving nonsence to think the difference is that men are less responsible than women (or visa versa), its the result of a system that is very one sided and creates great harm to those on the wrong side of it and provides incentives to use children as pawns for personal gain and or revenge.

Robert.
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 17 March 2012 11:12:22 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
"Warwick, you are obviously a homophobic bigot. Well why does such a bigot take a young fatherless homosexual man with AIDS into his home to live with his family?"

Answer: because you hate gays and saw this as an opportunity to make this man pray and repent from his disgusting evil ways. Homophobia pure and simple
Posted by PaulG, Saturday, 17 March 2012 2:09:01 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
Micro-aggression(sexism)

>Ironically, Sue’s research also found that most of us are actually better at handling overt acts of discrimination than subtle insults, because at least the former has “no guesswork involved” whereas victims of microaggression are “often left to question what actually happened”.">

Whilst feminists are experts at pointing out the micro sexism of the male gender, they are not so welcoming to being confronted with their own micro-sexism.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 17 March 2012 7:58:05 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
Paul G said
""Warwick, you are obviously a homophobic bigot..... Homophobia pure and simple

Saying that people who oppose same sex marriage are homophobic is also bigoted.

In my view the argument presented is that radical feminism is using gays & marriage "equality" as part of its agenda to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family.

susieonline said
"Let's drag all those kiddies from one parent/house to another , week about, for the rest of their childhood, whether they are happy with that disruption or not"

Yawn, the old "ping-pong" chestnut. The number of inter-home changeovers is the same for EOW and equal shared care
- thanks rper1959

Sorry if the facts disagree with your mythology.

If you're too stupid to engage in debate, then don't. I don't care if you're trying really hard etc…
Posted by Howard Beale, Saturday, 17 March 2012 10:19:29 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
'If you're too stupid to engage in debate, then don't. I don't care if you're trying really hard etc…'
Charming...
Howard Beale is resorting to insults when someone else (especially a female!) doesn't agree with his bitter anti-female rants.

<"Yawn, the old "ping-pong" chestnut. The number of inter-home changeovers is the same for EOW and equal shared care"

Really?
Where are your stats for this statement?

I was a child of divorced parents, and I currently know personally many children of divorced parents who do/did not enjoy living the old 'ping-pong' lifestyle at all.

Isn't it true that as soon as most of these kids are old enough to really say what they want, they start refusing to move all the time?
Or don't you know any of these kids Howard?

Isn't your problem really with women who don't do as their told?

The courts need to continue to do what is right for the children of each different family situation of the few separated parents that are bitter enough, or desperate enough, to go to family court to work out their problems.

I very much doubt that this family court situation will change anytime soon, no matter how militant some minority groups become.

Warwick Marsh is NOT a champion for divorced father's rights at all.
He is a religious fanatic who wants to push his 'God given marriage for life, for all except Gay people' barrow.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 17 March 2012 11:44:52 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
Great article! It takes courage to speak up in our society when our society is so strangled by political correctness.

It is amazing that we have fallen so far that the rights of adults can be so centre stage that children barely are thought of in this debate.

More than this though, traditional marriage connects fathers into their families. This builds security for husband, wife and children.

Instead of playing games with re-engineering marriage, how about expending effort and dollars on building marriage up!
Posted by az, Sunday, 18 March 2012 9:24:55 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
@Suseonline
One does not need a research study for simple arithmetic
Alternate weekends (sole custody) or alternate weeks (equal shared care) require the same number of changeovers (two) every two weeks.

Not that this perversion of a 60yo primary attachment theory has any veracity anyway. Children need emotional security, which comes from being able to love and be loved by both fit and loving parents, not the geographical stability of living in one house.

“I was a child of divorced parents, and I currently know personally many children of divorced parents who do/did not enjoy living the old 'ping-pong' lifestyle at all”.

Evidence is not important to you, then? Your personal experience and opinion is enough? DoH!

“Isn't it true that as soon as most of these kids are old enough to really say what they want, they start refusing to move all the time?”
No. If a child does reject a loved parent I suggest it is far more likely that he/she has been alienated – viz, their minds poisoned – against that parent.

Strangely the family violence amendments removed the statutory protections, the so called “friendly parent” provisions, against this most insidious form of child abuse supposedly to protect children.

“The courts need to continue to do what is right for the children of each different family situation of the few separated parents that are bitter enough, or desperate enough, to go to family court to work out their problems.”
This is nonsense. The way the laws are designed it is clearly advantageous for mothers (and their lawyers) to protract and inflame the matter for a long as possible to force a family court decision.

In the ridiculously anti-father biased courts a woman pretty much has to light up a crack pipe in a court room to not get the kids, the house, half the assets and a check every month
Posted by Howard Beale, Sunday, 18 March 2012 1:42:05 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
@susieonline

you will no doubt enjoy the pain of these children whose vindictive mothers got their way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-xgtAc2xaI&context=C4f6ef52ADvjVQa1PpcFO_v0uTuxEwKE6T4K_wr2SOjYoerZ7A6AQ=

My ex repeated threatened me prior to separation with "I'll make sure you never see these kids again" , "I'll get custordy" etc etc i.e. she was socially abusive to me and our children, she followed up after separation with a false accusation of DV against me, and then co-opted the might of women's services and the corrupt family court, and wasted some $40,000 on a parasitic lawyer ,money that would have been better spent on our children.

In spite of this 3 children have grown into descent self sufficient adults, and have a we have a good ongoing relationship, but will all carry immense psychologic harm, that was un necessary.

I don't care who partners with who or what a persons sexual orientation but the feminist agenda has always been destruction of the traditional family the building block of stable society (by whatever means), and they (man hating radical feminists) must be stopped
Posted by rper1959, Sunday, 18 March 2012 1:44:16 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
Susieonline
“I very much doubt that this family court situation will change anytime soon, no matter how militant some minority groups become.”

The family violence (sole custody) amendments were passed without bipartisan support for the first time ever and a guillotine motion made the night before the family law debate prevented any public debate or scrutiny.

Consider the basis of this reform. Here’s a tip for those playing along at home: Google “Senate Report family violence bill” and see what’s on page 38 in particular the footnote 79.

This is the basis used by Chairperson of the ALP senate committee on the Family Law Bill, Senator Trish Crossin, former Status of Women spokesperson with Senator Louis Pratt, lesbian openly married to a transman, in their recommendations to sabotage the fundamental principles of Western jurisprudence, namely, the presumption of innocence and protection from false allegations:-

“The committee accepts … the clear and succinct synopsis of the research in this area prepared and appropriately referenced by Dr Michael Flood, a sociologist at the University of Wollongong:

He concludes that child abuse allegations in the context of family law proceedings have been researched in four* Australian studies and have found that:

– False allegations are rare;
– The allegations rarely are made for tactical advantage;
– Any such allegation rarely results in the denial of parental contact.

In relation to [the] myth about false accusations of domestic violence and misuse of protection orders he again analyses the research succinctly and concludes:

– Most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence of their claims;
– Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort;
– Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.[79]

This “research” was googled off the personal blog of Australia’s #1 pro-feminist man-hater Michael Flood. Compared with him Tim Flannery should get the Nobel prize.

The LIBS are very aware of this issue and have committed to a review. Make some noise
Posted by Howard Beale, Sunday, 18 March 2012 1:50:00 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
Maybe, I’m being a bit harsh. Let's examine these ‘well referenced’ research findings. First and foremost, these are not published in scientific journal or peer-reviewed. They are a “fact sheet” lifted from his personal blog XYonline.

The “fact sheet” appears to simply re-interpret work done mostly by international researchers to make findings not found by the researchers themselves. Moreover, save for Jaffe in 2008 all of that research was done before the Australian Family Law Act was significantly changed in 2006 with the Shared Parental Responsibility amendments.

Any scientist knows that trying to make conclusions about human behaviour through this one valid example is bloody idiotic. No problem for Dr Flood reasoning was thrown out long ago in favour of hysterics.

He usurps the creditability of other people's work by referencing, takes responses from one study out of context and grafts them onto questions to which they are inapplicable to manufacture data that supports his own predetermined conclusion. The efficiency is admirable. The integrity not so much.

There is no evidence for these findings other than his own prejudices. Flood's research advocacy is nakedly, self-serving bull – laughed out of any self-respecting sociology faculty (ANU->La Trobe->Wollongong->Coles deli)

And this is supposed to justify eviscerating the fundamental principles of Western jurisprudence, namely, the presumption of innocence and protections against perjury.

This places all of us at risk. Kiddies sentenced to the dismal cultural lethality of absent fathers. Feminist extremists and controlled girlie-men with tripe research can run around screaming alleged abuse like adolescent meth-heads with Tourettes with impunity while innocent fathers are treated the way Gollum treats the sun.
Posted by Howard Beale, Sunday, 18 March 2012 2:19:22 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
I find it ridiculous that a small minority of people worldwide believe that their lifestyle choice, which is a minority in every culture, think that they are right & it's a normal thing they are doing. And that children will not be affected by it! Kids need a strong male & female role model, not one or the other. leading social welfare studies have acknowledged this & research shows the impact of fatherless children has had on the decay of society. Society isn't improving, it's becoming worse. Society starts at home with both mum & dad teaching morals, love, respect & discipline to their children! My daughter has a friend who trust & confides in her that he is ashamed his parents are gay & has asked her not to tell anyone. Where is the much wanted & needed male & female role model he desperately needs? He feels isolated, can't bring friends home yet he didn't choose this. Everyone has got an opinion, & I could say alot more. Just don't shove your lifestyle choice & ideas & opinions of same sex/ fatherless parenting down the throat of 98% of the general population who knows that Adam & eve not Adam & steve is what is normal. it's a minority like you who try to hold the rest of us to ransom by justifying your lifestyle choices then choosing to attack people who don't share your lifestyle choice or twisted belief. Good on you Warwick you are a champion & I'm blessed to know you personally over a number of years & know what a great man of integrity, morals & principals you are. The amount of marriages you have strengthened, the countless hours of counciling, ( at no charge but purely out of love) & the encouragement & love you have sewn into people's lives shows your heart & character. These people who attack you are a minority trying to justify an alternative lifestyle & have no idea who you are & the good you do for everyone around you.
Posted by Straight & normal, Sunday, 18 March 2012 2:24:28 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
I expect the ignorant minority to attack but that's all they are, an ignorant minority who 98% of the population knows are incorrect in their lifestyle/ beliefs. I agree that there are bad woman & men in this world unfit for parenting. There are woman as well as same sex couples trying to undermine the importance of male/female role models & should put the kids first before their own agendas.. The most balanced kids come from a combination of 2 proven key ingredients time again. A healthy loving family starting from the example set by both husband & wife treatment of each other & the unique, essential qualities that both genders provide, along with the love, discipline, example they impart to their children. Kids get only one childhood & we owe it to them to provide the best foundation for adulthood which can only come from the model/example explained, & has been proven over the generations. Whether or not this happens comes down to each individual choices they make. Sadly it seems selfishness & what do I gain, how can I benefit from this, is more important to individuals in a society which is increasingly becoming more selfish, wicked, paranoid, less trusting & loveless then ever before. This is visibly leading to social disintegration. Blessed are those who have found true balance in themselves & their friends & family. Definitely a gift from god in these evil selfish times. I thank god for keeping me safe, for providing me with friends with these qualities & an amazing wife. Jesus has turned my world around & he can do the same for you. I encourage everyone as Easter approaches to find out who Jesus is. He is either a lying madman or the truth. There is no in between. Where will you spend eternity?
Posted by Straight & normal, Sunday, 18 March 2012 2:28:20 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
Warwick is on solid ground with his article on the relevance of natural law and marriage, the adverse impacts of feminism to families and fatherhood, and government interference with families. Recent papers by Dr Pat Fagan, family research council, Washington DC and Professor Patrick Parkinson Sydney Law School highlight respectively the importance to society of the monogamous heterosexual family and the decline that is happening in western societies due to fragile families.

About any matter there is only one truth. We just need to make time to cast off our ignorance. The natural family needs society's protection and Warwick is commended for highlighting important truths.
Posted by Michael GO, Sunday, 18 March 2012 3:30:23 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
> "About any matter there is only one truth."
Posted by Michael GO, Sunday, 18 March 2012 3:30:23 PM

Yes, "We just need to make time to cast off our ignorance".

The truth is that same-sex attractedness is Not a choice for the vast majority that are ~ 98-9%.

Of, curse, given the continuum of human behaviour, and the continuity of sexuality, there are some that choose - a small %.

The truth that same-sex attractedness is Not a choice is a reason many teenagers, becoming aware of their same-sex attractedness, often without support, have committed suicide.

None of this precludes the assertion that "The natural family needs society's protection".
Posted by McReal, Sunday, 18 March 2012 4:59:13 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
Like you I expect "the ignorant minority to attack" and I'm sure Warwick would appreciate, S & N, your taking time on a Sunday to become a user and submit 2 posts in his support – but you're not assisting the attempted inference in the article of his not being "obviously a homophobic bigot."

With a simple edit one of your sentences can include everyone in Australia, regardless of their beliefs or circumstances: "Society starts at home with parents teaching morals, love, respect & discipline to their children!"

As you presume to judge the parenting abilities of others publicly, I feel entitled to draw your attention to the fact your daughter doesn't deserve her friend's trust and confidence…

"My daughter has a friend who trust & confides in her that he is ashamed his parents are gay & has asked her not to tell anyone."

I'm confident you will use this as an opportunity to discipline her appropriately and reflect on your own failures as a father to impart the appropriate moral lesson and your part in publicly extending this breach of confidence. Jesus would – wouldn't he?
Posted by WmTrevor, Sunday, 18 March 2012 5:22:31 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
I really don't understand the desperation by some to conflate issues facing father and attacks on homosexuals.

I've not noticed the homosexual lobby being a significant part of the push to retain or add to the bias in family law outcomes.

Leaving aside the wrongs of the discrimination for the moment from a pragmatic sense all that's achieved is to alienate another section of the community when father are needing all the support they can get.

Howard I hope the libs also have some interest in a fairer approach to child support rather than the very damaging formula's and approach taken at the moment. After some years of being a full time parent is still shocked by CSA's claim that a 13 year old boy costs around $420 a week to keep if the combined parental income is high enough and that's applied regardless of the actual circumstances of the parents.

My guess is that without special needs or much extra curricular activity $150 per week pretty much covered it with healthy food, clothes, some recreation and some pocket money.

Likewise the needs of a parent who's remarried someone on a good income and keeps an easy and flexible but low paying job for the lifestyle benefits compared to someone doing it on their own are very different but the formulas are applied without regard to the relative impacts on people or the circumstances leading up to residency arrangements.

Allowing so called child support to be used to gouge money from the other parent at a level way beyond actual needs and at a level that creates hardship for the payer is a massive wrong.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 18 March 2012 5:29:22 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
To the arrogant and bigotted would-be "scientist," I suggest Natural Law existed at least a million years ago, when science tells us humans first aspired to be scientists and ended as destroyers of all creation in an anticlimax. As for the gays and feminists destroying the natural family, as well as the entire country, Warwick, the supreme irony is however to be seen maybe when all the boat people take over, rescue us from ourselves, and circumcise our grand-daughters in twenty-sixty. We'll still be able to recognise Julia in a burqa however with those prominent physical features. To all and sundry, I hope you've been practising saying your "Allah is Great" if you wish to go on living. Study history all you ignoramuses! Otherwise, read Enoch Powell's speech of 20th April, 1968.
Posted by connie2, Sunday, 18 March 2012 10:14:43 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
The current state of political correctness means that many of our politicians are brainwashed by the extreme feminist lobby. It is a monster of their own creation that now wields so much power they either truly have faith in the dogma of extreme feminist beliefs, or are so manipulated by the power of their lobby that they follow it out of fear. This is putting our children in extreme danger due to the political support for laws that seek to destroy the rights of fathers, mothers and their children. Laws that allow a parent to ignore the power of a court order by denying a child the right to have the caring hand of the other parent and their extended family. This they are able to do without fear of consequences because of our governments’ and courts’ lack of courage to enforce access orders.

Further to this, most of our politicians have supported the introduction of a law that also denies natural justice by allowing one parent to make unsubstantiated and unproven claims of aggression or violence to deny any contact by the other parent. This is a form of “controlled violence” against the victim partner in the form of completely denying a child the access to that parent.

The real fact that has been proven time and time again, and that I also know from 40 years experience dealing with family breakdown, is that children need both their mother and their father in their lives to have the best chance to develop the ability to understand and cope with the trials and tribulations of life as we know it.

You simply can not substitute the male influence in a child’s life by replacing it with another female. This also applies for trying to substitute the female influence in a child’s life. Each of the sexes in a parental role gives a unique and “natural” set of lessons and examples to a child during their development.

They are all laws that do nothing more than seek to erode the family structure upon which our society is founded.

Barry
Posted by BarryW, Sunday, 18 March 2012 10:45:54 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
BarryW <"The current state of political correctness means that many of our politicians are brainwashed by the extreme feminist lobby..."

Extreme feminist lobby?
Where?
In a predominantly male parliament and judiciary, how is there a
feminist 'lobby' apparently pulling all the strings?

Is it some sort of mind-power thing these rabid feminists have over all the male pollies?

Why is it that the current Family Court and CSA are the way they are, when the politicians who agreed to all the laws concerning them are predominantly male?

Could it be that the overwhelming truth of the family problems and/or domestic violence situations made them do what had to be done?

Or is there some secret 'feminist lobby' out there somewhere, pulling all the Pollies strings, and obviously not caring one iota about how their decisions may affect their own brothers, fathers, sons, nephews etc, if we are to believe in this supposed conspiracy against fathers?

Sorry, but that scenario doesn't make any sense to me.
And no, I don't want to read any dreadful tales from family court scenarios, because we are only getting one side of the story, and that isn't enough.
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 19 March 2012 1:32:08 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
"And no, I don't want to read any dreadful tales from family court scenarios, because we are only getting one side of the story, and that isn't enough."

And yet the entire fabric of lies that claims of gendered DV is founded on is based on "one side of the story", Suzie's continued refusal to pay attention to the results when both genders are asked about partner violence seems to be based on on getting "one side of the story" as a nurse.

The reality is very clear, when both genders are asked about partner violence the numbers are similar, females initiate violence more often, men do serious harm more often (with some correlation to mutual violence).

Getting "one side of the story" is apparently ok when it's the woman's side of the story, not so good apparently if it's the man's side of the story.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 19 March 2012 5:20:47 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
Since there seems to be no automatic guarantee that heterosexuals getting married accept that means “the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman” – no surprises there, since the oldest written statutes about marriage included provisions for divorce (including some for the disposition of slaves) – how best to minimise the problems?

Is a compulsory prenuptial agreement about any post nuptial circumstance too simplistic?

A bit like building into a marriage contract the parties' agreement (before psychopathy sets in) of the provisions for a 'divorce contract'.

Or else a version of my grandmother's method of settling arguments between my brother and me over a piece of cake – "he cuts, you choose."

In a disputed divorce the court draws random lots and one party writes two complete settlements including provisions for custody and maintenance each of which applies to a single parent, and

The other party selects which one they want for themselves!

However this would not alter the fact that the only people responsible for a breakdown of 'traditional marriage' are the man and woman involved – both of whom should have made a better decision in the first place.
Posted by WmTrevor, Monday, 19 March 2012 6:21:24 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
RObert <"Suzie's continued refusal to pay attention to the results when both genders are asked about partner violence seems to be based on on getting "one side of the story" as a nurse."

That's not fair Robert. As a nurse I HAVE seen both sides of the physical problems of domestic violence... with both men and women coming in to hospital bloodied and injured after beating the c**p out of each other.

And I'm not naive RObert. I have met/cleaned up violent women who I would sooner keep away from, in preference to many of the violent men!
I wasn't discussing that aspect in my previous comment however.

This thread is about an apparent 'conspiracy' by the Government to create a 'fatherless society' and my reluctance to believe that predominantly male politicians and judiciary staff are being led by an apparent feminist lobby.

The family court system was devised for a reason, and that was to protect vulnerable people from angry, controlling and/or violent relatives who may seek to have physical, financial or mental advantage during and after relationship breakdowns.
And yes, I include both genders in this description.

There will always be upset people when the court rulings don't go their way. Then it is up to the courts to deal with them.
It's not a perfect system of course, but it is vastly superior to the 'good-ol-days', when women and children were considered a man's property, and were treated accordingly in many cases.
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 19 March 2012 8:24:37 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
A perfect summary of a somewhat untidy thread. Well done, connie2.

>>...the supreme irony is however to be seen maybe when all the boat people take over, rescue us from ourselves, and circumcise our grand-daughters in twenty-sixty. We'll still be able to recognise Julia in a burqa however with those prominent physical features. To all and sundry, I hope you've been practising saying your "Allah is Great" if you wish to go on living. Study history all you ignoramuses! Otherwise, read Enoch Powell's speech of 20th April, 1968.<<

It is my guess that every poster who supports the views of Warwick Marsh would be the first to endorse connie2's contribution. If I am wrong, I'm sure that they will quickly come forward to disown it, and and to put it firmly back in its religio-paranoid box.

connie2 warns us that "the boat people" will take over Australia, and by 2060 they will be subjugating us with Sharia laws. Classic! No need for any references to demographic data, immigration statistics or the strength of our own laws, just good, solid, straightforward dog-whistle fear-mongering.

I loved the reference to good ol' Enoch Powell's spittle from over forty years ago. Here it is, in its glorious entirety:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html

The analogue of connie2's paranoia is Powell's imaginary constituent: "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man." More than double that estimate has passed, and the country is still firmly in the hands of "the white man". Take a look at Mr Cameron, if you need reassurance. Here he is standing next to the President of the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/14/david-cameron-and-barack-obama-watch-basketball-in-ohio_n_1343851.html

"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

Yeah, right, Mr Powell.

But I guess what puzzles me most, is why so many folk seem to get their kicks from promoting unmitigated doom. They must live terribly circumscribed lives, with their every waking moment overshadowed by fear of "the other".

How very, very sad.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 19 March 2012 8:39:55 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
Suzie its far worse than "not a perfect system", its corrupt to the core and provides far to much power to the unethical to play the system. I dont think out pollies ever take the time or effort to come to grips with the picture, no one rally seems to unless they end up on the wrong side of it.

An unholy aliance of traditional views of the family, single mums groups playing on gender stereotypes and sista's sticking up for each other

Your constant attacks on and dismissal of men who've suffered at the hands of this corrupt system is what is not fair.

Robert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 19 March 2012 1:08:40 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
48 hours? Badge of honour Mr. Marsh.

The idea on it's face is absolutely impossible to believe - we're to deny the reality of the body, sexual difference and its psychic equivalents? There is no way to do this apart from a soft totalitarian coercion and censorship. For that to be worth it requires an explanation.

When the state is everyone's schoolmaster and employer it's hard to snap your fingers at its ideology (terminal liberalism). Under this ideology the state is suspicious of anything not amenable to liberal managerial technocratic control. Natural meanings, traditional loyalties, voluntary groups that operate on nonliberal principles are dissolved and opened up to state control in the name of providing 'choice' and overcoming 'discrimination'. Now rational discrimination between men and women as irrational prejudice is clearly monstrously false, so a very malignant Power must be at work. The other jaw is the logic of money - (the systematic dissolving of barriers to its entry and opening of new markets - submission of all aspects of human life to contract and commodification) which works hand in glove with state expansion and colonisation of every dimension of our lives. This is our current plutarchy - the 'market-state'. And it is this that can make us believe that mums and dads, men and women are interchangeable - essentially the same!

The beast is hungry. I hope we can agree that the family, mums, dads and childhood deserve to be spared. Others have said it more eloquently than me:

http://johncwright.livejournal.com/483868.html UNISEXUALITY
http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1815 LIBERALISM
http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat FEMINISM (tool of liberalism)
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 19 March 2012 1:11:00 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
Pericles said
“Connie2 perfect summary of the thread... Boatpeople invasion, female circumcisions, Sharia Law, Enoch Powell...”
Are you medicated, because it doesn't seem to be working.
But do keep making shite up though, perhaps you'll be offered a job in the PM's office.

Suseonline
The family court system is … designed to protect vulnerable people from angry, controlling and/or violent relatives who may seek to have physical, financial or mental advantage during and after relationship breakdowns.
Please desist from beclowning yourself.
It's really embarrassing especially after the truth has been pointed out to you.

The divorce regime is much more serious than simply "unfairness" or "gender bias" against fathers in custody proceedings. It is the government's machine for destroying the principal check on its power – the family – and criminalizing its main rival: fathers. The most basic human and constitutional rights are routinely violated in family courts. The lives of children and parents are in serious danger once they are, as the phrase goes, taken into "custody." Systemic conflicts-of-interest among government and private officials charged with child custody, child support, child protection, and connected matters have created a witch hunt against plainly innocent citizens.

Malcolm X once described a family court as modern "slavery,...the power of family court judges is almost unlimited."

Predictably with unlimited power, the family courts of this country are now out of control. They are not tribunals for redressing injustice; they are more of a racket headed by a judiciary itself so crooked that the Family Court is little more than a system of organised crime for plundering fathers and funnelling money into the pockets of lawyers. Though their lips are dripping with the words "best interest of the child," they are in fact using our children as weapons and as commodities for the increase of their own power and profit

Our divorce system is a racket that enriches lawyers and makes children and communities poorer. Divorce scars children and leaves them emotionally disfigured. The family violence amendments that legalise perjury supposedly to protect “victims” are perverse and they are destroying children and our society.
Posted by Howard Beale, Monday, 19 March 2012 1:35:18 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
HowardBeale <"Please desist from beclowning yourself.
It's really embarrassing especially after the truth has been pointed out to you."

Charming again.
Whose 'truth' has been pointed out to me?
Yours?
Who says your truth is correct for all?

You can only speak for your own bitter experience, just as I can.
I am embarrassed for you, and a little saddened at the utter hatred you seem to have towards everyone.

I realise some family court battles are bitter, and I'm sure all parties feel aggrieved.
Luckily, these battles seem to be in the minority.
We all want the best for our kids, but after a bitter separation, not everyone can have their way unfortunately
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 19 March 2012 2:12:56 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
connie2 said
>>Warwick, the supreme irony is however to be seen maybe when all the boat people take over, rescue us from ourselves, and circumcise our grand-daughters in twenty-sixty. We'll still be able to recognise Julia in a burqa however with those prominent physical features. To all and sundry, I hope you've been practising saying your "Allah is Great" if you wish to go on living. Study history all you ignoramuses! Otherwise, read Enoch Powell's speech of 20th April, 1968.<<

Pericles said
>>Connie2 perfect summary of the thread... Boatpeople invasion, female circumcisions, Sharia Law, Enoch Powell...<<

Howard Beale said
>>Are you medicated, because it doesn't seem to be working.
But do keep making shite up though, perhaps you'll be offered a job in the PM's office.<<

Epic fail. Insults instead of rebuttals speak volumes about your debating skills. Especially when those insults are groundless.

>>Please desist from beclowning yourself.<<

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 8:12:29 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
Good gracious.

I think I can see what Warwick is getting at: he is essentially lamenting the fact that traditional, and not so traditional notions of masculinity are currently devalued. OK, that's relatively uncontroversial.

However the ensuing commentary seems to me to be a pretty clear indication that the way he has gone about framing his argument - through appeal to its alleged effects on family relations - has somewhat exceeded many people's ability to talk about it sensibly.

There are so many complicating factors surrounding Herr Marsh's application of his core contention, and so many people with dire emotional investments in the consequences of it, that this discussion has somewhat fascinatingly descended into a parody of itself - and I'd be really interested to know what people will make of it 2000 years from now, if it survives that long.

But I think that's a shame, because fundamentally I agree with what Warwick is saying. I do think it's eminently arguable that the positive qualities of masculinity have been inappropriately devalued, and even that this can be seen to manifest in imbalances in family law and notions of gender roles, parenting, domestic violence etc, to the detriment of us all.

But I don't agree with his analysis of the way this has occured, nor of what its implications are - and in fact I would go so far as to say it's hardly surprising, looking at the fractured, undignified, incompetent arguments that are being advanced here, since it rather clarifies that men who care about this stuff are obviously in no fit state to contribute to the debates.

So come on fellas, get yourselves together. Learn some integrity and responsibility for yourselves, and drink a cup of cement and harden the schluck up. If you want respect, then you're going to have to get off your arses and earn it - because you clearly don't deserve it at the moment.
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 3:13:09 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
Oh for the 'wisdom of Solomon'.

As great as the love of a man for a woman may be it is slight in comparison with the true love of a woman for a man. It is certain that a man must do much and be unwavering to win and maintain the love of a woman - and so attain the ultimate relationship, the blessed union (in practical, as well as possibly in 'spiritual' terms). But we so often hedge around our foundational motivations and deepest aspirations, and settle for less, as players in some 'real life' video game - deceived and manipulated by a constructed scenario full of false leads and enticing diversions. The material world overshadowing what is truly meaningful and inspirational.

Throughout history man has constructed rules and prescriptions to a greater or lesser extent to closet or regulate female freedoms, as though this could somehow enforce an 'illusion' of the ideal, of a steadfast partnership between man and woman. How dismal, how pathetic, and yet how understandable - given a natural motivation for woman to be attracted to the strongest male, to the best provider and protector, and given the huge changes in circumstance, occupation and environment encountered in the relatively minute span of 'human' existence, from hunter-gatherer to Wall Street banker in a literal blink of an eye, from stone tools to iPad4.

Constructed rules have failed, and will continue to fail to overcome the failure of man to understand and fully appreciate the evolved role and psyche of woman - and the adaptation of woman to man's failure to keep pace has generated even greater confusion. A new paradigm is at hand, in the ascension of woman, and both man and woman will have to learn or relearn the true meaning of love and loving expectations in this new and confusing world.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 3:49:56 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
Warwick's "Gay Hate Truck" lands itself in hot water.

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2012/03/20/hate-truck-in-hot-water/74445

Quote: "The photographer behind an image used in the signage of the now infamous ‘gay hate truck’ has sought legal representation to contest the use of his image in the campaign.

Danish photographer Yuri Arcurs licenses his work through stock photo website Fotolia.com and said the use of the image by truck organisers breaches its licensing agreement.

One of the terms and conditions of the site’s image licensing clearly stipulates that photos may not be used in connection with anything that would “imply that the creator of the work, or the persons appearing in the work, endorse any political, economic or other opinion-based movements or parties”.

Arcurs was unaware that the image, which shows an older man embracing a male child, was being used in the ‘Queensland Election Prayer Rally Tour’, organised by failed Christian Democrat candidate Peter Madden and The Fatherhood Foundation’s Warwick Marsh, until contacted by the Star Observer.

He agreed that it clearly breached the licensing agreement.

“The image is mine, and there are strict rules regarding the use of stock photography for campaigns like this,” he said.

“It’s a very strong political message to send, and as the models on the image might not agree with the statements made in the campaign, this would not be considered legal use of the images.”

Arcurs said he’d contacted his legal representatives to follow up on the improper use of the image."
Posted by PaulG, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 5:12:35 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
An article by Dr Baskerville provides some disturbing insights into the social policy objectives of our feminist dominated Government in particular with regard to fathers.
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_16_03_2_baskerville.pdf

Ms Gillard is socially engineering CEDAW - The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (not men) - which codifies a 1970’s radical feminist "anti-family" ideology as official doctrine & tool for dismantling the Australian patriarchy.

Releasing those aged provisions in 21st-century Australia is strange at best, and at worst they could seriously compromise the privacy, well-being, and basic freedoms of all Australians. Indeed CEDAW implemented as law effectively gives feminist organizations a license to litigate, re-educate, re-socialize and even persecute their fellow citizens, including women, into compliance.

It calls for the eradication of “any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms”(Art.10c) and especially those gender stereotypes that associate women with care giving and motherhood.

page 8 "CEDAW prohibits making distinctions between the roles of mother and father, and teaching a traditional understanding of the family"...

Schools teach our children they can get along just as well with two mothers or two fathers, and any attempt to show otherwise is considered discrimination against women. Religious references erased from textbooks and chaplains removed.
Australian Passports degenderise parents as parent1 and parent2.

Careerism becomes the primary family policy.(CEDAW Art.11[2][e]) requires the State (taxpayers) to fund the establishment and development of a network of child-care facilities and necessary supporting social services.

Gillard's Family Violence (sole custody) amendments to the Family Law Act are designed to increase divorce while making it impossible for fathers to share in the care of their children after separation.

Feminist Guidelines are manufactured that demand primary attachment of children to mothers and exclude fathers from having overnights with their children under 4.

$2BN has been allocated to social workers & 19-40% pay increases to carers for the collectivization of child rearing and institutionalized child care of pre-school children of divorced/single mothers as they are forced back into the workforce after paid maternity leave. Stay at home mums are discriminated against.
Posted by Howard Beale, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 11:47:49 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
p9: CEDAW insists that religious freedom and democratic rights must be curtailed when disagree with their agenda…expresses open hostility to the free exercise of religion, reporting that “in all countries, the most significant factors inhibiting women’s ability to participate in public life have been the cultural framework of values and religious beliefs”.

If a nation's religious rules, traditions, and customs conflict with the CEDAW’s view of women's rights, that nation must find new religious rules, traditions, and customs.

And the battle against men, male privilege, requires special efforts to guarantee equal results in the workplace and in government.

Article 4 reads "Temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women shall not be considered discrimination." This is interpreted as mandating "affirmative action(reverse discrimination), preferential treatment or quota systems to advance women's integration into education, the economy, politics and employment."

Feminists can use this provision to bring about "gender laws” – family law, special domestic violence courts, rape, sexual harassment - “gender-fair budgets", state-mandated quotas for gender-balanced legislatures. Women's groups can litigate all areas of Australian life that fail to evince statistical parity between the sexes.

This government is sexist. Men are being persecuted under guise of equality.
Posted by Howard Beale, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 12:02:14 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
Too much common sense, Mr. Marsh. You'll never cut it with the politically correct crowd!

A child's need for a father and a mother is dictated by human biology. Mr. Marsh does little more than state and apply the obvious. It amazes me that Warwick's opponents could look past such a fundamental aspect of humanity!
Posted by Sven, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 4:48:46 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
>>Men are being persecuted under guise of equality.<<

Really? Because I'm a man and I've never felt that I was being persecuted for it. When you say men, do you actually mean big sooky whingers who think the whole world is out to get them and who really need to mix a spoonful of cement into their quiche and harden the firetruck up? Because that's not the type of people I think of as men: at least not real men.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 4:56:17 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
Newest user to OnLine Opinion and first post all in one day – congratulations Sven that might be a record… unless connie2 and Michael GO (currently seven and eight on the list) contest it. Anyway, welcome.

So is it your point that Warwick Marsh's absent father upbringing caused him to have a miserable failure of a life?
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 6:38:26 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
Tony Lavis: No one with even a sense of shame or smarts would come out with that stupid comment. Now wipe that froth off your mouth, then try to make a case … and what is your hand doing on your crotch there?

Our radical feminist controlled Government’s social policy for men is encapsulated in “The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children [not men]”, namely, to abolish the institutional source of male privilege — the patriarchal family - and criminalise & impoverish its main rivals: fathers.

It is a thinly veiled version of the American VAWA conceived as a way to extract enormous sums of money to be diverted into funding the political arm of the women's movement.

Part of this Plan to reduce contact between fathers and children was legislated in the family violence (sole custody) amendments to the Family Law Act guillotined through the Senate in November of last year.

- Remove “Pro-contact” emphasis in court for fathers and their children
- shift emphasis to permanently ending a father's parental rights on suspicion of domestic violence
- Expanded and enhanced use of No Contact/Protection Orders for women
- Specialized Domestic Violence Courts with Judges who have specialized training
- new definition of rape requiring proof of consent
- Shifting burden of proof to the accused for cases domestic or sexual violence cases
- Formation of programs to change or alter the idea of masculinity, especially for children and young boys

Why?
Children are the levers for social change. Fatherless children become vulnerable putty in the indoctrinating hands of ideological zealots.

How?
The National DV Plan does violence to the rule of law. Violence is redefined to include dirty looks, name calling, or simply the “intuition” (imagination) of a woman that the accused is thinking ill thoughts.

Accusers need provide no proof and are not held accountable for lying. The accused can and are summarily jailed, denied access to their children, and put under restraining orders on nothing more than the say-so of a woman
Posted by Howard Beale, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 9:02:31 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
The Family Violence amendments & National DV Plan takes “he said” out of “he said, she said” and removes all penalties for lying.

A women who may very well be acting out of anger, a desire to retain marital property or sole custody of their children, or just plain whimsy can legally seize a man's house, assets, children & future income and silence any objections with an interim protection order obtained in an ex-parte three minute hearing which the man is not even aware of.

Men in Australia will literally cease being equal partners with women in the eyes of the law.

Western democracies aren't supposed to pass laws like these, western democracies are supposed to be the ones who cherish equal protection and equal access.

Women of the ALP responsible for this utter madness
Jenny Macklin
Tanya Plibersek
SenatorTrish Crossin
Nicola Roxon
Catherine King
Maria Vamvakinou
Kate Ellis
Senator Claire Moore
Senator Jan McLucas
Senator Julie Collins
Senator Catryna Bilyk
Senator Louise Pratt

The civil rights of millions of Australian men now hang in the balance

How is it that radical feminist ideals, pushed by a handful of zealots, get so easily incorporated into a major government sponsored plan? How is it that almost every Australian media outlet would rather act like cowards and refuse to even question the most basic tenets of a National Plan, despite the fact that it will disenfranchise half the population?

Sign the F4E "Strength in Numbers" Register now to oppose this social engineering of family and legal persecution of men.

It's free and nothing is required of you, but every person who signs will help us send a loud message to Canberra that the silent majority have numbers, we want to share in the parenting of our children, we will not be persecuted by the National DV Plan's gender laws, we will not have our life savings plundered by the lawyers union, we will preference family friendly politicians and vote out Emily's list extremists, we have a voice, and we intend to use it!
http://www.fathers4equality-australia.org/equalparenting/f4eregistration.nsf/person?OpenForm
Posted by Howard Beale, Wednesday, 21 March 2012 9:14:06 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
Venture into many yards this weekend and you will hear many children, especially boys, following their dads asking the "why this", "why that" questions. But if one of the chidren falls and cuts themselves they will most likely run into their mother who will get out the band aids and give them a cuddle.

Is this because the mother knows nothing about the world, or because the father doesn't care that their child has hurt themselves. No, it is because the father and mother are different, men and women are different. They are better at different things and at meeting different needs in their children. And the children don't need someone to tell them this, or to tell them otherwise.

Men and women being different isn't a bad thing. Marriage is about the partners, husband and wife, complementing each other, about the whole being more than the two individuals. This is just as God intended.
Posted by eye on the future, Thursday, 22 March 2012 7:59:54 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
You left out Penny Wrong, Howard.I had a very good example of some womens attitude to domestic violence a year or so ago. I work as a carer for disabled people. As part of my training i was required to attend a medication/first aid course. One of the instructors was a former paramedic. There were 7 women in the class plus little old me. At one stage he related a story about a call he attended where the husband had been bashed unconcious by his wife. Immediately 3 of the women weighed in with comments like "good on her ", "it served him right" and "he probably deserved it". I wonder what the reaction would have been if it had been the wife who had been bashed unconcious by the husband and I had made similar comments.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Thursday, 22 March 2012 8:04:43 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
eye on the future
The social science research on the importance of children having a mother and a father is now extremely well-established, and quite convincing: when one parent is absent – and it is usually the father – then kids are greatly disadvantaged in every social indicator

Professor David Popenoe of Rutgers University puts it: “In three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable to single-parent families and step-families. If our prevailing views on family structure hinged solely on scholarly evidence, the current debate would never have arisen in the first place.”

Sydney law Professor Patrick Parkinson confirms the international findings in his important study, “For Kids’ Sake,” 2011. He documents how both children’s wellbeing and the state of heterosexual marriage have deteriorated in recent decades to a 52% divorce rate

-A tripling in the number of children notified for abuse or neglect since 1998.
-A doubling in the number of children in out-of-home care in 12 years.
-A 66 per cent increase in the rate of hospitalisation for self-harm for 12-14-year-olds between 1996-97 and 2005-06.
-An increase from 28 per cent to 38 per cent in female school students experiencing unwanted sex between 2002 and 2008.
-A doubling in the rate of hospitalisation for alcohol intoxication for women aged 15-24 between 1998-99 and 2005-06.”

Spiralling rates of child abuse and neglect, foster care, teenage mental health problems, self harm are rooted in the rise of one-parent families and de facto couples, violent or unstable relationships and divorce…

The ‘fatherless family’ has meant poverty, emotional heartache, ill health, lost opportunities, and a lack of stability. The social fabric – once considered flexible enough to incorporate all types of lifestyles – has been stretched and strained. Although a good society should tolerate people's rights to live as they wish, it must also hold adults responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Governments in Australia cannot ignore this reality.
Posted by Howard Beale, Friday, 23 March 2012 6:33:24 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
There are massive hidden economic, social and political costs in pursuing this ideological feminist dream to re-engineer family & criminalise fathers.

A recent study found divorce and single parent childrearing now costs taxpayers at least $11.2 billion each year. This scaled estimate includes the costs to federal, state, and local government of the justice (1.93) & health (2.79) systems, unemployment benefits & welfare programs (1.63), housing assistance (0.73), child welfare (1.20), education assist (0.69) and foregone tax revenues (2.23) at all level of government.

Family breakdown and single parent homes is more closely linked to all our major social ills - poverty, violent crime, substance abuse, child abuse, suicide, depression, underachievement and more - than to any other factor. From this inevitably follows generational family dysfunction and abuse with all the concomitant cost increases in welfare, law enforcement, healthcare and education in a self-perpetuating, ever-expanding cycle.

The insidious nature of the Family Violence (sole custody) amendments & the National DV Plan - which remove fathers from families - is that all these costs will increase while at same time destroying the basic economic unit of modern society, the working family, which generates the wealth to meet those costs and not just today but in future generations. Welfare is now the 3rd largest item in the Australian GDP.

Child support/enforcement is presented as a way to recover welfare costs by forcing deadbeat dads to support children they abandon. In reality, it has become a lucrative incentive for divorce, effectively bribing mothers to separate with the promise of a tax-free windfall and ongoing benefits subsidized by taxpayers. Far from saving money, child support enforcement loses money and far more serious subsidizes divorces and fatherless children that generate additional welfare costs.

Further, mothers are not only enticed into divorce with promises of lucrative support payments; they are also coerced into it through threats of losing their children themselves. Mothers are now ordered to divorce their husbands on pain of losing their children through spurious child abuse accusations. Intact middle-class families now live in fear of a visit from the dreaded child protective services
Posted by Howard Beale, Sunday, 25 March 2012 4:55:05 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
We can't afford the cost of fatherless families

Professor Patrick Parkinson, chairman of the Family Law Council and the Child Support Scheme, and architect of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 confirms this in his new paper, “Another Inconvenient Truth: Fragile Families and the Looming Financial Crisis for the Welfare State”
Ref: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1992740##

Governments around the western world are facing financial crisis from the growing fragility of family life and the increase in births to mothers without a partner living in the home. The costs of family dissolution are to a very significant extent borne by taxpayers, who provide income support for many parents and their children, pay substantial administrative costs in the legal, welfare, education, law enforcement systems and bear more of the costs of caring for the elderly than would be necessary if a greater number of marital and quasi-marital relationships remained intact.

The growing costs to the public purse of mass fatherlessness are simply unsustainable when taken together with the existing governmental debt burden, growing environmental problems, ageing populations, and the problem of decreased fertility in developed countries.

Action therefore needs to be taken by governments to support programs and services that have the goal of promoting & maintaining safe, stable, and nurturing relationships between parents and their children and to eliminate perverse incentives to choose family forms that may not be optimal as a context for raising children.

The Coalitions “weak” shared parenting reform reduced litigated divorce by 22%. In countries implementing equal shared care of children after separation divorce dropped 50%.

The fact that the lawyers union & Emily List feminists underhandedly & unilaterally rolled back this reform makes it clear that Mr Abbott must commit to implementing a rebuttable presumption of equal shared care of children after separation - halve divorce, protect family, save taxpayers $6BN/yr.

There is no other way to separate fiscal and social issues. Break the power of a corrupt divorce-DV multibillion dollar industry and stop enormous sums of money being diverted into funding the political arm of the radical feminist's movement.

Do it right this time.
Posted by Howard Beale, Sunday, 25 March 2012 7:18:37 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
Howard if they are going to keep CSA or something similar their should be an independent review of the hugely exaggerated figures they use for costs of raising a child and some kind of independent review process so that need, impact and circumstance are taken into account.

The current system makes some extreme assumptions which when applied do real harm.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 25 March 2012 7:48:28 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
Mr George Christensen, MP for Dawson, made a speech to the House a week ago calling for the overhaul of the Child Support system so there's a nexus between child support & court orders. His point being that access to children in accordance with court orders (or, where none are in place, fairness) should be a condition of child support being ongoing.

Mr Christensen gets my vote as Minister for "The Status of Men and Family issues" in the next Federal Government - second?

Fathers dragged into family court have been slapped with impossible child support judgements, deprived of the means to earn enough to pay those judgements, and now can be jailed for contempt for being unable to pay.

The current system of enforced so-called "child support" and asset redistribution based on child custody arrangements, necessarily creates a perverse incentive structure that rewards the creation of broken homes. That is, one subsidizes the activity.

Remove incentives for divorce for women. Child support, alimony, marital home without buying husbands half, and any other unequal distribution of marital assets or debts.

One major change that would make the whole system better is: "no fault" divorce = "no-fault" custody: automatic 50/50 physical and legal custody.

If you want more than that, you have to accuse the other parent of something and get a criminal conviction in court on that something. I think this alone would make a lot of women put a little more thought into the choices they make in life.

The "Other Measures" in the Family Violence (sole custody) amendments will make child support & enforcement bloody. These are known in the USA as the Bradley Amendment which denies bankruptcy protections for child support defaulters, overrides all statutes of limitation - arrears can never be discharged - and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay - like if you are a POW in Gan.

It is outrageous that "bad" laws known not to work should be imported and guillotined through the Senate without scrutiny - purely for profit to GALP voters.

Any suggestions for improvement will be greatly welcome.
Posted by Howard Beale, Sunday, 25 March 2012 8:51:20 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

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