It is grim testimony to the debased state of family law in Australia that one of the sisterhood can froth at the mouth at the inclusion of the word "reasonable".

I have not been subject to any family law measures but I have observed the way in which a family member was persecuted by the state through the total absence of controls to ensure that the spirit and intent of the legislation was not abused.

Here we have a field of law that is the most prone to vexatious litigation, most prone to false and misleading testimony, most prone to defamatory material, most prone to misrepresentation with the intent to gain monetary advantage, and most prone to false and unsubstantiated accusation. All of it would be highly illegal if it took place in just about any other social or legal context.

Yet, while judges routinely expose such false claims in court, no-one, ever, seems to be prosecuted for what is clearly contempt of court. There is some sort of perverted logic that such a prosecution would only punish the children. But no-one ever asks if we are really doing the kids a favour by teaching them that, under family law, cheats do, indeed, prosper.

Ms Merkin, you and your purile and sophist arguments against the insertion of "reasonableness" into family law are a disgrace. You offend every notion of natural justice and have exposed yourself as nothing more than a zealot.

And your exploitation of examples of murder/suicide is even more reprehensible given that a great many of these are triggered by the very sense of outrage and despair that this disgraceful legal cesspit has produced. You have the gall to use the very evidence of the system's failure as an argument for maintaining that system.

Perseus

I completely agree that in Family Law some of the most vexatious lies are committed.

I was abused by my husband for years. As most of the abuse was psychological - when he hit me he made sure not to leave much evidence. I was too intimidated to press charges - I was just relieved to get away from him. As a result I lost my home and most of my possessions and had to start again - this has taken years. He got off free of any charge for his abhorrant behaviour.

I'm not a lawyer, and, as such, don't really understand just what the inclusion of the word 'reasonable' to fear would mean. From my own experience I certainly had good reason to fear my husband - still do to this day.

What the author had to say about the Victorian legislation made very good sense to me. I would have had some chance at proving psychological abuse, but back in the 70's I didn't have a hope. As the author states the following makes very good sense.

"Many people still consider family violence to be confined to physical assault, such as hitting, punching and pushing. A new Act should make it clear that family violence includes:

* assault and physical injury;
* sexual assault and other sexually coercive behaviour;
* damage to a person’s property;
* emotional, psychological and verbal abuse;
* economic abuse."

For this reason, Perseus, please do not be so quick to dismiss this article as a piece of sophistry. There are men and women and children who are suffering from their spouses everyday. This is why we need to look very carefully at any new piece of legislation. Perhaps the author should have included more about domestic violence against both men and women. Even though men commit most of the abuse there are many men who also are abused.

Perhaps the campaign slogan should read:

“Domestic Violence, AUSTRALIA SAYS NO"

Regards

What an appalling load of rubbish.

Even the most basic look at stats on substantiated child abuse and neglect show this to be a lie.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/cpa03-04/cpa03-04-c02.pdf contains Australian statistics for the Family type for substantiated abuse and neglect of children.

Table 2.12: Substantiations, by type of family in which the child was residing,(a) 2003–04

Family type NSW(a) Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Per cent
Two parent—intact n.a. 31 27 29 28 44 34 38
Two parent—step or blended n.a. 7 23 20 22 11 14 9
Single parent—female n.a. 44 37 36 43 27 44 35
Single parent—male n.a. 6 5 4 4 6 5 7
Other relatives/kin n.a. 6 2 7 3 3 1 9
Foster n.a. 1 — 2 — 4 1 1
Other n.a. 4 7 1 1 5 2 1
Total n.a. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

"... in 2003, 17% of all Australian children lived in female
one-parent families, 2.5% lived in male-headed one-parent families, 8% lived in two-parent step or blended families and 72% lived in two-parent intact families (ABS 2004a)."

While the stats don't tell who is harming the children the living circumstances are a fairly good indicator. Likewise the NSW Child Death Review Team reports give some telling details on who kills children and it is not "overwhelmingly" men. http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/files/cdrt_fatal_abuse_neglect2003.pdf and the area around Page 49.

Suspects Non-accidental Mental Family Teenagers Total
injury illness breakdown
Familial
Biological mother 3 4 0 0 7
only
Biological father 6 0 5 0 11
only
Mother and father 3 0 0 0 3
Mother and male 2 0 0 0 2
de facto
Male de facto only 2 2 0 0 4
Foster mother 1 0 0 0 1

Hardly overwhelming evidence that fathers are a far greater risk than mothers to children. Take the enormous stresses caused to fathers by the massive gender bias in the application of family law and child support out of the picture and I suspect that some of those Family Breakdown deaths would go away as well.

R0bert

Scout, my intro line was directed at the article not at your post. After submitting my post I saw yours and realised that could read poorly. Completely agree with your rebadging of the campaign - the response we got back from the Government when they first launched the campaign was that it was funded by a department set up to help women so there was no need to consider violence against men. No corresponding department for men.

You've seen my comments previously regarding stats on physical violence between adults - I've not rehashed them yet, I'll see how the discussion goes. The child abuse stats are more telling and less disputable in the current context.

It is interesting that some authors want to include emotional violence and yet continue to insist that an "overwhelming" proportion of violence is committed by men against women. I've not seen any stats on that particular issue but would be very surprised if that claim could be backed up by any independant research unless it used the old perceived power structure dodge - men are more powerful in a relationship therefore women can't commit emotional violence against them.

In the context of family breakup the power structures are massively in the other direction so I wonder if the people who use power balances to discount one side of the argument would like to excuse men from their acts of physical and emotional violence - I suspect not.

Cheers
R0bert

R0bert

I was very relieved to read your second post. (Apart from trying to make sense of those stats.)

I think it is a shame that so many articles on DV are not inclusive. However, could you please consider my thoughts on the following.

Generally speaking, men DO contribute the bulk of physical violence in our society, in our world. I find it difficult to believe that women's physical violence escalates to the same level as men in the home.

However, I do believe that women contribute equal amounts of psychological abuse in almost all facets of society. I say ALMOST all simply because women do not participate equally in all areas: Law, Politics, Business etc. It is a sad indictment on the human race that both sexes are capable of the most abhorrant behaviour. The only difference is in how it is expressed. For men it is very simple to slap their partner to the floor. Women have to be more devious :-(

What I find difficult to reconcile is the claim that Family Law is controlled by feminist groups. Generally it is women who apply for custody of children and are usually on a lower income. This, of course, has changed a lot and the law needs to catch up. However, given that the majority of high office jobs are still in the hands of men, I find the claims about feminist control spurious to say the least.

Both the average woman AND man are mostly powerless - it is a primarily male elite that sets the agenda and many of them see women as mothers only and that could be a part of the reason why Family Legislation is skewed towards women, rather than to which parent is best for their children. Until the law is truly equitable - there will be women who will exploit it. However, it is partly a result of the patriarchal, traditional view of women that Family Law is so out of touch with reality. Just look how Tony Abbott tried to control RU486 - a medication for women.

Anyway, still friends.

Moms, don’t let your daughters go to a French protest. There might be Muslim youths there...

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/would-you-let-your-daughter-go-to.html

In this report from Sydney's Daily Telegraph on the ongoing socialist tantrums in France, we learn that “Muslim youths” from the suburbs are preying on the demonstrators: http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/print/0,20285,18641620-1702,00.html

"POLICE arrested more than 100 people during disturbances on the fringes of the Paris demonstration against a new youth jobs law, according to a provisional police count.

Low-level clashes were continuing to take place in the Place de la Republique, the end point of the march in the northeast of the capital.

Police and union marshals intervened after A GANG OF MUSLIM YOUTHS STOLE MOBILE PHONES AND CAMERAS FROM PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE PROTEST.

Earlier masked youths smashed the windows of a cafe and tried to mug people near the starting point of the march at Place d’Italie, in the south of the city.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy earlier warned that gangs from the Paris suburbs could infiltrate the demonstration."

See photos: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/would-you-let-your-daughter-go-to.html

The proposed change requires the fear to be reasonable. It does not suppose that a moderate amount of volence is acceptable. (Nor should it.) As such, it makes hardly any difference, since courts would normally exclude fanciful and imaginary fears in any case.

ozbib

All those who care for family and children will welcome adding "reasonable". My daugher would support making make it more concrete.

In the land of law, it is essential that we do not persecute innocent out of mere fear. The current system is does just this. Not only this, it rips off the man of his wealth, of his children, of his income and basically his life. I myself is one and can speak very clearly on this. That is why suicide rate among single fathers is so high.

Any legal process must consider the fact men can be innocent. It should be about finding what is wrong instead about witch hunting. Further, opportunitistic divorce has become the norm with the falling values in the society. So, the domestic violence has become the way to exploit innocent hardworking people of their wealth, let alone damaging families and chilren.

I believe the writer is either still in the moon or just plain out of touch with reality.

cheer - premsai

Ozib, you're quite right of course about the significance of the wording. The author must be taking a holistic approach to legal construction.

However, I think the impact in court is more than you suggest. If the word "reasonable" is absent, then the court has to decide whether or not a person really has a fear, or whether they're just making it up. The fact that the fear, if present, is not reasonable makes no difference.

With the word "reasonable" present, the court can make an objective assessment of the underlying facts. Only if the fear is reasonable does the court have to consider whether the person has it, and if the person claims they do, that's probably sufficient.

Sylvia.

Fear is fear! So on a scale of one to ten how much did you fear for your safety?
The reality is that the Family court does all it can to minimise DV in any way shape of form. The reality is that the Family Court is about making sure that an abusive violent parent has contact with that person, even if it makes orders for Supervised contact. Because this will only be ordered for a short amount of time.
My children were sexually abused by their father and he was given supervised contact. It is now going to be supervised for a few more months and then progress to unsupewrvised and by the end of the year to overnight. This is how the Family Court deal with abuse issues.
The relationship with the abusive parent is paramount! I have seen it so many times it makes me sick! Parents that have a long sheet of assult toward their X and others and have spent time in jail for these offences still get unsupervised contact Any form of contact is seen as better than none -And so the cycle will continue. Untill Australians actually do more than just pay lip service to australia say NO to Domestic Violence - any Violence for that matter and there are real consequences then all the band aids are not going to heal a festering wound.
Children are the real loosers in all of this.
Why are we being punished by being forced to see him (Father) when we did nothing wrong! He's the one that hurt us!
The Family Court send a very strong message to our kids!
They don't give a ----! My children fear this man is that reasonable NO

There is nothing reasonable about Family Law.

Those trading in fear and those arguing against the insertion of the “reasonable” qualifier, are simply in production mode.

Consider no fault divorce. Falling out of love is a perfectly valid reason to harm children. So is boredom. No “reasonable” required there.

Once you have indirectly (Scout, read deviously), threatened your children with financial and emotional harm (i.e. leaving the security of a family), the state will step in to minimise it. This will most likely involve harming the father, but as long as the mother is protected from her actions, so are her children. Beautiful.

As nature and nurture conspire to modify survival behaviour of women, time will reveal how men adapt.

The view of the author on this subject of "reasonable" fear is completely valid. Do you know the authors own personal history, no, you do not.

I agree, there have been some men who have been dealt a raw deal, but the stats also show that less than 5% of cases, that go to court, relating to violence and child abuse are false allegations.

Most cases are decided consentually either outside the courts or just before they go to trial.

Also, the notion that there is a huge amount of men that commit suicide on a daily basis due to a family breakdown. People commit suicide for varied reasons, how do you ask a corpse what drove them to commit suicide. It could be depression due to alcohol or substance abuse, depression due to family breakdown, other mental health issues, or they could be terminally ill with cancer or HIV ....you just do not know.

Violence is what it is. Being threatened verbally, like I was by my X, that he wanted to kill me, infront of our child is still violence. .... He wanted to strangle me. He didn't actually put his hands around my neck, but I was sure scared of losing my life in front of my child. 3 and a half years of emotional abuse by him, followed by marital rape 3 mths after having a C section, then 2 yrs later having my life threatened. Would you consider that fear of violence, a figment of my imagination, or would you consider that fear a result of DV.

Society in general is losing the plot, are some men in particular still can not shake their cave man insticts to control the woman.

Think about why your relationship with your X fell apart in the first place. If you are as good a father as you say you are, if you believe yourself to be decent man, if you think you have never done anything wrong by your partner (X partner) ...... then why are you in the position you are in today.

ToughCookie wrote:

"Think about why your relationship with your X fell apart in the first place. If you are as good a father as you say you are, if you believe yourself to be decent man, if you think you have never done anything wrong by your partner (X partner) ...... then why are you in the position you are in today."

This statement implies:

- that fathers are the only ones who are responsible for what goes wrong in a marriage.

- if your marriage does go bad then you can't have been a good parent.

- Mothers are always the virtuous ones when their marriages end.

This sort of self-righteous statement seems to be typical of statements coming from women who have a resentment towards men/fathers.

Tough Cookie

"Being threatened verbally, like I was by my X, that he wanted to kill me, infront of our child is still violence. .... He wanted to strangle me. He didn't actually put his hands around my neck, but I was sure scared of losing my life in front of my child. 3 and a half years of emotional abuse by him, followed by marital rape 3 mths after having a C section, then 2 yrs later having my life threatened. Would you consider that fear of violence, a figment of my imagination, or would you consider that fear a result of DV."

That would consitute a reasonable fear. Of course, there would have to be some evidence to back up the claims. People do lie, after all.

But suppose your husband had never expressed any violent intent towards you, but several of your friends had experienced domestic violence? You might develop a fear of violence from your husband. That wouldn't be your husband's fault, and the fear would not be reasonable - it would be irrational. All the change to the law is saying is that in this latter situation, the court would not consider your fear, real though it might be, when deciding the case.

Sylvia.

The words "reasonable fear of violence" are reasonable IF the situation is assessed by a person/judge who is reasonable, on a regular basis. A "non reasonable fear" can quickly become a "reasonable fear" based on the other persons words, actions or mental state.

A deceased male friend of mine had an AVO placed on him by his wife because he was unreasonable, overbearing and just wouldn't listen to any reasonable advice. When debating his behaviour he was very intellectual and could justify everything he did quite reasonably - accept for the fact that his wife was terrified of him. I could see the fear in her eyes - he couldn't.

Whilst he said he had never threatened or whacked his wife his actions to me (as a friend trying to help him) certainly constituted a reasonable fear of violence. He had become so frustrated with his wife. To the outside world he looked innocent and yet to me it was obvious the fear his wife had for him was justified.

He and I had some long discussions on why his wife was doing the things she was... and there could only be one conclusion drawn - she was in fear. Of course his reply to this was she is stupid or mental.

His wife was clearly intimidated by him on a continuing basis and he could never see any wrong in what he was doing.

This man was a very close friend of mine and I would have crawled over cut glass to help him if I could.

He finally gassed himself in his car because the pressures had become too great. In his stress he at times even tried to intimidate me... he couldn't, but it allowed me to understand what his wife had gone through. I would have testified "reasonable fear" existed.

Sometimes to assess a "reasonable fear of violence" you need to spend quite some time with someone to really see the signs. Breakups are very fluid, emotional situations that can change in a matter of seconds. Sadly this often has tragic results.

The Law has long defined 'reasonable' as what a reasonable man would do in the cercumstances. What is a reasonable level of child sexual abuse, or physical assault is reasonable?

There have been some good examples of "reasonable fear" presented in this trail but it is wrong to use these examples as some sort of refutation of the need to insert "reasonable" into the legislation.

An unreasonable fear is the one that has been taken up after lengthy "consultation" with others who have gone through the process, and which occurs whenever a sympathetic audience is present, and which seems to vanish the moment the property settlement is made.

To quote the magistrate in a friends court appearance for breaching his AVO, (slamming the door as he left the house, in a supposedly intimidatory manner), "I've seen enough of these to know that this has nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with the division of property".

He had told me a year ealier, after years of verbal abuse and public belittling, that she was now blatantly goading him into hitting her. He broke his hands three times punching walls instead. And she had raised the issue of her killing him for the express purpose of getting a similar statement from him in return, but in that instance, in the presence of witnesses.

But of course, some of the "femafiosi" would try to portray his repeated self mutilation as an attempt at intimidation or emotional violence. And portray her extraordinary attempts to ensure that the kids got no other perspective but her own as a normal response to fear instead of the ruthless control of information displayed by an accomplished manipulator.

Perseus,

breaking things is intimidation (even if you hurt your own person in doing so) and part of DV. Have you ever stood near a wall and had someone punch a hole in it, just near your head? I guess if you had, you might reasonably believe that such actions are meant to warn 'I could so easily hit you next time'. Anger management strategies might offer less damaging behaviours to settle conflict.

It doesn't surprise me that your friend says 'she tried to goad me into hitting her'. It is a common claim that some women do say 'bring on the actual act of violence' because the cycle of violence has shown them that after the violence, things get very calm, the person often becomes 'nice' again, and the tension phase - walking on eggshells, constantly feeling you can't get anything right, is gone - hopefully for along time. Sometimes it is years between boughts of actual violence.

Perhaps your friend might benefit from a bit of training in DV so that he can make objective judgements on those who come before him in relationship issues? He's not the one who said in a survey of NSW magistrates 'women would not get hit if they didn't nag' is he?

It's a common cry 'Why doesn't she leave' but many victims of DV claim they love the person but want the violence to stop. They may not all set out to take a man's property from him - they may even have helped contribute to the family and family wealth. They do not generally want to throw it away.


Cotter

An excellent case study Opinionated2. I feel deeply for your loss in this matter. Good friends are difficult to find and are even harder to find again.

I believe the inclusion of the word reasonable to the legislation is just and prudent. Fears are often unfounded and unreasonable, like simply going to the dentist, or even knowing that there are one-eyed zealots like Patricia Merkin, who wrote this article, getting about in the world advocating hatred towards men. Overwhelmingly, she says, that the victims of family violence are women and children. Simply not true. Everybody becomes a victim of family violence wherever it occurs. It is a social problem, not a sexist one.

This woman lives in denial of the reality of family violence and uses off-the-shelf rhetoric to make her argument. The rest of the article thereby becomes degraded and worthless. Where is the evidence of this overwhelmingly sweeping statement? There isn't any. But there is a plethora of evidence to the contrary available, had she cared to look with both eyes for once.

Family violence is a real and tragic dilemma of modern Western society and won't be solved while advocates like Merkin spin their sexist hate. Indeed, it can be argued that organisations like the National Coalition of Mothers Against Child Abuse can be seen to gain advantage by escalating unreasonable fears and promoting family violence by denigrating men, fathers and husbands to women and the broader community. If they genuinely cared about fixing child abuse, family violence, they'd welcome the inclusion of the word reasonable to the legislation as it is a modifier that in itself promotes reflection and reason. The very things most often missing from family violence cases.

What this article is really about is that Patricia Merkin and the National Coalition of Mothers Against Child Abuse are complaining about losing the tool of irrational fear, which, I suggest, is how they go about promoting their own business and industry, creating sexist hysteria and unreasonable fears.

Scout, thanks. I’ll attempt to address the points you raised.

I think the difference in behaviour inside the home and outside is explainable through perceptions of roles in western culture (I’m not sure about other cultures) and maybe some hard wiring. A lot of stuff is built into our culture for men to see themselves as providers and protectors for their families whereas outside the family we are supposed to compete for status and to provide for the family. Remember the old “women and children first” adage for seats in the lifeboat. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of aspects of this we are all to some extent products of our makeup and the cultures we are raised in.

I’ll try and summarise what I understand from the stats I’ve seen on Substantiated child abuse and neglect and also on child deaths. The stats on child deaths refer to the family relationship of the suspect to the child. To simplify the following take that as a given in reference to who kills kids where my phrasing does not put it that way.
- The substantiated child abuse and neglect stats don’t generally say who is hurting the kids but they do list their family situations.
- More kids are harmed by neglect than substantiated abuse.
- Sexual abuse is a very small proportion of the total of substantiated abuse and neglect – I can’t find the figures but I recall seeing claims that natural fathers are responsible for a very small proportion of sexual abuse to their own children.
- I’ve seen various figures suggesting that women commit between 15% and 30% of contact child sexual abuse – I can’t back that up other than by reference to generalised claims by authors such as Patricia Pearson.
- Kids are most at risk in single parent female led households (around 44% of all substantiated abuse and neglect with about 20% of kids living in that situation, a slightly higher rate than single parent male lead households for the number of children living in that type of household).

TBC
R0bert

Part 2 of 2

- The next most risky living situation for kids after living with a single parent is living with mum and her new partner.
- Mothers kill similar numbers of their own kids to the number killed by fathers and if you add mums new partner to the picture or take out family breakup killings the mums would be kill more.
- Men are less likely to kill a child that they have an ongoing relationship with – more than 6 months contact.
- For almost all child deaths attributed to mental illness on the part of a parent the suspect is the mother.

The figures on substantiated child abuse and neglect and child deaths clearly contradict the idea that fathers pose a greater risk to children than mothers, in some ways it is the reverse but I don’t think the difference is clear enough to be taken seriously.

Regarding paternalism and family law see my comments in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4198#34285 – I think we hold similar views. Much of the inbalance of power comes in the sheer number of women involved in organisations such as Relationships Australia, the Child Support Agency, shelters, funding for womens groups and departments and the kind of views seemingly held by many of those. They often seem to reflect the views of the author of this article so they think they are protecting kids by promoting single parent residency etc.

Cheers
R0bert

Nice bit of rationalisation Cotter, but your stereotypes are a long way from the reality. The thumped walls were nowhere near the protagonist. And how do you explain the whispered death threats that were guaranteed to provoke a louder response in kind that the kids could hear?

Is it simply inconceivable for you to comprehend that the system could be abused by the venal and the manipulative? Do you seriously believe that womenkind are incapable of base motives? Are they always the victim?

If "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", then surely, such a person cannot be regarded as a reasonable person acting in good faith. Nor can those who condone or excuse any excess on their part.

RObert, re: earlier post. I just logged on after a fair while. Sorry sir. I picked up on your words "reasonable assumptions" and used those to straighten young Boaz out. Boaz tends to make a lot of unreasonable assumptions. I don't think you, RObert, have ever responded to Rancitas before, and you are one of the more level-headed thinkers - so it is reasonable to assume that I owe you an apology. Once again - I am sorry for unintentionally misrepresenting you. I'll let you get back to it.(Handshake)

Incidentally RObert, in your defence of old-mate Boaz, you did say: "rancitas, to misquote a line from a film you may have enjoyed

'He's not the devil incarnate, he's just a very naughty boy.'"

I have not been able to get on line to keep up, so Rancitas was referring to another thread. It is so hard to decide who and what is "reasonable) ahy RObert sir. Ahttp://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4209#34164 Anyway everybody knows there is only one "devil incarnate" on OLO. (Hmmmm. Sulphur).

There are a couple of interesting points available here. First point is, I don't have children.

A well experienced and published psychologist once told me that anyone who is over 183cm tall and who weighs more than 100 kilos cannot help but appear intimidating. That is, no matter what they do, they generate a psychological amount of fear in those around them. Is this fear 'reasonable'? Probably not, but it is still fear.

When a couple split up, ands it is mostly women who decide to separate, even if there has been no 'violence' whatsoever, when many wimin may feel that any request from the father (or at least he who thinks he is the father) for contact with the children is a type of threat.

Ghandi defined violence as any action that causes another person to do what they do not want to do.

So when a father requests contact, when the mother doesn't want to ever have anything to do with him again, she is being made to do something that she doesn't want to do. Hence, even his request is a form of violence.

In sexual harassment matters in the workplace the definition of harassment is taken as that felt by the victim, not the intention of the harasser, 'reasonable' or not. Consequently the idea of ‘reasonable’ has already been thrown out in one area of relationship law, why should it be introduced into family law?

Last major point: It is a central facet of feminist relationship theory that penetrative sex is inherently violent, in that it involves the violation of a wimin’s integrity by part of the male body. That is, all penetrative sex is rape. Therefore, by the sheer act of fathering a child a man has committed a major act of violence against, not just the woman that he thinks that he is making love with, but against all wimim.

Therefore men cannot be trusted, and even the concept of men having any rights in relationships should be outlawed, as a first step to eliminating relationships between men and wimim completely.

Dr Michael Flood, the patron saint of fatherless families, wrote in an article for the SMH: (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/04/1070351723076.html )

“A study of 1100 families in England and Wales found that one in seven fathers is involved in crime, fighting, or other anti-social and irresponsible behaviour. When these fathers resided with their children, the children were twice as likely to develop severe behaviour problems and clinically significant conduct disorders”

One in seven!

Dr Flood does not comment whether these figures cannot be extrapolated to Australia, by saying nothing but writing it he must think that it is the same here.

He also writes:

“Simply trying to make sure there's a father in every family won't do much for children.”

It is clear that, according to Dr Flood’s article, that having fathers in ‘families’ is preferable, but not essential.

But let’s take another look at that “one in seven” figure again.

Many state governments have passed laws against certain breeds of dogs, because of the risk that those dogs pose to people, especially children. I doubt whether the number of attacks by those breeds would even approach one in seven of those dogs in the community actually attacking. But do we take the risk?

Quoting from Merkin’s article: “We know this because only 5 per cent of all divorces come before a family court judge” and “It disturbs workers and professionals who deal directly with the victims of violence that couples coming before the court are among the ones generally involved in the worst aspects of violence.”

That is at least one in twenty matters before the Courts involve violence, of one form or another against children.

So do we take the risk?

Merkin does not offer a solution, so her ‘solution’ seems obvious. Take it out of the Courts completely, and put all the decisions exclusively in the hands of the mothers. That is, it seems that there should be no judicial or legislative interference with a woman’s rights at all over the parenting of her children.

Women don’t lie.

And Craig Folbigg would love to spend time with his children….

rancitis, I'd forgotton that post. It was not intended as an attack on your post, rather a bit of humour that seemingly missed the mark. Please accept my apologies for any offence.

Scout, I've though further on the topic of the power imbalance in family law. A parallel you might consider is - you found yourself involved in a gender discrimation issue in a workplace which was critical to your future. Something where the outcome could cost you almost everything, home, kids, future income etc. To resolve the issue you needed to deal with several departments.

Each of those departments had a rack of brochures and some posters about bad behaviour in the workplace featuring women with no examples of bad behaviour featuring men (the DV brochures and posters which seemingly always portray men as the violent one). Almost everybody you dealt with expressed views which sounded about as convincing as BD's claims of support for equality.

In at least one of the departments you were aware that the executives received performance pays which included a criteria that almost always worked against women (child support agency performance pays based on money paid when most payers are male). That same department refused to have a well respected male champion of womens rights on the advisory committee because his views were not liked. Almost everybody you dealt with was male and many had come to their jobs from a background in working for mens support agencies. One of the mediators acknowledged that he was in the exact same position as the person at the other end of your conflict, neither he or the department which appointed him could see a problem with that.

The parallel may not be perfect but I hope it gives some understanding of how the experience has been for some of us.

Cheers
R0bert

R0bert

Whoa! Slow down my friend, I am right there with you. Haven't had an opportunity to reply to your previous post let alone your latest.

I checked out your link and I believe what you wrote bears repeating:

"An abuse of feminism has contributed to the damage done by the family law system but you might also want to consider the part played by paternalistic types (both male and female) who want traditional roles for men and women. The ones who think men should be the providers and women the primary caregivers, ones who believe women are not as responsable as men an so should not face the same consequences, those who think women are inherently better parents than men. That kind of thinking fits in really well with the kind of issues that make family law a massive farce."

What we have here IS a total farce. In the upper échelons we have a predominately male environment - further enforced by a few paternalistic females. These women are the type who carve out a power niche for themselves at the expense of their sisters; an extreme example: these are the same type of women who enforce such travesties as genital mutilation in other cultures - without them dominant males would have less power. All the more reason to have 50% representation of female and male. However, the current structure is such that it only attracts people who want power. While there are those who enter politics for altruistic reasons they are thin on the ground or ultimately corrupted - as is the nature of power.

To be Continued....

Now, down at the Family Services level, we have another imbalance of gender representation. Too many women. A situation where a male is regarded as the enemy purely because of his gender. Again, within this structure we have people (mostly women) who are more interested in maintaining women as primary care givers and keeping males out of the equation. Of course I am generalising a great deal, but I hope you can see we are probably sympatico on this issue and simply approaching it from different perspectives.

As for your latest post - I have experienced something very like the situation in the workplace you described - except my antagonists were mostly female! A result of the primarily female middle management found in public service.

So where does this leave our author? With every right to question any change in law. What does 'reasonable' really mean? My main criticism remains the same - that she has ignored the plight of men.

In conclusion, I believe that the current hierachy of power discriminates against both men AND women - a perverse equality. We need to look at creating a true democracy where the common person is genuinely represented. What we have now only favours those whose primary goal is power.

Not at all reasonable.

I'M TOUCHED.....

I haven't even contributed to this thread, yet...'here I am' :)
in the posts of Rancitas... tanks moit.

Actually, if all and sundry spoke well of me and my 'assumptions' I would worry interminably. Being Christian is not the pathway to popularity, unless one says a heap of things that people 'want' to hear, which usuallly means we have departed from Scripture.

Rob, your quote from the study of 1100 fathersin Wales struck me like a half brick from a house in Telopea street Punchbowl.

If we ever wondered what condition our society is in, and how far we have fallen, and what is the solution, that quote of yours says most of it. Mine says the rest.

Of course, this thread is about 'reasonable assumptions of the likelihood of violence etc in relation to family matters. But my point, though unreasonable to some, is one I believe in.

Wales 2006

“A study of 1100 families in England and Wales found that one in seven fathers is involved in crime, fighting, or other anti-social and irresponsible behaviour."

Wales 1904 (Welsh Revival)

[people were changed in so many ways. The crime rate dropped, drunkards were reformed, pubs reported losses in trade. Bad language disappeared and never returned to the lips of many – it was reported that the pit ponies failed to understand their born again colliers who seemed to speak the new language of Zion – without curse and blasphemy – even football and rugby became uninteresting in the light of new joy and direction received by the Converts.]

It was reported that over 100,000 people joined the Church during this period.

As the bumper sticker says "If you don't feel close to God, guess who moved" Some, many in fact, have fallen away from Grace, preferring worldly indulgences as in Roberts quote. But for others......

[In asking one elderly Revival convert some years ago as to whether the Revival stopped in 1906, she answered – its still burning within my heart – it’s never been extinguished – it had burned for over 70 years.]

Scout, sorry about the flood of posts - as you might have guessed this particular topic is one that I feel strongly about. Maybe more material than you needed in the posts but take it as a mark of respect in that I consider you someone who tries to understand (and generally succeeds).

Again much of this stuff does not fit nicely for those who want to pigeon hole everything. It's not all about nasty feminists trying to do men in as to many men seem to think.

I had not considered the situation you described at work so thanks for the reminder on that one. I've probably mentioned it to you before but I'll toss it in again because I think it is so worth a read - Patricia Peason's book "When She was Bad" is an eye opening look by a feminist at some of the issues around female violence. If you get the opportunity and can stomach it have a read.

Keep up the good work on all fronts my friend, you continue to be an important part of this community and someone whose contributions and opinions I value highly.

BD - I think the quote from the Welsh study were by Hamlet not myself. Minor point I know. Your claims about the power of revival would be more telling if we could see a revival sweep thru OLO christain posters and transform their lives and posts. Those "Christains aren't perfect just forgiven" stickers have passed their use by date.

I suspect (but may be wrong) that rancitis is unable to load the original thread because it has grown to big which may be why his/her comments to me appeared here. At least you can derive some comfort in knowing that I don't consider you the devil incarnate ;) and I'm with FH - you would not need a food taster if for some reason I came around for a BBQ.

R0bert

Robert, thanks for pointing BD in the right direction - I was using Michael Flood, blessed be his name, in a rhetorical sense, after all, statistics can be used to prove almost anything. If a similar survey was done here I wonder how many families would not be involved in crime - a bit of tax avoidance, video piracy, speeding, parking infringements, returning books to the library late, not to mention 'anti-social' behaviour like drinking a bit too much one or two nights a month.

But I am also a Christian poster, the difference, I believe, is that to me Christ is the answer and the way to God for those who accept that. I try not to preach too much; I cannot and will not believe that God will impose His will from on high in our everyday lives right at the moment, but I can see how He (well, strictly speaking the Bible also has some wonderful feminine descriptions of Him) set up families as the best way for children to be raised, but I also accept that families have failed, because of people's (both genders) seeking of the self and self actualisation. Both genders are at fault, and there is nothing that can be done about that.

I am repulsed by Ms Merkin's article, because it places the blame on one side. It distrusts men so completely that men are all portrayed as beasts, and worst than that, as simply sperm donors when compared with women.

But then again, maybe we should go with Ms Merkin's ideas, therefore letting the whole ship sink and taking society with it: the idea of thesis and antithesis, leading to synthesis.

Maybe the feminist ideologues should be simply allowed to tear the rotten edifice down, so that that we will all be wandering around in the dust wondering at what could have been. Damn the casualties. The dictatorship of the femo-tariate should be given a chance, and see if it works better than the dreaded male dominated society that we think we have now.

The various posts on this topic have made interesting reading. However, from my perspective many have missed the point. As one who spends quite a bit of time working with those who actually draft our laws, including a word like "reasonable" causes me no concern at all. It is now a common term in legislation in Australia and is intended (in most cases) to set bounds on actions or beliefs leading to actions to those that would be taken by a "reasonable person". Including a descriptive term such as this legisltion limits actions and subsequent court considerations. Actions that may be unreasonably excessive in the circumstances or fears and beliefs that are not supported by fact or are based on irrational beliefs would not be supported by a court in this case.Indeed, without that boundary being set, courts could be confronted with frivolous and vindictive cases.
Clearly anyone who has a genuine and reasonable fear of violence will still be protected as before. Please lets take the change for what I feel it is; a change in drafting of the legislation.

BrianT - it is hard to see a reasonable case against "fears" needing to be reasonable before action is taken by the government which may harm others. Thanks for your comments. In my view that type of lie that the author promotes regarding gender as a major factor in family violence (and in particular against children) contributes significantly to the level of fear experienced by some and the perception that unreasonable fears may actually be quite reasonable.

Hamlet - I can't recall a single male posting regarding the injustice in the family law system and blaming it on feminists who was not christian. There may have been some but I don't recall any. Probably not a statistically significant sample but interesting never the less.

Much of what happens to men in the family law system makes sense if women are weaker vessels better suited to the care of children and less able to make responsible decisions or look after themselves. The injustics suit women who see themselves as better suited to raising children than men.

Much of it goes against the way thoughtful feminists want women to be seen and idea's like equality. It's not all about feminists, rather an unfortunate mix of old and new values which can be manipulated by some for their own advantage.

R0bert

Actually Robert, I have nothing against the family law system in this country, I have never been adversely affected by it, and neither has anyone that I have personally known.

However a society is more than just its laws, it is more than just its parts.

The family is in its death throes as an institution. I think that it is time that men particularly accept that, and understand that men will increasingly have less and less relevance.

If we are serious about being in the best interest of children we should throw away the present idea that the father must pay a certain amount of HIS income in child support.

All this leads to is inequities, where one kid, with a rich father gets $25,000 or more just in private school fees each year plus a heap more, where the child of a poor father gets less than $500 all up.

Perhaps, just perhaps, in the BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN we should all be paying to a child support fund, which then would ensure that all children, no matter who their parents, gets an equal share and equal opportunity. Why should one child get an obscene amount of money thrown in their direction whilst another cannot have decent school shoes?

Or maybe the problem in this is there would not be an incentive for well off families to break up and the wife maintain her standard of living whilst seeking self actualisation?

No, instead, men should probably give up now and when they get married simply have themselves declared bankrupt, with their wife as the sole creditor. Have it all up front - that marriage and children mean that she will have him by the balls for all eternity.

And yes Robert - if my wife ever decided to get rid of me - I would not fight it - I would simply sign everything over to her - and quietly dissappear - Money isn't everything - peace is more important - even if that is the peace of the grave.

Ever seen an ugly woman driving an expensive car?

Let me persist with my original point. The following sections of the Queensland Criminal Code may help those who are interested to better understand the use of the term "reasonable" as I was discussing yesterday. I understand all too well that reasonableness is not often a common factor in family violence situations but when the threat of violence (or actual violence) and the the resulting fear are considered later in the somewhat calmer context of a court,be it a family court or criminal sitting, one issue that must be considered is whether or not the fears (and any response) was indeed reasonable when considering all the circumstances of the case. I shall say no more on the issue....

260 Preventing a breach of the peace
It is lawful for any person who witnesses a breach of the peace
to interfere to prevent the continuance or renewal of it, and to
use such force as is reasonably necessary for such prevention
and is reasonably proportioned to the danger to be
apprehended from such continuance or renewal........
271 Self-defence against unprovoked assault
(1) When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked
the assault, it is lawful for the person to use such force to the
assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence
against the assault, if the force used is not intended, and is not
such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
(2) If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable
apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the
person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable
grounds, that the person cannot otherwise preserve the person
defended from death or grievous bodily harm, it is lawful for
the person to use any such force to the assailant as is
necessary for defence, even though such force may cause
death or grievous bodily harm.

Brian T

Thank you for the clarification. You have reminded me that I have observed the word 'reasonable' used in matters of law many times. I think the author was overreacting to the word's inclusion.

However, in one of your examples the words "When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not PROVOKED the assault...."

My ex husband used to blame me for his behaviour. For example, he would say he was provoked into hitting me because I would not obey him or agree with him or whatever. I have no doubt that had I pursued legal redress for his behaviour, he would've claimed provocation and it being the late seventies/early eighties I have no doubt that he would've won. I had no real evidence of abuse - just my word.

So looking at Family Law today - how would I prove 'reasonable' fear of someone who is clever, manipulative, forceful and determined. I think I would still cut my losses and leave just as I did 20 years ago.

Thanks, Brian T, for the bits of the criminal code. But the important element of the concept of reasonableness is that it must be based on fact. And any reliance on assumption must be limited to those that have a substantial validity as a substitute for fact. And this should shape any conclusions that are to be drawn from such an assemblage of facts and assumptions.

There is no place in reasonableness for preconceived notions, conceit, or outright prejudice, bigotry or zealotry, let alone for misstatements of fact. Yet the entire edifice of family law is based on such a litany of errors of fact, preconceptions and anti-male prejudice that no action under that legislation can possibly amount to a reasonable, or proportionate, response to the circumstances.

If the legislation assumes that one in three marriages is characterised by domestic violence, and all of that violence is contributed by males and is life threatening, then the response of the legislation is disproportionate to the facts.

And it must be said that in the one area where women have had fairly close to free reign, they have not produced a more balanced or considerate legal framework, as the gender advocates have sought to imply. Indeed, they have produced a legal framework that is every bit as extreme and unjust as some of the worst historical excesses of exclusive male lawmaking.

It is not a case of "giving enough rope to hang oneself" because the giving, on the part of the male community, was mostly done in utmost good faith with a sincere desire for improved justice and equity. But the lesson is still the same. By the deeds of women kind do we know them.

Perseus, I've never checked myself (the Paul Hogan test) but to outward appearances Nicholson is male and he had a major impact on the shape of family law. I rejoiced the day he retired.

Maximus, I had anger about that situation. My initial thought when I saw she was in trouble was not dismay. On reflection though she did better than several marriage councellors in that at least the magistrate identified my ex's "lack of capacity for honesty" and noted that she had engineered the situation she was complaining about. The failing was in leaving scope for the ex to continue the push rather than in stopping it there and then. My ex may well have done what she did even if the initial application had been tossed out. When I spend the time to think aout it I prefer to save my anger for those who deliberately manipulate the system Nicholsen, my ex, her solicitor and others. People who have clear choices between right and wrong and choose wrong.

R0bert

The article continues the misleading bitch-whistle politics women's groups have tried since this round of FL reform started in 2003.

In the legislation "reasonable" relates to the emotion "fear", not a level of violence. Reasonable violence is an oxymoron.

Consider this example - a woman with an anxiety disorder is married to a man who has never been violent in his life (meeting the author's VLRC definition). This woman falls in love with a co-worker and leaves the marriage. On the Net she sees an unsubstantiated statement that violence can occur just after a person leaves a relationship. She becomes fearful.

If "reasonable" were not in the legislation, the existence of the woman's "fear" alone would be sufficient for the Court process to be one dimensional. Her ex-husband is held accountable for that "fear" - i.e. equal mediation is prohibited, the man loses contact with his children, and incurs ongoing financial penalties.

But, by considering whether this woman's fear is "reasonable" given her husband's historic behaviour and attitudes, the Court judges him as an individual and not as a stereotype.

Since I have a few words left - let's look at who lobbied for what in the Family Law debate.

Father's groups supported:

- A wide definition of Family Violence such as that of VLRC.

- Further extension of definition to include damage caused by malicious lies told to other parties - e.g. children, family, friends, govt. agencies.

- Investigation of all Family Violence claims and, if prosecutable evidence of Violence exists, referral to other Courts for charging (currently claims aren't even investigated!). But if investigation finds prosecutable evidence that the claims themselves were perjury these cases should also be referred for charging.

- Change to section 121 so people can disclose their experiences (to the same level as other Courts), allowing informed discussion about what happens in Family Court.

Women's lobby groups opposed all these because it will catch out more of their members. Readers can judge who is serious about family violence, and who is being cynical and has something to hide.

Part 1

Listening to early hours radio this morning, I heard a man who returned to Uni to qualify as a primary school teacher. Very commendable of him, after all there is a dearth of male primary school teachers and they are much needed.

He was talking about his induction day – when asked to introduce himself – the female facilitator informed that ‘Primary Schools would ALWAYS be controlled by women’.

I thought, ‘what the’ as you do and wondered why sooo much hostility on the part of this woman. Of course, it didn’t take me long to realise that it is all about the ‘P’ word. No, not THAT ‘P’ word, silly; ‘P’ for POWER, who has too much and who doesn’t have enough and the resultant subversiveness by those who don’t have enough POWER.

Freud was always obsessed about sex – as a woman I have never envied a man for his jiggly bits, but I have resented the automatic authority that many men appear to have whether they have earned it or not.

Now, this power imbalance would go a long way to explain PART of the female bias in Family Law.

R0bert and I have already discussed the traditional view of women as the primary care giver, which is reinforced by paternalist men and women.

Well, I don't believe for a nanosecond that every body has been waiting 6 hours just for me to complete my post - guess that no-one cares. Too bad.

Part 2

Where else but in the family do women get to have any power? This is a part of the problem. And leads to some disgruntled men as blaming feminism for ALL the problems. Wanting equal rights is not the problem.

The issue is the imbalance of men and women in high office and the reverse at the family level.

There is no reason why men can’t be primary care givers as well as women. However, mudslinging isn’t going to change anything. Both sides need to take a reality check here.

Single parents; be they male or female have a difficult task raising children on their own. Accusing them of being dole bludgers when the cost and availability of child care is prohibitive, is a major problem and needs to be redressed.

Solution? More men ACCEPTED into the family welfare system and MORE WOMEN in politics and business. That is what equal rights are about – not which sex is better than the other, it is about sharing power and working TOGETHER.

Most men and women ARE fair, reasonable people – let’s make it impossible for the cheats and manipulators to hold any POWER.

PLEASE?

Au contraire, Scout. We waited for the second post in order to ensure we understand the first. And then we waited another few hours to give you the opportunity to reassess.

It is clear from these that you believe that one’s immediate family is fair game for resident megalomaniacs with feelings of insecurity as inspired by any perceived unfairness in the wider society. Well, I’ll be damned!

Isn’t that precisely the attitude of small-minded men we are all attempting to eradicate?

In this so-called paternalistic society that affords women all choice with expectations of minimal responsibility (at least when it comes to Family Law), is it any wonder that women are so averse to walking that glass floor when it is more in their interest to merely identify the existence of a glass ceilings. Even if we ignore their divorce booty, recent statistics reveal that women inherit 60% of all bequests in Australia.

But then, I could be totally wrong - this madness could all be due to lack of affordable child care – just as you claim.

And how many women consider the fuit of their wombs to be 'their children' without any thought that a male has any role whatsoever?

Fair enough

Bring it on

not just for the select few who think that now, but for every child, after all, why should most children miss out on the wonderful and enriching experience of having one parent?

(One parent> an oxymoron?)

Seeker "It is clear from these that you believe that one’s immediate family is fair game for resident megalomaniacs with feelings of insecurity as inspired by any perceived unfairness in the wider society." did the post you refer to where this was clear get removed from the site?

Scout has offered a viable explanation for a situation that exists, she has not said that it is all good.

I think Scout and I have discussed the reality that for most men our experience is not one of floating on a carpet of power, and I think that Scout understands that. Some in the womens movement do appear to forget that simple fact in their retoric but I think Scout knows it.

The explanation Scout offers up does not support the misuse of power, it does suggest addressing some of the perceived underlying issues.

Save your wrath for the lies that the article is based on, there is the enemy in this debate.

R0bert

Seeker - as usual all you can do is sling mud - you never ever try to analyse problems or try to find solutions.

There is clearly an imbalance of men in positions of power and of women in family care. I think you deliberately ignore this. You don't want change or you would be working to involve yourself in family care and, perhaps, earning the trust of women who staff many of these organisations (the exceptions being religious family organisations which are controlled at the top by men).

For example, Seeker, as a result of your consistently anti-female posts, I would never trust you. Whereas, although I don't agree all the time with R0bert (for example - level of male physical violence), he does read my posts and considers what I have to say, rather than automatically dismiss anything I say. Therefore, I feel that I could trust him.

Seeker, in summary, you have seen your enemy - and he is you.

R0bert

Thank you for understanding what I was trying to impart. I can only hope that the author has bothered reading this thread and has learned that men are not the enemy and to be inclusive in future.

As long as we tolerate the status quo we are supporting the inequities that exist in our current social sector.

Regards

PS

R0bert

I feel less and less like posting these days - I have had a gutful of abuse on the Islam and abortion threads. I am sick of trying to have a reasoned discussion and I know it is possible. I had a wonderful debate on a couple of republic threads with "Ian" who held the complete opposite POV to me - yet we were able to engage in an interesting talk - I learnt alot. And I have learnt a lot from you - I believe that you have been screwed over by your ex and her lawyer. My heart goes out to you and you children.

:0)

Patricia Merkin wrote on behalf of the National Coalition of Mothers Against Child Abuse.

Strangely, the very concerned National Coalition of Mothers Against Child Abuse never have anything to say about infanticide. More children are killed in infanticide every year, almost always by mothers, than are killed on custody access visits by fathers.

From today's Age:
"Magistrate Duncan Reynolds this morning committed Carol Louise Matthey to stand trial in the Supreme Court.

"I'm satisfied that there is evidence of sufficient weight to support conviction," Mr Reynolds said.

Matthey, 26, was arrested and charged last year with murdering four of her children between December 1998 and April 2003."

Why aren't these children worthy of your concern?

Spare a thought for four lost lives. May they rest in peace
By LORNA KNOWLES Court Reporter
October 25, 2003

THERE were no tears, no signs of remorse.

As she stood up yesterday to receive a sentence of 40 years for killing her four babies, Kathleen Folbigg showed no emotion.
As Supreme Court Justice Graham Barr signalled she would not be sentenced to life imprisonment, Folbigg's expression went blank. It was as if she had stopped caring.

Folbigg's reaction couldn't have been more different than when she was found guilty five months ago of the murder of her three babies and the manslaughter of a fourth.

Then, she doubled over in agony, crying loudly each time the jury foreman declared her guilty.

Her husband Craig Folbigg, the Crown's key witness against his wife, also showed little emotion yesterday and ignored requests for a comment on the sentence.

He also declined to comment on reports had done a deal with celebrity agent Harry M. Miller.

With a non-parole period of 30 years, Folbigg will be 66, well beyond child-bearing age, when she is eligible for parole.
In May, a Supreme Court jury found Folbigg had murdered her children Patrick, Sarah and Laura – aged between eight and 19 months – between 1991 and 1999 in Newcastle and Singleton.

She was also found guilty of the manslaughter of her eldest child Caleb, who was 19 days old when he died in Newcastle in 1989.
Justice Barr said Folbigg would always pose a risk to children.
He found the murders were not premeditated but were the result of Folbigg's inability to cope because of depression brought about by severe childhood abuse.

"The stresses on the offender of looking after a young child were greater than those which would operate on an ordinary person because she was psychologically damaged and barely coping," Justice Barr said

scout, thanks for your comments. Reasoned polite discussion is possible, it's just that some choose not to engage in it. I enjoy the process when I have a different POV to someone else on the site and we are able to have a discussion that does not become name calling.

cabbage - it is really sad that some dress up lobbying for special perks for their own gender as child protection.

If you've followed the links I posted early in the thread regarding substantiated child abuse and neglect as well as the child death review link it is really obvious that fathers are no more a risk to their kids than mothers. I've not seen any local stats on abuse or deaths during "access" visits, they do happen but stuff I saw from the UK some time ago suggested that they are very rare. I don't have a reference for that. It would be interesting to see stats directly relating to shared parenting and incidence of substantiated abuse and neglect as well as child death. My guess is that the rates would be reduced owning to the lessened pressures on both parents.

The rates of abuse in single parent households compared to the rates for the general population should be enough to have anybody who cares about child protection screaming for an end to one parent having most of the care of a child.

R0bert

Another possible explanation for the inclusion of “reasonable” in Family Law’s fear of violence assessment, is to exclude men from making such allegations in future. This measure makes even more sense when viewed in the context of protection for women. “Reasonable fear”, could then be compared with other dangerous activity expected of men.

Paula Totaro in SMH this morning writes that girls are becoming increasingly violent - no longer nice … sugar and spice.

“IT'S been dubbed the phenomenon of the violent femmes, an ugly social trend identified in the US and Britain. Now, it is being documented in Australia - and the numbers suggest this is not a mere statistical blip.

According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, violence among young girls has grown at almost four times the rate of its rise among young boys - and has doubled over the past 10 years.”

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mean-girls/2006/04/07/1143916722751.html

When interviewed by SMH Professor Garbarino (author of See Jane Hit (Penguin Press, New York), is quoted in part:

"By and large, society and parents do a reasonably good job with most boys and there is no reason we can't do a good job with most girls … but people, teachers, coaches, they have to get it into their heads that things have changed," he said. "We cannot assume simply that girls are just naturally nicer, naturally more gentle. A fixed feminine nature is not true and there is much variability there. People in schools have not caught up yet … they see more girl fights but they're scratching their heads with the girls. They don't take it as seriously, don't want to be too punitive. What we need to do is have all the things in place that we use to deal with and socialise aggressive boys and apply the same with girls.

"We cannot presume that culture will take care of it because this culture does not. Not any more."

Dear Scout
a more complete picture of 'you' is slowly but surely emerging here...
yep..I am keeping track :) for not for evil... indeed for good.

So far

1/-You were married to a 'Christian' with whom you were sexually incompatable and u refused to be 'born again'.
2/-You have been raped. (by the same man ?)
3/-You view my approach to the Male Female relationship as expressed in Scripture in very negative terms.

Is it possible, that you are interpreting my position in terms of your own experience ? rather than as I actually express it, which includes an emphasis on sacrificial leadership, not domineering.

By and large, there are very few times when a man has to exercise that scriptural position, I even have to scratch my head to think of any. Mostly life is just get along with each other, and do what needs to be done.

There is one gap in your story which I would appreciate knowing a little more about if u don't mind. Your reference to his desire for you to be 'born again'...
Did that have anything to do with speaking in tongues and baptism in the Spirit ? I mean..was he pressuring you to experience those ?

SEEKER that 'quadrupling' of female violence is quite a worry, but then, it maybe the 'reaping' that the feminist lobby did not expect when they sowed "equality" and rejected the idea of different social expectations based on gender.

I know one thing, by and large the young Australian female today is a most UNattractive person, often the better looking she is, the worse she behaves or the more extreme her attitude. I feel we need to revisit gender roles, with responsibility, love and respect being the framework for both. But I see no problem with emphasizing social roles which produce a 'team' rather than 2 full forwards in marraige.

BD, definately good to have a team as long as you use the right person in the right role. There is no reason to assume that our dangly bits equip us to be the leader.

Seeker, it may be possible that part of that shift is an increased willingness to acknowledge female violence and a change in cultural attitudes. As I said to Scout earlier I'd strongly recommend a read of "When She was Bad" by Patricia Pearson. She sums up part of the issue with the following statement

"As long as patriarchs and feminists alike covet the notion that women are gentle, they will not look for the facts that dispute it. Hrdy has suggested that one reason other primatologists continue to assume males are the sole aggressors is that what females do doesn't look like violence. In other words, one reason women dwell outside the discourse on aggression is because of the tendency of scholars to define aggression in a specifically masculine way."

The author suggests that "aggressive display is a cultural practice" and discusses differences in the level of violence used and the social support/sanctions regarding the use of violence. She discusses the relatively low levels of violence on the island of Vanatinai "where men and women are held to be equal in economic, political, marital, and sexual relations." and "In that particular culture, both sexes are expected to curtail verbal and physical aggression." During the study period refered to there was a very low level of witnessed physical violence in the community although the alternate use of sorcery in grudges might distress some more that physical violence.

I'm heading off on holidays tomorrow so may not get further opportunity to participate in this thread. Thanks to all for the interesting discussion.

R0bert

Anyone who thinks that women are less capable of violence than men have never watched New Zealand play Australia at netball.

An interesting sidelight to this topic is the example in the news at present about Jacqueline Gillespie Pascarl and her two children 'abducted' by their father. What no-one in the media has bothered reminding people about is that Gillespie brought the two children to live permanently in Australia without their father's permission, after lying about why she wanted to bring them here, after cleaning out the bank accounts.

In effect, she abducted her children from Malaysia and brought them to Australia.

The Australian courts believed what she said when she filed for divorce in Australia, and she received 'residency' of the children. I guess it helped that she was young, articulate, attractive, and Christian, when compared with the Islamic Malaysian prince whom she had freely chosen to marry. (I wonder what would happen if Princess Mary of Denmark abducted her baby and brought him to Australia?)

The father was granted access visits, and during one of these visits the children were covertly taken back to Malaysia. I guess the Haig Convention didn't help him, so he decided to help himself.

The Australian authorities tried to have them returned to Australia, but, not surprisingly, the Malaysian government did exactly the same as what the Australian government had refused to do when asked to return the children to their country of origin.

I would suggest that anyone who is interested follow this link:

http://www.malaysia-today.net/MMblues/2005_03_28_MT_MMblues_archive.htm

the opinions expressed there may not be 100% accurate, but are probably as accurate as those expressed in the Australian media.

The children now appear to be well adjusted, wanting to have access and get to know both their parents better. They appear not to have been adversely affected by their lives in Malaysia, and have freedom of movement and expression.

So, where does this leave us in the discussion about family separation and the welfare of the child?

I cannot answer....

BD

Never ever make assumptions.

You are just soooo wrong on all counts - I am not going to enter into too much detail - mainly because it is my own private business.

But will let you know this much - my ex-husband was not even baptised, let alone christian.

The christian I referred to was a brief relationship swiftly curtailed by his sexual demands AND bible bashing. A true hypocrite to his faith wouldn't you say?

I do agree with you on one point.

And that is that I do view religions in general with the utmost suspicion because they do not accord equal status to women. This view applies to any and ALL religions. Seems to me that religion was not only created BY men, but also FOR men.

As for you stating the bleeding obvious "Mostly life is just get along with each other, and do what needs to be done."

Just another example of your patronising attitude to me. Pity you don't try to get along with non-christians, such as, for example, Muslims?

Such a pity you find independent women unattractive - says alot about you that you can only 'like' women who fit your ideals. How typically male and typically religious.

And then you go on to say this "I feel we need to revisit gender roles, with responsibility, love and respect being the framework for both"

Really? Its a bit difficult to respect someone that you are forced to 'take guidance from' as in your view of the male/female relationship.

Why don't you practise what you preach?

Cheers m'dear

R0bert

Will catch up with you later.

My only comment Ms Merkin is that it is you who is being "unreasonable", basing your judgements of the family law system solely on your own sordid experience.

Why else would you include the very judge who decided your own child's fate at trial in your article, a Judge Warnick?

In my experience, and I do not claim to be an expert, no-one wins in family law, neither mothers nor fathers nor children, yet it is the fathers who are generalised as "abusers" and must prove their innocence. Overzealous, greedy mothers on the other hand, are portrayed as the "victims". Yes, many women suffer at the hands of violent partners, but many men suffer a much worse fate.....psychological warfare from a bitter ex-wife determined to use what leverage she has (the child) to hit him where it hurts.

The only way to solve this crisis is to take the issue out of the courts and into the hands of experienced relationship counsellors and psychiatrists. Leave the police out of it. Leave the judges to deal with the criminals, not the bitter and twisted emotions of partners who once loved each other enough to bring a child into the world.

Lets face it, parents do the best they can with the skills they have. We are better parents than our parents...why? because we have learnt from the experience of being parented. Don't persecute former partners simply because you looked online and found that something he did during the course of an otherwise happy marriage, falls under the new definition of "abuse". If people look too closely at you they might find that you too fit the definition of an "abuser"......scary isn't it?

R0bert,

While it made sense to widen the definition of violence (because so much of it was under the radar), at the end of the day, the shift is one of thresholds – we just end up redefining, until one day we end up with an annually revised legal definition of a “reasonable person”, so that the courts do not have to (inconsistently) determine it within each case.

Yes, we are becoming more aware of female violence, but fat lot of good that will do while we continue to systematically discriminate based on some state-prescribed relativism further corrupted by overworked and plagiaristic judiciary.

Injustice will remain just that, whether delivered against backdrops of mirrored C’s fluttering in the breeze representing the best interests of children, all the wisdom of horsehair wigs fronting wood panels, and/or marching mothers playing wind pipes ...

Women and violence.

While it is slowly being acknowledged that women are just as prey to faults as men, this is NO excuse to maintain them as second citizens. Male violence still vastly exceeds that of female, this is partly due to nurture – males are encourage to be “tough” and nature; the sheer physical strength of the average adult male compared to average female.

The reason why many feminists veer away from acknowledgement of female violence is that ANY FAULT will be used against women in achieving equal rights.

Some of the posts here suggest that this is true:

“Anyone who thinks that women are less capable of violence than men have never watched New Zealand play Australia at netball……”

Sport is sport – why shouldn’t women play as aggressively as men?

Hamlet prefers the stereotype of a ‘gentle’ woman – when he sees women behaving against this stereotype he questions women’s value as caregivers. And finished his post with:

“So, where does this leave us in the discussion about family separation and the welfare of the child?

I cannot answer....”

Hamlet asks where this leaves us in discussion about family separation. Clearly nowhere.

On one hand we have Ms Merkin completely omitting the fact of female violence and on the other we have a male using the fact that women are just like men with all their faults as an excuse to question ALL women as caregivers.

And also Hamlet’s post on the Kathleen Folbigg case. For every single case of female DV there are far more examples of male DV. Does Hamlet want me to post all of those or can we discuss the real issue?

To be accepted as equal is being accepted warts and all. Women are just simply human - no more no less.

Until we have true balance between the sexes, women will continue to exploit family law and vent their rage on their children.

And men will continue to use both their political clout at the high end of town and their muscle in the home.

Both men and women are capable of violence. Terrible examples of violence against children include the Kathleen Folbigg case and the case of Barbara Wyrzykowski, who murdered her five children before committing suicide in Western Australia. Men also commit violent crimes. Neither gender has a monopoly on violence.

Neither gender has a monopoly on lying in court.

Neither gender has a monopoly on child rearing skills and abilities, or on tenderness. Apart from breastfeeding there is nothing that a female cannot do better than a male in raising a child.

What I am suggesting that each case be dealt with on its absolute merits, taking the people involved as individuals, not as males and females or mother and fathers, but as parents, with assets and imperfections.

Some would say that we do not have a balance between the sexes. It all depends on what is being looked at. For instance, instead of looking at monetary income, that is who brings in what, why not look at expenditure, that is, for whose benefit does the money get spent? I would argue that while women don’t have the income, more is actually spent on them than on males.

When considering violence, in its totality, lets just stop looking at the perpetrators and look at the victims. The ‘average’ victim of violence is a young male in his twenties, who is most likely to be assaulted by another young male. In domestic relationships there is almost as much violence in lesbian relationships as in heterosexual relationships. That is not to dismiss the seriousness and effects of domestic violence, but should we assume that all men are bad, and assume, as I know that some women have, that whilst Folbigg killed her children she should not have been imprisoned for it?

So how do we deal with all this? Do we adopt Merkin’s path and simply believe all women are incapable of violence or lying? If were are to do that then all decisions about children should be left to the mother, and we should remove the involvement of fathers and courts completely.

Well put Hamlet.

Indisputably a great majority would like to see men and women as equals. Different perhaps, but nonetheless EQUAL. It is however a great source of frustration for them that whenever convenient, some women choose to deny this to all women.

Those that only see opportunity, as victims, are happiest staring through glass ceilings and up the skirts of those above. Sisterhood would do well without them – these are its loudest critics, best saboteurs, devious perverters and provocateurs.

They are neither likely to acknowledge the irony nor the viciousness of statements such as “Until we have true balance between the sexes, women will continue to exploit family law and vent their rage on their children." In fact, they themselves utter them in all seriousness as statements of female virtue.

Well it would appear that there is some kind of consensus here, although I would like to point out that it is a MINORITY of feminists who hold back equality for men and women in family care. True feminists want equality for both sexes.

However, the bottom line is this: women are not equally represented in the upper levels of power from politics to business. Even in education where I hear alot of whinging about the 'feminisation' of teaching, the vast bulk of school principals are still men.

The question has to be, why are men often discriminated against in anything to do with child care, given that the highest postions are still primarily held by men?

BTW

Seeker

if you are going to quote me, it is courteous to acknowledge that you are using my quote.

Seeker

And furthermore I am aware of the irony in my statement - I frequently use irony in many of my posts here.

However I have not made out women to be any more viruous than men as you well know. Yet you continue to have a problem acknowledging any good in women. I have pointed this out to you before. Not all women are violent, nor are all men violent.

You are not helping if you continue to alienate those who may agree with some of your views just because like me they are female. I have repeatedly tried to communicate with you and all I receive is thinly veiled hositility on the rare occasion you even respond to my posts.

It is clear that we have both been hurt badly by the other sex. However, I don't blame ALL men for what has happened to me. Your posts always cast women in a negative light.

I feel sorry for you.

Damned silly typos on my part

(must be my male brain acting badly ;-) )

Neither gender has a monopoly on child rearing skills and abilities, or on tenderness. Apart from breastfeeding there is nothing that a female cannot do better than a male in raising a child

should have read

Neither gender has a monopoly on child rearing skills and abilities, or on tenderness. Apart from breastfeeding there is nothing that a female can do better than a male in raising a child

But I think that everyone got the point anyway.

Scout,

You must also acknowledge our own entitlement to irony without the cynical offers of sympathy.

Your commentary on equality, invariably attempts to raise the status of women through affirmative action, while supporting laws that cut down men. That is not my idea of equality. Women are perfectly capable in today’s western society such as ours, of achievement and success in their own right. What have physical size or muscle density got to do with fish or bicycles? These are stupid ideas you continue to perpetuate as valid reasons for men somehow being responsible for supporting and even compensating women for their self-imposed unequalness. Even worse, men somehow deserve to have their children taken away from them because powerful men exist elsewhere in society. I seriously doubt that sort of irony is intentional.

If you were truly gender neutral as you claim, you would see family law reform as a precursor to equality, rather than the reverse. Equal reproductive rights and financial responsibility would make us equal. Not those socialist/feminist equalisation schemes you tend to favour.

I went down to the local Police Station to obtain a keypass application for my son. While there I noticed a prominently displayed pamphlet.. (though it bore more resemblance to a 'tract')

The title was "NEVER believe HIS violence is YOUR fault"

Now..if that doesn't raise about a 100 questions in many minds I don't know what will. Without stating my own reaction to this, I'd value others opinions on it first.

( A lady at Bible study 2night totally agreed with that title)

Scout:

1/ Just another example of your patronising attitude to me.
2/ Pity you don't try to get along with non-christians, such as, for example, Muslims?

3/ Such a pity you find independent women unattractive

I won't dignify 1 or 2 with a response.

3.... you misunderstand. I also feel you don't 'get' the idea of marraige. But then..I speak from a 'Godbotherer' perspective, so what would I know.
"and the 2.....shall become ONE" there is no independance for either a MAN or a WOMAN in marraige.. they are interconnected at every level. They can do things individually, but the day they start to think they are 'separate and unconnected' is.. in my humble opinion the day the marraige starts to crumble. Hmmm.. lets see, I've been married to one girl for nearly 30 yrs... again..what would I know.

You keep harping on me believing 'she must seek guidance' I think you are imposing your harsh, literalist, inflexible and legalistic mind set to my words. Just for the record, when it comes to some areas of life, a man must accept guidance from a woman. Its a team effort. But this does not change a mans fundamental responsibility of leadership in a family. Thats where I stand.

Boaz_David.

Leadership?

How about the male showing leadership in sacrifice, in humility, in generosity of spirit?

Of leading by example, not in a dominant way, but by showing the way?

Leadership in self control, sobriety, granting honour to others in the family before himself? Leading in self-discipline. Leading in love, without expecting love in return. Receiving respect when he has earned respect, not demanding respect.

Being there to pick up the pieces, with forgiveness, when something goes wrong. Indeed leading in turning the other cheek.

Leading in listening, and in controlling his own tongue. Finding ways to influence members of his family in the ways of grace, peace, security and prosperity.

Leading in showing the value of knowledge and self knowledge. Spending time in his own wilderness of the soul before he seeks to lead others.

This is how I see leadership in the family, of being slow to anger and quick to praise. To correct with gentleness but firmness, after a deep and searching examination of the man's own soul and spirit.

Leading with inner strength of masculinity, not in external show.

Yes, leadership,

but I don't think that is how you see it.

Hamlet...

that is EXACTLY how I see it, because that is how the Scriptures TEACH IT.... Haleluhah brother.. they 'get' it at last :)

and thanx for elucidating it as well as you did....

It boggles the mind, that I say the same kind of thing you did, but am perceived as saying something else.. I usually just quote the scripture, or emphasise it is in a sacrificial, giving way... yet.. for some reason, that is filtered out by those who desire to portray me as believing something else.

Cheers

Scout suggests only “a minority of women" want to treat men unequally. However, only these “minority” women are put forward as lobbyists and candidates for political power. If other women have different views, why are they silent in the political debate?

The “No to Violence Against Women” advertisements show how the anti-male agenda coopts public funding. Various Parliamentary Committees accepted Family Law should be updated to give men and kids a better deal. This ad campaign was initiated in response. Despite test responses that the ads were too gender biased, the TV ads aired in 2005.

So far in 2006, the TV ads aired during 2 short periods only. Firstly, when the final reforms to Family Law were debated in House of Reps, and secondly when the reforms were debated in the Senate. A strange coincidence, or evidence of the true agenda?

Scout's other beliefs – i.e. a balanced gender split in power will create non-discriminatory policy; and a male leader prevents discrimination against males - are also naive. Consider Nicholson’s Family Court as an example.

Scandinavian countries achieved significant advances by good social policy, rather than a spiteful anti-male war. Swedish parents get 18 months combined paid baby-leave. Couples decide how to split the total 18 months leave, but fathers must take a minimum of 6 months. Mothers are limited to a max of 12 months, but a father can take the whole 18 months. Shared parenting after divorce is common. As a result, these countries have high female representation in their parliaments.

But Australian women continue to follow the lead of US anti-male warriors. This hasn't produced “Scandinavian” social gains in either country, but it gives a few female writers and lobbyists a good lifestyle.

We've improved behaviour in the Australian workplace significantly. We are more polite and respectful of different cultures and genders, and emotional or physical eruptions aren’t accepted.

But we haven't made the same progress in domestic behaviour. This is because, in domesticity, the focus is on blaming men, rather than looking at what behaviours are positive, and what behaviours are negative (gender aside).

Seeker

1. I have never claimed to be gender neutral - last time I looked I was all woman.

2. I am all for reform of the Family court system - have you not read any of my posts? I have raised a lot of objections to the way they are run.

3. I still feel sorry for you because a quick scroll through your posts on OLO reveals a deep hatred for women - all women. You never say anything postive about them. It is one thing to be hurt by someone another to blame everybody.

4. You haven't addressed the issue that even though men control the bulk of power, other men are CLEARLY not treated equally in the family system. Why? Women are dominate only to middle management level and I have already discussed some of their failings on this thread.

5. You have not apologised for failing to acknowledge me when you used quotes from my posts. I would acknowledge you.

BD & Hamlet

1. Hamlet well said - however leadership is not the prerogative of the male; it applies to females as well. Relationships are about team work not who is boss.

2. Whatever happened to leading by example?

3. Unfortunately I do “get” BD’s idea of marriage – which is why I reject it. I believe marriage to be an equal partnership between two people who love and respect each other, who want to make their lives together.

to be continued

Cabbage
1. I stated in one of my earlier posts that: >>Perhaps the campaign slogan should read:

“Domestic Violence, AUSTRALIA SAYS NO"<<

2. I am not so naive as to believe that equal representation of women in all facets of our society will bring about some sort of miraculous peace. Have you read ANY of my posts?

I have not ever presented women as being better than men. However, we DO make up 51% of the population and yet are not represented fairly and equitably in all areas of decision making. Therefore, we cannot even begin to make improvements to many areas of injustice both for men and women.

3. Don't men want to share the burden? Men should be as free to choose their lifestyles as much as women. Not all men want dynamic careers. And not all women want to be mothers. Somewhere there is a happy medium, but it certainly isn't here. I think I would be correct in saying that I am the only female poster to this thread.

Finally
My view isn't necessarily that of other women. I don't speak for all women any more than the male posters here speak for all men. Seems to me that most of the male posters here have an axe to wield either as a result of a bad relationship or to push a religion.

It is a shame that gender inequity exists on OLO as well. Given the vitriol I receive from so many so frequently for simply daring to speak my mind, I have had to develop a pretty thick skin.

Perhaps, if people treated each other with a little more respect, more women would post here. Then again, I don't have a family to tend to, so maybe it is only the men who have the time to spend online.

Scout,
You have my respect for your courage, honesty and openness.

And most of all – for your perseverance in the face of narrow minded world views. You still have the strength to discuss and respond while I am tired of trying to untangle the knotted ‘logic’ or ‘truth’ some use to push their point of view.

Keep it up. You do yourself proud.

'Here we have a field of law that is the most prone to vexatious litigation, most prone to false and misleading testimony, most prone to defamatory material, most prone to misrepresentation with the intent to gain monetary advantage, and most prone to false and unsubstantiated accusation.'

This is misinformation. Infact, if women do make allegations of domestic violence, they will be perceived as hostile towards the father, and not supportive of the father/child relationship. To maintain their status as residential parent, they must be seen to be supportive of contact between father and child.

Considering it is so difficult to prove domestic violence, making allegations of domestic violence can and does disadvantage women in the Family Law Court.

Reason

Thank you for your compliments - not really that deserving I just call it the way I see it.

I too despair at untangling the convoluted logic used by detractors. No matter what I say, no matter how rmuch I try to be fair - they can't just disagree (which is perfectly acceptable) instead they have to twist my words, ignore many points I have made or even claim things I have never even posted! All because, on this particular thread, they really don't like women - when I talk about equal representation, they really become irrational. Not a nation on earth can truly claim to be a democracy while the balance of power is held overwhelmingly by men. Statements like this are taken as anti-male. Which is absurd. Apart from R0bert I have not been able to have any reasonable discussion on the problems within Family Law.

Reason

I am also sad to note that your posts are less frequent - you are one of the few who give me the inspiration to keep going. Keep these bastards honest - don't let them get away with their twisted views and mantra of hate and exclusion.

Liz

I understand how you feel. On a much earlier post to this thread I wrote that even with all the changes to family law today I would still have just walked away from everything rather than try to prove my ex husband's abuse. I had no children and felt that the best way to escape was to cut my losses and run. On the other side of the equation, my brother-in-law who is a superb father to my niece and nephew is completely estranged from his daughter from his first marriage. There are always two sides - clearly our present system is not helping honest men and women. As with much in our modern world it favours those who can manipulate the system.

Regards to all.

Scout, hi I'm back from an excellent holiday. The last paragraph of your most recent post sums up a key problem with the implementation of family law - it seems to work against parents who try and do the right thing. I support what you have said about your own approach to this issue - whilst we do disagree on some issues you don't come at it with a hard line approach but seek a realistic and balanced understanding. That in itself has been a help to me on a number of issues and I thank you for it.

From the anecdotal evidence that I have seen I can't agree with Liz's perceptions about claims of DV working against mothers - thankfully my ex has not tried that one so I don't have first hand experience.

Her tactic was to make a big issue of differing approaches to discipline to get my son offside at a crucial time - have him feel really hard done by for things that are a part of responsible parenting and to tell him that the ongoing court case was responsible for him missing out on some stuff that had nothing to do with the case at all.

As I understand it claims of DV may not carry a lot of direct weight but the short term management strategies can be very effective to shift the balance in family law issues.

There are tactical advantages to the strategic use of false claims of DV
- it can get the other party so upset that they give the wrong demeanor when dealing with officials and in court.
- it can isolate the other party from family, finances, home, recreational interests, necessary records etc at a time when they most need access to all that stuff.
- it can develop a pattern of parenting which the courts may be reluctant to change.
- if managed correctly it can be used to get kids scared of the other parent. Useful in the lead up to family reports etc.

Cheers
R0bert

OK, so now that we all agree family needs complete reform instead of a mere insertion of “reasonable” ahead of fear of violence,why don’t we start removing some of the violence against men?

How about starting with mandatory paternity testing as part of each birth registration. Out of those currently tested, nearly a third of children are found to be biologically unrelated to the “father”. This type of violence is clearly perpetrated against children and men. Why does everyone support it? Why do good women not stand up to rally against this and many other Family Law supported injustices. These help neither men nor women in the longer term

seeker, agreed. Some good women do stand up and fight against these injustices - Sue Price of MRA really stands out in this regard. I suspect that for most of the community it is a case of "if you are not in the firing line the issue is just one of many". It's not one I had paid much attention to until I found it hanging over my head.

Add to that the difficulties in getting to the truth amongst all the spin that is put on these issues. The child protection issue is fairly clear cut after even the most basic look at the published stats on who harms children but spousal DV is much harder to get to the truth - there is a lot of conflicting research out there and mostly the agenda's of the people conducting the research are not clearly defined. I've spelt out previously the views I hold on this issue but can understand why many hold a different view.

I'd also like to see less confrontational ways of determining paternity (manditory prior to any child support assessment being issued?) but the "one in three" figure should carry the rider that most of those being tested at the moment are situations where there is a known doubt about the paternity of the child. Few people will risk the expense and potential consequences (how do you explain it to your kids?) unless they have serious doubts about the paternity of the child.

We need to change the cultural attitudes which say various forms of violence against others are OK. Fraud being just one of them.

As Scout put it earlier “Domestic Violence, AUSTRALIA SAYS NO".

R0bert

R0bert,

We clearly need more good women like Sue Price. Paternity testing is relatively simple and cheap yet breaks the cycle of abuse before it begins.

This would be so easy to implement. It would be a significant step in the right direction that not only suits current culture and technology, but represents a huge leap for men’s reproductive rights (even if it only scratches the surface). It is as much about male violence against other men and women as it is against women destined to build unstable families headed for divorce. Why not nip it in the bud? Who are we protecting and whom are we harming? Is a society based on lies and deception at its basest building block, a healthy one?

Yes, I know the “one in three” is a distorted statistic, but it is so, only because we are reluctant to routinely test. So if we end up with 1 in 6, 1 in 12, or even 1 in 24 or higher – doesn’t it sound worthwhile? Why are we not doing it? What have good women to lose? Aren’t some of them mothers of sons?

In Seeker's world - everything is the fault of women - violence, paternity, John Howard's mother.

On paternity - the stat arose from inquiries into paternity queries - it does not apply to all families, out of those who had their paternity checked this revealed one third where the father was not the biological father, this amounts to about 1% of the population. An interesting article about this can be found at:


http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/articles/0506cannold.html

"Paternal instinct
Who’s the real father? Men’s rights, women’s quandaries and the truth about misattributed biological paternity"
.
.
.
.
What about all the children fathered by men who simply like to fool around?
.
.
.
.
Fact is Seeker, men are not perfect paragons of virtue - if you are going to diss women then at least keep it equal and acknowledge men's poor behaviour as well.

Not that I think you are bitter or anything but....

Scout, I found the article interesting. I really did not like the first half - but the latter part seemed to take a more reasonable look at the issues.

A couple of thoughts on the overall issue
- It seems reasonable to assume that those people most willing to cheat on a partner and be deceitfull about the paternity of a child are also likely to misuse the child support scheme if the opportunity arises.
- At the moment it seems to be a "have your cake and eat it" situation - biological paternity or significant relationship can be both used to impose unreasonable financial demands on the "father" resulting from what are mostly the mothers choices. The article attempts to address some of the issues around this.
- I'm uncomfortable with the idea of universal paternity testing for some of the same reasons that I would be uncomfortable if I had to routinely submit to a polygraph regarding my fidelity within a relationship. Nothing to hide but don't like that kind of intrusive activity.
- I do think that the issue changes where the government chooses to decree and enforce financial liability. It seems strange that while other items are verified (income, liabilities etc) the issue of paternity is not. Paternity can have significant financial consequences for both property settlement and child support and should involve adequate levels of proof and appropriate consequences for fraud or inadequate "duty of care" in making declarations.
- Privacy appears to be a mjor concern to that Australian Law Reform Commission in paternity testing. However it does not appear to be a consideration in other aspects of family law. I had to produce all my bank statement including credit card statements for the post seperation period as part of the property settlement process and make them available to my ex and her solicitor - no privacy there and frankly none of her business.

Cheers
R0bert

seeker, the bit that I did not get to yesterday in my post is the role that the way we conduct ourselves has on changing impressions.

I think that a lot of people tend to think that men who get done over by the family law system probably deserved what they got. Obviously not a view which I share but one which seems to be common. Similar to the view that when a woman hits a man he probably deserved it.

To often all that people see of us is our anger and bitterness and that reinforces the stereotypes, people fail to separate cause and effect.

Constant bagging of women and a refusal to acknowledge the pain some of them bear through this process is not likely to convince many women that injustice is being done. Rather many will perceive that what is happening is that poor long suffering women are getting a bit back against those nasty men they had the misfortune to marry.

If our communication of the issues portrays an unreasonable aggressive attitude then that is how we will be perceived.

You said some time ago "but as you may have noticed I don’t seriously attempt debate – rather, I tend to focus on worst case scenarios when making my generally stand-alone comments, then rarely return to defend them. They are never an attempt to show my overall personal balance." - fair enough but I don't think that approach is going to help change any viewpoints for the better.

Scout and others by their willingness to engage have impacted on my understanding of some issues, as I suspect that I have impacted on some of their understandings. Some of the extremists have also impacted on my viewpoints as well but generally away from their viewpoints which I doubt is what is intended.

Cheers
R0bert

Robert

I don't understand how you can pay homeage to Sue Price. She's just as misogynistic in her paternalistic outlook on life as, say, Seeker.

Scout

Truly admire your courage and patience with the renegade warriors adverse to women (except for the likes of Sue Price).

Call us misogynist. Simultaneously promote misandry. It is equally OK for the wife or girlfriend to terminate her pregnancy without consultation, as it is for her to bring another man’s child into her relationship. Because we don’t routinely test, estimated incidence of paternity fraud is 1%. We are expected to accept the accuracy of this “low” rate, and as they say in the classics – be men about it.

I seem to remember a child sexual abuse campaign in the early nineties which beamed to every household and accused every father of his potential evil. The estimated incidence of this must have been in the double digits to warrant such an onslaught. More recently, we see the “Violence against Women” campaign. Again the implications are that all men are perpetrators – they just didn’t know it, without the education component.

Scout,

You must have missed my statement “It is as much about male violence against other men and women as it is against women destined to build unstable families headed for divorce.” I acknowledge the existence of (using your words with appropriate attribution ;-), “… men who simply like to fool around”. And no, “men are not perfect paragons of virtue”.

But none of it detracts from the central tenet that paternity testing would be fair to both men and women. No “convoluted logic” there Scout.

R0bert,

I’m doing my best – as a mere male I am not expected to understand the intricacies of women’s suffering. I am here to learn. Nor do I understand how it is OK to bring another man’s child into a relationship without a “social father” given a say. Ponder on the term “social father” for a moment … do you agree with such terms?

Paternity testing should be done at birth. The resident “social father” can then decide without the exaggerated pain that may come with deferral. Everyone’s position will be clear from the start. Unresolved Paternity – Australia says No!

Liz, Sue Price has never struck me as anti-female or as seeking a world dominated by men. Everything I have heard her say or read from her has emphasised a desire for equal treatment in law and practice for men and women - if thats misogynistic then count me in too.

I suspect that Sue has contributed to saving a number of lives as she deals with men going through a time that for many what will be the worst time of their lives. She is a someone who provides real help to men at a time when no-one else seems able and willing to help.

There are very few readily available resources available to men going through the trauma of seperation and or divorce, men who are suffering as the victims of DV etc. Have a snoop on a government web site - first of all looking for a list of resources for women needing help then try and find the equivalent list for men. Sue is doing what she can to bridge that gap.

She speaks out strongly against those who misuse the system but I've not seen any sign of calls for special treatment for men. As with all of us is she is human and may make mistakes but misogynistic - no I don't accept that.

seeker, I don't think the kind of fraud involved in misleading someone about paternity is ever OK either. It is a massive deceit given how significant reproduction is to the human makeup. For many the raising of their children is the most significant act of their lives. Having said that I'm not convinced that systematic testing of paternity for all children is a healthy move for society or that it would be well accepted by parents.

I don't have any satisfactory answers to the conflict that I can feel happy about. We do need a better understanding of just how many children are not the child of the father nominated on the birth certificate to work out how much of an issue this is.

R0bert

Scout wrote:

Fact is Seeker, men are not perfect paragons of virtue - if you are going to diss women then at least keep it equal and acknowledge men's poor behaviour as well.

---

So true, men are rotten and terrible, and are always being told that if they don't want to face the 'consequences' of sexual activity then they should 'keep it in their pants'. But I have yet to hear one feminist, or any female say to woman, in the modern era - post pill and post liberation - that if they don't want to face the consequence of sexual activity then they should keep their legs closed.

Instead we have both genders wanting to have sex without responsibility and blaming the other: like that woman in the Victorian case who took her husband for thousands of dollars in paternity fraud because she got pregnant twice whilst having a long term 'affair' and who still refuses to name the real father of two of her children.

Maybe all men should take the advice - and keep it in their pants - sex for men, before, during or after marriage - whether that is marriage 1, 2, 3 or 4 is simply not worth it.

After all, women know what is best for the world, and if they say that men should keep it in their pants then it cannot be wrong.

Robert

A desire for 'equal treatment'. According to who? And the assumption here is that women are advantaged in law? It's a myth. There are no winners in divorce. And, the family law courts in no way advantage women.

Having visited her website, what appalled me is Sue Price providing a public forum for one-sided, myth-making, vitriol towards women who find themselves embroiled in family law matters, and the open invitation for anyone else who wants to misrepresent women to do so on her website. Of course, those women who 'support' their man are perceived as heroines, against the backdrop of the dastardly first wives.

Both women and men suffer in divorce. She is only there for men, based on her misrepresentation of 'victimisation'. Women suffer appallingly after a divorce. And are frequently subjected to bullying by not only the ex, but the new partner as well.

There is not much out there for women either Robert. It's a lonely, isolating life, finding yourself as a single mother. When men divorce, they do not have to live life with the same degree of social abandonment as women do. Men also repartner much more quickly than women.

It's also a myth that there is much more 'out there' for divorced women. The federal funding towards divorced mens organisations is significantly more than towards divorced womens organisation.

'She speaks out strongly against those who misuse the system ...' And who are those that supposedly 'misuse the system' ... Women? And how do they misuse the system? And whose perception is this? Sue Prices?

She is nothing more than a self-styled 'champion' towards a cause that demonises women who supposedly 'misuse the court'.

Liz wrote:

Both women and men suffer in divorce. She is only there for men, based on her misrepresentation of 'victimisation'. Women suffer appallingly after a divorce. And are frequently subjected to bullying by not only the ex, but the new partner as well.

--

however from:

http://www.wesleymission.org.au/publications/r&d/suicide.htm

"Recent research into male suicide in this age group revealed that males in the 'separation phase' of a marriage break-up were most at risk of suicide, compared with widowed or divorced males.76 Whilst these are only preliminary findings, they suggest that the severe disruption of separation and the high levels of interpersonal conflict that were associated with it, were perhaps the greatest contributing factor, along with separation from children.

Marriage breakdown is a significant characteristic of male suicide in the 24-39 age bracket. The anxiety and emotional pain of separation and divorce appear to effect men differently."

-

Of course, it is all men's own fault

and from today's press:

http://smh.com.au/news/national/more-wives-save-to-make-the-big-split/2006/04/19/1145344153531.html

"A survey has revealed that thousands more wives than husbands are putting away money in preparation for divorce."

Sort of says where women are investing their assets, doesn't it?

But it is all men's fault that women want to leave them, after all, they are smelly, dirty, selfish and horrible - the very creatures that women's mothers' warned them about. I don't know why women bother with men in the first place.

Hamlet

I once did a professional development seminar on suicide. What the spokesman said was that a relatively equal number of women and men wanted to commit suicide post separation. However, the women had the children to consider, which was decisively discouraging.

I don't think you can speak for women as to what is in their minds. Nor can you judge them for being the ones that ended the marriage and then provide trivialised reasons for supposedly ending marriages.

Get over this competing victim syndrome.

Both men AND women suffer post separation.

Liz, I'd be interested in hearing your views on the champions of the mothers groups. The type who consistantly demonise men whenever family law reform is suggested by spurious claims of protecting women and children implying that most men are violent offenders or remarkably more likely to harm their own kids than the mother (I'll leave the DV part alone here, evidence for that issue is harder to get a consistant view of).

Did you try the experiment I suggested and have a look at some government websites and review the disparity between the resources available for men and women?

I agree that the "Law" does not do much specific discrimination, rather it is implimented in a manner which creates significant discrimination. A mix of "common sense" guides which don't really reflect the significant changes that result from a relationship breakdown, to many biased people working in the support systems (RA, CSA etc), a lack of consequences for some kinds of wrongdoing etc.

Funding - thats the first time I've heard anybody suggest that mens support services get more money than womens. Or were you being more specific, groups dedicated specifically to divorced men or women which might exclude a lot of groups which work in the field but which go under another label?

I'm guessing that you and I will be unlikely to reach any kind of agreement on most of these issues but maybe we will help one another understand the other side of the issues a bit better. I do appreciate that we are able to have this discussion so far without personal insults - a pleasant change from some parts of the forums. Thanks for your part in that (seeker may not agree).

Cheers
R0bert

Hamlet

I admire many of your posts elsewhere on OLO. However, I am having a great deal of difficulty determining your meaning with your posts to this thread.

The only point I think you are making is that it is permissable to denigrate women, but not permissable to make even the slightest negative comment against men. When I have made criticism you seem to think a little tantrum is the appropriate response such as this pathetic little whinge: "So true, men are rotten and terrible"

As I know you can be very cogent in your posts why this terrible lapse on male/female topics?

I have been very fair and reasonable, I have acknowledged where some women abuse the system and why this imbalance exists.

I could appear as bitter and resentful as you - I have every reason to. I have had appalling treatment by men (abusive ex husband, rape, sexual harassment at work) yet I manage to not engage in the vitriol towards all men as you, Seeker and Maximus engage in against all women.

As with the Muslim debate I know that it is completely erroneous to blame everyone for the faults of a minority.

Again I ask analysis and possible solutions - I have proferred my ideas here, how about some effort from you?

To R0bert and Liz

I am really enjoying the exchange between you both. For myself, I have no more time for this thread.

Regards

Hamlet,

I’ll take your advice for the moment and keep my fire stick away from Scout for she’s likely to burn down the camp.

As you can see she is not so much scouting for good ideas, as she is for weakness. Has she ever really responded to any serious challenge? No, no further than required to generate an impression - she’d rather focus on criticising the presentation – especially when she feels threatened by the concept being presented.

She seems preoccupied with forming relationships on OLO, using girl-scout maturity level social strategies to bully by exclusion, expulsion and other classic girl-gang dynamics rules. Oh sure, she’s no slouch when it comes to pitting men against others either. All these tools reside in the genes of every girl-scout, but don’t be fooled into thinking they will ever want to keep it in their pants. In fact, such a proposition from you, was precisely the cause of her wrath.

This is also why Scout will not seriously comment on mandatory paternity testing (nor about keeping it in HER pants). This is also why she keeps threatening to leave, but never does.

R0bert,

I did refrain with Liz and waited for you instead. Not so long ago, on another thread, our Liz had this to say:

“Withdrawing welfare is such a concern to me.

How will we be able to afford the grog that fuels the alcoholic degradation of the nation?

I suppose though, with the decrease in our drunken stupors, we'll actually have some idea who the fathers of our children are.”

I guess that goes some way towards explaining her position on things (and no … Scout, please don’t bring up irony or satire)

Liz wrote:

I once did a professional development seminar on suicide. .snip.. the women had the children to consider, which was decisively discouraging.

Liz, this is an interesting way to put it, as you actually confirm my argument: perhaps if the women who had considered suicide had been in the same position as the men, that is, had been excluded from their children’s lives by ex partners, they would be committing suicide in the same numbers, but almost inevitably it is men who are excluded, rather than women.

Scout

In this topic I have been largely reacting to the attacks upon men. I actually really feel that the way that society has changed that there will be a decreasing place in women’s lives for men. The rate of marital breakdown shows that women want from men cannot be delivered. There are major differences between the genders. Men don’t want to ‘emote’ in the same way that women do, they do not want to ’communicate’, they see foreplay as the time spent standing in the line to get on the rollercoaster rather than something significant in itself.

That is how men are, and before you start arguing otherwise I would suggest that you google ‘David Reimer’

And I am also saying maybe that both genders, where a male / female relationship still exists, should start putting the other person first. If this was the case then there would be no domestic violence, no selfish demands and far more harmony. Where the differences are acknowledged, and women stop wanting men to be like women.

If women want partners like themselves, then they should consider the alternative that Relationships Australia actually suggested – that is lesbianism. Actually it is no wonder that more women are choosing that alternative.

As for my comment about men being smelly etc, all you have to do is look at the case in Victoria where a lesbian killed herself and her boychild because the court granted access to the father, and the woman complained that the boy came back from access smelling of ‘male’. See

http://www.sos-family.org.au/News/newspage2.asp?ID=250

Instead of laying the blame at each other’s feet, why not try this:

“There are bad, self men in the world and there are bad selfish women or (if you prefer to not have one set above the other, in reverse - there are bad, self women in the world and there are bad selfish men … or if you prefer (so as not to demonise one or the other), there are bad, selfish people.”

Now that was easy wasn’t it? No? You can come up with a woman who behaves in a way that represents all women? Or a man who behaves in a way that represents all men? No? Then your generalisations are pointless.

The thrust of the comments here (for the most part) indicate a decided bias. This would seem (also from the comments) that certain members have been decidedly hard done by – by the opposite sex.

Well then, on behalf of all the good people of the world (no matter what the sex of them!) – we sympathise with you for the bad behaviour of other individuals that you had the misfortune to experience – regardless, nay, in spite of, the sex!

Feel better now? No? Then might I suggest letting go of the past and looking to the future? You may just find that the other halves aren’t all as bad as you would seem to believe…

R0bert, Scout… always a pleasure reading what you have to say.

If anyone doubts that the groups behind the publicly funded Violence Against Women campaign are happy to support violence against men, here is more evidence:

Chopper's ad for Govt comes under fire
April 22, 2006

A Federal Government-sponsored advertisement featuring convicted criminal Mark "Chopper" Read is inappropriate and should be withdrawn, said Queensland Premier Peter Beattie.

The television ad has not yet been classified or released and features Chopper Read saying that those convicted of violence against women will be attacked in jail.

"I think (the federal government) has really misjudged this," Mr Beattie said.

"One thing we do share with the federal government is an attempt to reduce domestic violence and violence generally, but I don't think threatening violence to reduce violence actually works and surely that is not a sensible, tactical way to get the community to change its view.

"I think federal government should withdraw the ad, we don't want to send that message out about violence at all."

Queensland Police and Corrective Services Minister Judy Spence also called on media outlets to boycott the advertisement.

"Here we have a television advertisement that claims the solution to domestic violence is violence within the prison system," Ms Spence said.

"This is wrong. There should be a zero tolerance of violence in the community and within prisons."

- From Sydney Morning Herald website.

How much taxpayers’ hard earned was wasted on this irresponsible frolic? How many people in public positions signed off on the development of this ad? It seems to me that their prejudices make them unfit for further public employment.

seeker, I'm not to concerned if Liz and I have very different perspectives on the issues. It can make the discussion much more interesting while we keep discussion happening. As I said earlier we both might learn something.

cabbage, thanks for that info. Some people just don't get it. Interesting to see Queensland Government reps talking about the issue. They are part of the overall problem. The Queensland Health Department has the following gem on it's website (I've posted this on OLO before as well as complaining to Qld Health - no response)

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship.

Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women."
http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp

I'd like to see the research that supports that idea that men might be responsible for up to 98% of all physical, sexual emotional or psychological abuse in a spousal relationship. I'm guessing that they work from the assumption that men hold the power in spousal relationships therefore whatever women do in those relationships is not abuse. Any commnets from those who consider the statement on the website reasonable? I've never understood how any reasonable person could support it. For those who don't understand who some guys are so bitter about the system try to imagine what it is like for men trying to get fair treatment from an industry dominated by the kind of thinking in that quote. Then you might understand why "reasonable" makes so much sense.

R0bert

RObert, I think that you are mistaken about the percentage of domestic violence for which men can be held responsible. It is 100%, because when men are not actually violent, it is men who have incited or provoked the violence.

And anyway, in this area, it isn't the 'truth' that matters, it is what is perceived (which is why the term 'reasonable' is such a threat) that matters.

A lesson can be learnt from another area here - that is the way that 'repressed memory' is treated.

Even when recovered repressed memories are patently false - like the case in the U.K. where the 'victim' purportedly was repeated raped and abused by family members, including with knives, power tools and other objects. A simple medical exam showed that she was still a virgin. The people who are treating these 'victims' consistently claim that it isn't what actually happened that is important; it is what the 'victim' remembers happening that is important, and that these memories should not be challenged.

Similarly, in the area of relationships, it is not what actually happens that counts, it is what the ‘victims’ believe that happens that matters.

To give an example: my stepmother woke from a dream in which my father was having an affair – now my stepmother knew it was a dream, she knew it didn’t happen, but that didn’t stop her from treating my father like a bad dog for the rest of that day. She felt justified in this. The dream became ‘reality’.

Now I am not saying that all domestic violence is fantasy – far from it – it is serious and society must deal with it seriously. I am saying that in the area of relationships truth really doesn’t matter, only perception.

This is especially true now that women have become the sole arbitrating authority over relationships, that is, what men think doesn’t matter, it is only the woman’s opinion that counts about how relationships work. Every man knows that when a woman says that she wants discussion, she actually wants the man to agree with her.

ON TOPIC
I think I did mention that in the local police station there is a brochure titled "Never believe HIS violence is your fault"

OFF TOPIC but all the 'gang' are here :)
I've just been to Sydney.Drove up on Thursday night, went to see customer in the morning, had rest of the day free. Thought I'd checkout some of the locations of the 'massive racist' events of recent months.

Went to Telopea Street Punchbowl, and found it to be quite a nice street. Drove through it..no half bricks :) hardly a soul to be seen. Just one obviously MEmale sitting on front verandah.

Went to Lakemba Mosque. Parked my car in side street, and walked alone up and down in Wangi street, past the Mosque,a few people milling around, hardly a sideways glance at me. Very hard to imagine the 1000s of people flocking to defend it orpeople being shot near it.

Went to Roselands shopping mall, not too far away, probably only 1 in 20 people of Leb ethnicity. Maybe just one 'lad' who might fit the type of image we have been discussing. Saw one car load full of them.
Had one dirty look from a ME male in a car.

Came back later, went to Roselands heated pool for a short swim and shower... met a young Leb boy in the shower.. probably about 12, his was dad in the loo.. we got chatting about remote control cars (me and the boy) he was well mannered. His dad came out. I asked how long he has been here.. he said about 30 yrs.

Mosied on down to Cronulla, checked out the 'crime scene' and Northies bar.. difficult to imagine 5000 people there. I saw how the rock pools kind of lend themselves to being 'cordoned off' by anyone wishing to claim them.

Next time I'll go on a Saturday.

Later went to Coles, encountered a Muslim lady with Hijab at the 'oranges' fruit section, exchanged a few pleasantries.

Driving back, one place looked like an explosion in a butchers shop.. 'sheep met truck'

Here is the Violence Against Women groups’ pro-forma for appropriate interpersonal communication if you are talking to a male -

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18888667-1248,00.html
- Includes video link to proposed new ad

They also believe this is appropriate use of government funds.

I don't see a lot of difference between this and the AWB payments to Saddam Hussein. Both cases give a big dollar boost to a minority interest group, but in reality endorse, and encourage, the behaviour you claim to be opposed to.

BD - I don't get to say this often so I'll grab the opportunity "Nice post".

On topic - I'd like to see the corresponding brochure "Never believe your violence is his fault". The base concept that we are not accountable for someone elses actions (maybe for our contribution to those actions though) is good but does not seem to be evenly applied.

Of topic - glad you had a nice trip.

R0bert

Hamlet, sorry I forgot to respond to your post last night (I was in shock at finding a post of BD's that I liked - if I've understood it correctly).

I'm hoping that you are being satirical in your most recent post. I really don't think that most women think that men are responsible for 100% of all DV. I've not any who claim that women never do wrong, that understanding does not always get applied to the rest of the discussion.

Many people have been badly mislead by the dishonest studies and the flagrant lies into believing that rates of DV and child abuse are massively genderised across the general community (I'm undecided about some cultural groups, gender based DV may still be regarded as OK amongst some groups but I don't know).

It's kind of interesting that no-one has come back with comment on the government "substantiated child abuse and neglect" stats I posted early in the discussion. Given how frequently the idea of protecting children is floated in this debate the stats on substantiated child abuse and neglect (and the child death stats) should be providing a real wake up call for buys into the child protection thing as a basis for keeping dads away from their kids. Maybe sufficient cause to start looking at the DV claims with a bit more scepticism. Alas silence has reigned supreme.

There are some men out there who abuse their partners and or children in horrendous manners but for every one of them there is a woman doing the similar. It is my understanding that in over 50% of DV situations the partners will be assaulting each other.

The continued assumption that relationship violence is a male thing perpetuates the cycle of violence and needs to be stopped.

Likewise the idea that it is OK to do real harm to a former partner and children based on fears which cannot be shown to be reasonable needs to be consigned as a footnote in history. Something historians can look back at and wonder how that could ever have been "acceptable".

R0bert

Is Chopper Read’s commercial meant to invoke a “reasonable” fear of violence, and if so, does it not promote the idea it is OK to fight violence with violence? The next logical step would be pre-emption – surely the doctrine of the day.

Chopper … what a gentleman! Perhaps a new super-hero cartoon character that works from his prison cell, just using his contacts from the outside (and the media), to protect children of Australia against their evil biological and social dads.

Robert.....

*grin* :)

On the Brochure..its a stupid concept to claim that either 'His' or..'Her'violence is never 'your' fault.

Men are more 'physical' ..women are more 'vocal'. The title of such brochure is innappropriate. It should be something like "Solutions to Violence". But the title is clearly 'anti male', saying ...

No matter how much you goad him, humiliate him, annoy him, lie about him, are unfaithful to him, etc.. its NOT YOUR FAULT. But if he responds with isolating, abusing, (verbally) lying about, tormenting, threatening, humiliating her in public.. as long as it is not 'pysical' this is all OK ? of course not.

Or are they referring to ALL THAT kind of non physical violence also ?

Back on my trip ...being in a chatty mood, I said something to the chick in front of me in the checkout line, who said she was going home to cook,and said 'get him to cook' and she replied there is no 'him', not married, living with parents..the only men she meets are scumbags.. pity.

The checkout chick was an Asian.. named 'Alice' and of course, I just HAD to ask "Does your address include the word 'Wonderland'" ? :) which she thought was pretty funny.. YES!.. one to me (corney but it worked :)

BD, "Solutions to Violence" would be nice but I suspect that what is more important for most brochures is not the detailed content inside but the catchy one liner on the cover - the bit we remember.

The cynic in me wonders if some of those in the industry don't really want solutions to violence, their careers depend on it.

Your comment about the woman who only meets scumbags is sad, that does not seem to be an isolated view (as with men who find it hard to meet women they can respect).

How much is that a consequence of the things people look for in a prospective partner? Could it be that many of the things we are taught to value too often come with a price. Women who go hunting for tough agressive guys might find that is exactly what they get. Guys who look for a woman who puts enormous effort into her personal maintenance might find they get a partner who cares little for anything outside herself and her own needs and wants.

Maybe a bit less focus on outward appearance and status items and many people might find that there are a lot of good people out there.

R0bert

RObert

See

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v3n2/jurevic.html

where the following is quoted:

Daniel Saunders, asserts that women use physical violence for very specific, and different reasons than men.[21] Firstly, a woman often uses violence in self-defence, and, is usually not the initiator of an attack. Secondly, when women do in fact initiate violence, they may do so because "they sense impending violence from their partner, and initiate the attack in order to stop the overwhelming build up of tension."[22] Finally, Saunders casts doubt on the perception that mutual combat has in fact occurred when the injuries resulting from the violence are so disparate: "A shove by a woman may enrage her partner; a shove by a man can knock a woman down and cause a concussion."

The entire piece focuses on the fact that all domestic violence is the man's fault.

I will have to remember that next time my wife threatens to call the police (and have me arrested, spend the night in the cells and lose my job - of course - that isn't domestic violence) when I try to decline to get her some booze when its late at night.

Hamlet the bias of the author is blatently obvious right from the start.

Section 1 opens with "While millions of women throughout the world have been abused by men, often to death, the subject of domestic violence has been studied to death."

And later in section 11 "As a result, societal values which seek to blame the victim of domestic violence surface again to deny her compensation from the State."

You have to get to section 14 before any mention of male victims of DV are mentioned. 1 male applicant of the 17 cases studied.

The author makes assumptions about victims fighting back - I've refered elsewhere to a feminist look at the issue of female violence by Patricia Pearson and this is one of the issues she tackles.

The author shows no sign of attempting to discover the truth of DV, rather she is looking at how certain aspects fit within the framework of her existing beliefs. Not real uncommon.

I get the impression that your own partner is a more extreme case than most others. Please don't judge all women on that basis, there are many good ones out there. I still don't fully understand why you stay when the abuse is such an issue in your life.

R0bert

RObert, I agree with you re the bias of that article, what is dissapointing is it is on an .edu site.

My wife is difficult sometimes, yes, but we haven't had the police over here since early December last year and she has been fairly well: One point of this is that her violence: which is mainly psychological and verbal, is due to an underlying medical condition that she only has partial control over.

And I know that the vast majority of women are not violent. I am not that biased against women, but against the systematic claims that a large number of men are inherently violent and that women are inherently non-violent.

I find the idea in that article that women who are violent do it in response to a perceived risk. The mention of shoving is interesting.

About twelve years ago my wife got 'unreasonably' angry. She was also inebriated at the time. She started walking into me, I walked backwards, just trying to hold her off. At one stage, with me retreating, she walked hard into me, I gave a gentle push - very gentle, just to hold her away, she was off balance, fell backwards and hit her head against a door frame. If the angle had been a little less favourable I am sure that I would have been tried for murder and would be behind bars. Fortunately no serious injury occurred.

Since then, whenever she starts acting violently I have followed the advice of every organisation dealing with domestic violence: I have gotten out of the place asap. On one occassion when she wouldn't let me leave - by holding onto me - I could have 'broken her grip' at the risk of injuring her - but the neighbours called the police, who assisted me in getting away.

Fortunately for the huge majority of the time she is well. I will repeat, she has a medical condition, she is not 'bad'.

This may give a 'reasonable' picture of why I am so 'biased' against the views expressed in original article in the thread.

There could be another explanation for why Family Law would require the fear of violence to be “reasonable” – it must be in the best interests of the child. As we already know Family Law is not based on tort law, but on no-fault, distributive justice. The argument goes that if the mother is punished, so is the child … equally, the opposite applies – advantaging the mother, advantages the child.

Through effective systematic demonisation of fathers, and men generally, women are free to assume the position of resident saint. To become expert arbiters of relationships, on reproductive rights and choices, to designate fatherhood at will, to define what is in the best interest of “their” children, which just coincidentally, perfectly aligns with their own best interests. But that is purely coincidental of course – she’s a selfless saint, and men should just damn well appreciate whatever role is granted to them. This of course can range from resident biological father who is still loved and appreciated, through to social father, silent partner, or the devil incarnate.

Men should always remember – whatever their role – it is always in the best interests of the child. Put it down to women’s intuition if you like - the mother always knows best.

Most of you probably know what I mean by silent partner. While it could mean the still resident biological father, it is more likely to be a “child support father”. “Social father” on the other hand had me stumped recently when I first came across it being used solely in the context of paternity fraud. Although the term is not used in this article, you may be interested in what Janet Albrechtsen had to say about paternity fraud yesterday in The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18928924-32522,00.html

“Mendacious mums can't be let off lightly
If the High Court is too soft on women who deceive their husbands on matters of paternity, parliament will have to step in, writes Janet Albrechtsen”

seeker, thanks for the link to the article. One which was worth reading.

Your first paragraph in that last post could be more fairly put if you substitute "resident parent" for "mother" - the system can work against mothers where the father has residency and plays the system to his own advantage.

It's mostly not a matter of gender bias in the wording of the law, rather in the implementation of it and in the support systems involved in family law.

The utter lack of accountability for some things - the resident parent who can move away from where the family previously lived and then use lack of support in parenting as a reason to avoid work and thereby claiming greater child support, and welfare being a classic case.

Time to recognise that kids will be hurt by their parents choices, attempts to shield kids from the consequences of bad choices by their parents are probably doing more harm than good.

R0bert

I would have liked to hear more from Brian, but apparently he had been censored out because of his provision of personal details in contradiction of Family Law … and the best interests of children.