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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Too little time > Comments

Too little time : Comments

By Emma Simone, published 30/8/2006

Shared responsibility and equal parenting time should happen before relationships break down if there is to be any chance of it happening after.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Excellent piece. Raises a lot of issues that really deserve to be expanded upon. Makes the connection the family law, IR policies and law and how people live are all intrinsically inter-dependent.
Posted by niallj, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 9:58:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I mostly liked the article and appreciated the attention to the wider aspects of this issue.

Some additions from my perspective
- arrangements and priorities which work for a couple may not be ones which work for individuals. Dad may be willing to pay the price of long hours away from family to help that family get by if he gets time with his kids at the end of the day and has a real role in their upbringing, it can be a different story when his kids are someone he see's occasionally.
- Some of the old award arrangements work against workplace flexibility. I was looking into options recently to allow me to manage prime care of my son. I'm on a nine day fortnight and was looking to see if I could spread my existing hours across 10 days, I was informed that under the award that would be illegal and that I'd have to go part time to get that flexibility.
- things seem to have improved over the last few years but male parenting used to be a bit like the female experience in dealing with some business transactions. Some industry people want to deal with mum and don't take dad seriously. I have the impression that mothers are still a lot more confident about leaving their kids in another mothers care than in a fathers care (easier to get my son to visit friends than to have friends come over), misrepresentation of child abuse is probably the biggy there.
- If we stop the financial incentives to parents who are unwilling to do shared care if we might take some of the pain out this issue. How much harm is done to all concerned before the resident parents realises the extra C$A, FTB, pension, rent assistance etc are not really free money and come at a cost?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 10:49:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice article Emma. You have tackled a very complex and difficult issue very professionaly. Well done.

It highlights a lot of problems, and hints at others. I think it comes down to whether we like in a society or an economy. One side favours the nuturer, the other the worker.

There is certainly no doubt in my mind that the existing family law arrangements are heavily biased against men, possibly because the laws are based in a ideal 1950's setting, but we live in a totally new century - which I would like to think that traditional gender roles have at least blurred. I know many couples that have reversed breadwinner and nurturer roles quite successfully and their children seem no worse off - in fact even better - than other children.

Of concern is the ongoing emphasis on choice. Whether the Feminist movement was too successful or whether it is just a matter of biology could be debated, but women tend to have considerable freedom in choosing a lifestyle where these choices are not necessarily available to their male counterparts. You've explained this in earning capacity but I think it goes deeper.

Anyway, a good thought-provoking piece. Thanks.
Posted by Narcissist, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 1:52:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Families need the option of shared responsibility and equal parenting time before relationships break down, to ever hope to equitably have it after."

This statement is a furphy.

Apart from work and financial commitments 'Maternal Gatekeeping' is the largest factor inhibiting father involvement.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/06/12/gatekeeping/index.html

As children grow and develope their parenting requirements change. To support the idea that just because fathers were not involved in the earlier stages of a child's developement, then they should not be involved when the children are older, inhibits children from becoming involved with their fathers as they grow older.

Interestingly feminists support the concept of equality, yet fail to support shared parenting. Shared parenting will not suit everyones circumstances, but should be the starting point of negotiation. Fathers are the ones after separation and divorce who will see less of their children than when they were in a relationship.

Interestingly shared parenting would allow mothers more time to participate in the work force and help reduce child care costs, by having fathers take a more active parenting role, that is if mothers are prepared to let them.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 4:23:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good effort. Sort of touches on aparently broad perspective. Then bottle necks the thing. Its bleeding agenda all over the place. But, still, good writing.

Most striking example is the way it defines 'care' and 'rearing' of children. Only looking at half the picture, namely, the hands on bit. Ignores the unseen contribution going on behind closed doors everywhere. Thats obviously agenda driven.

As previous poster said, some of the biggest obstacles to traditional parenting arrangements come from mothers themselves. Understandable that mums are gonna have a hard time cutting the figurative umbilical. However, this is a major impediment to true shared parenting and its omission from discussion appears disingenuous.

The connections to IR and social agenda like family friendly employers are brilliantly tenuous and l salute the way you managed to work it into a discussion about pig headed divorcees who obviously cared enuff about the best interests of the kids to bust up the family and bludgeon the poor little ones in their personal battles.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 7:14:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I found the article to be extremely biased. For example, the comment is made that:

"A policy research paper for the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) reveals what most of us already knew: "men find that it is difficult to fit family around the demands of work. Most men agreed they did not find enough time for their families"".

In actual fact what the policy statement (in the Executive Summary) says is:

"Men find that it is difficult to fit family around the demands of work. Most men agreed they did not find enough time for their families: 'You try to be there as much as you can, but you can't be.'"

The last sentence puts an entirely different slant on the situation. However this final sentence obviously did not suit the agenda of Emma Simone. Therefore it was simply left out of her article.

The rest of the article is in the same vein.

Regards

John
Posted by John Flanagan, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 8:22:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent catch John.

Another point that I think is very relevant is that we make choices about what we are willingly to sacrifice in order to gain future benefits.

Many fathers through circumstances sacrifice time with their children in order to be able to support them.

This arguement about unpaid house work is wearing very thin and it is true that men do make unseen contributions. However nobody bothers with comparing the amount of unpaid work and who contributes most to providing for the household budget. Researchers tend to be rather selective in what indicators that they are prepared to measure. I think it was Warren Farrell who when measuring the differences in the amount of work both paid and unpaid(unpaid work is not actually unpaid as it paid in benefits). His research showed that men actually put in more hours in total.

"Who sets the standard?" Bettina Ardnt 'Taking Sides' I think that mothers actually have more choice and freedom to structure their day than working fathers and can combine many activities more effectively, such as shopping and socializing and child care.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 8:53:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is one “truism” – “The FCAC report cites Family Court of Australia figures demonstrating that in 2000-01, only 2.5 per cent of custody arrangements involved equal residency between parents”

Of course, the Family Court has been actively manipulating the agenda in favour of the feminist cause for years, both before and since 2000-01, regardless of the real needs of the children and the emotional developmental benefits through experiencing an extensive and ongoing relationship with both mother and father.

“From this perspective, the Prime Minister’s push for equal-time custody represents a potentially massive legal and cultural shift.”

A “shift” which is well overdue and desperately needed to ensure the best development of critical interpersonal relationships skills and avoidance of emotional crippling, for children of divorced parents.

As a father who insisted, despite threats from a vindictive ex-wife, to ensure my daughters were not deprived of their “Dad” and who has encouraged and watched them grow into capable and responsible adults, I can testify that, regardless of what the social engineers (who pull the strings of the family court) would plan, Fathers do matter as much as mothers in the complete development of their children and the assumption of equal responsibility is not only “sound” but undeniable, except by those who would wish society to be distorted and twisted to comply with a particularly indefensible feminist authoritarianism.

John Flanagan, - the bias is blatant!

JamesH “Many fathers through circumstances sacrifice time with their children in order to be able to support them.”

Precisely, fathers do not simply work to support their wives. We do it for our children who, we love and cherish regardless of the matrimonial circumstances.

Strange isn’t it, when the marriage is over, we do not end up with ex-children, only ex-wives. So how can anyone with even the most rudimentary of cognitive skills suggest that fathers are less significant than mothers and should be treated differently to mothers – ask the children, I know what mine say!
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 10:00:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do we divorce? If we loved so much, why is it so popular to divorce? I am divorced, and knowhow it can happen sometimes and I believe lack of communicationis a huge problem. Maybe instead of making divorce so easy we should make marriage harder? Before marrying,it should be compulsory to mediate and work through the big issues that we avoid and learn tools to help us last as long as possible. Mediation at divorce is too little too late. No one marries to grow through the grief of divorce. You think it will last forever. You have children and when life as a couple end, you decide who needs the children more, I needed my children more and they chose me because of their needs This is my marriage and not a generalised comment on all marriages and who needs the children more.
The problem is how much resentment, anger and new partners insecurities come into play.
I dont think there will ever be a happy medium for everyone.
and the sad thing is children are tough but also very impressionable. Divorce does age them make them cynical and damages them for their turn at adult hood. They learn so much from how their parents act and react to life. We as adults need to protect them and not let them get cynical at such young ages.
Posted by alphafemale, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 11:14:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahhh, I get it... yo are only a "parent" if you are the one who gets to stay at home.

But if you are the one who does the overtime to support your family... somehow you are no longer a parent?

Good system!
Posted by partTimeParent, Thursday, 31 August 2006 12:20:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Change within Australia's government regarding equal parenting time is occuring at much too slow a pace.

I am a divorced mother from the USA who, for over three years, has closely followed your country's system regarding divorce and child custody. I am saddend that more Fathers who want equal time with their children are not given the opportunity to spend that time with them.

When parents agrees that Mum will stay home while Dad works, why are Father's then punished when divorce occurs and not given equal parenting time? Maybe Mum did do more work around the house and with the kids (I know I did), but that doesn't preclude a Father from being able to assume and ENJOY the new role as a single parent. After all, divorce changes things, many things.

Children NEED both parents to play an active, as equal as possible parenting role.

Think about the future of Australia's children, growing up without the example of a Father in their lives...I shudder at the thought.

More often than not, there is a Father, ready and willing in the shadow of the system, to parent, nurture, love and cuddle his child...he's just waiting for the opportunity. He knows, from talking to legal counsel, that his chances of receiving more parenting time by fighting for it legally is slim. All he can do is hope that the system will change, before it's too late.

Be proactive, have a voice.
Posted by ParentEquality, Thursday, 31 August 2006 4:15:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good points all. Whilst I take a more optimistic view of the authors intents and agenda's than some most of the points being made are good ones.

It's time for discussion about paternal involvement in kids lives following seperation to be driven by reality and not the stereotypes of violent abusive men or men who abandon their families. They exist just as there are women who do those things but everybody else should not have to suffer as a result. The stats on substantiated child abuse and neglect (I've published links before) should stop any honest belief in the idea that we are protecting kids by keeping them away from their dads.

Far too many kids and parents are bing harmed by a system that is manipulated for a variety of agendas.

I still don't buy the idea that this is primarily a feminist caused issue, paternalistic views about family roles and straight out self interest seem to be the significant players along with a percentage of feminists who see the issue only on gender lines rather than the big picture.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 31 August 2006 7:50:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The obvious counterpart to the assertion that, 'if parents want equal distribution of parenting time after separation they should put in equal time before' is that 'if parents want equal financial distribution after separation they should put an equal amount of time into making money beforehand'.

How could a parent full-time looking after a home and children put in an equal amount of time making money as a parent who was a full-time breadwinner? Equally how could a full time breadwinner put in an equal amount of time parenting as a parent who was staying at home looking after the children?

After separation many people will change their lifestyles - people who perhaps worked very long hours to support a family may now not have to work so much to support just themselves and a part-time one and so may be much more available to parent children after separation than they were before. Equally a parent who was tied down in full-time domestic mode may be able to get a much better job if they dont have to look after the kids all the time.

I think it is easy to blow this one out of the water by simply applying the fundamental tool of feminist intellectuals everywhere that of 'sexual transposition', ie reverse traditional roles and see how it looks. What if a woman was working 60hours a week supporting her husband while he was at home looking after the kids. If they separated would it be fair if she only got to see her children every second weekend and half holidays because her husband was primary carer?
Posted by Rob513264, Thursday, 31 August 2006 8:38:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is shame that almost anything written by a woman is bound to have only one intention; to reinforce the feminist political perspective.
School hours and work hours should have been matched up years ago but feminists have been obsessed with power the entire time.
Posted by citizen, Thursday, 31 August 2006 9:47:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
feminist cause? Lets consider for the moment that there is a difference between bra burning germaine greers and the basic expectation and right of equality without regard to your gender, age, race and creed. Considering 40 years ago if your husband beat you and dragged you down the street by your hair, it was his right. Consider 10 years ago, it was policy still that if a woman applied for a loan her husbands details were taken as normal procedure but if he applied for the same loan, the wife's details were not required.

There is a difference between the bra burning, Germaine Greers of Feminism and Women who have fought for equality and respect. You did not get the children 40 years ago. Not all women are stay at home and not all men are overtime workders. This is what makes the system so complicated and emotional. I work full time and even while married, I was the one who managed the house, school, medical appointments, sports events because my ex believed his career was more important than mine. As you can see working on the principle of 50/50 shared custody until proven otherwise is personl to each case. If all of a sudden the partner who never contributed in marriage decides that s/he wants to after divorce, how nice that s/he want to be more of a parent but very sad that it took a divorce to kick them into gear to get up and contribute to raising their children. Another point is if in marriage it was the principles of raising the children that mum stayed home then why do the principles have to change with divorve? Divorce doesnt and shouldnt change your parenting principles.
Posted by alphafemale, Friday, 1 September 2006 1:33:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alphafemale: 'Considering 40 years ago if your husband beat you and dragged you down the street by your hair, it was his right.'

This is the kind of hysterical rubbish that betrays so many women's radical bias. I happened to be alive 40 years ago and I like all the other boys of my time were taught that to use physical force against a woman was an act of utmost cowardice. If a man did drag a woman by the hair down the street men would come from everywhere and stop him - that is why it never happened in any part of the world I was in.

I was not only primary breadwinner but also primary child rearer for a large part of my children's childhood while their mother went away to study. When we broke up although the children wanted to live with me and my wife was abusing the children - a fact which was not only acknowledged by the court but one which she herself never denied - she was given custody. That is bias and it is not favouring men.
Posted by Rob513264, Friday, 1 September 2006 2:55:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a load of b*&^%$t Alphafemale!

"Considering 40 years ago if your husband beat you and dragged you down the street by your hair, it was his right."

In this culture it was never the right of a husband to beat his wife. This is not saying domestic violence did not happen, it did and wives also beat up their husbands.

I was raised not to offend women, I was also taught like Rob513264 not to use physical force agianst women. Unfortunately nobody seemed to tell the girls that they weren't allowed to engage in unlady like behaviour such as hitting or scratching. Maybe it was because they took advantage of the situation.

On ABC radio the point was raised that men after separation may question "why work so hard" and make changes to their lifestyle.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 1 September 2006 6:28:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alphafemale writes - "Consider 10 years ago, it was policy still that if a woman applied for a loan her husbands details were taken as normal procedure but if he applied for the same loan, the wife's details were not required."

Yes indeed, all should consider this.

And all should also consider that when that was the case, a husband was held accountable for 100% of his wife's debts. Where she defaulted, he was made to pay. The lending institution simply wanted to know where they should go to collect their money.
Posted by Maximus, Friday, 1 September 2006 10:21:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well it has to include all facets and that includes equally sharing the burdon of bringing up the child financially. And before we start the barrage of looking after the children being a job and so forth. In a lot of cases both parents want custody and most people I know that it doesn't matter the cost they would bare the burdon of working and being a parent. That has been the case before separation in a lot of cases and their is no reason why it should not continue. The custodial parent should go to work and equally support the child. Oh yes now comes the house wife at home issue and the male earning capacity is a more and so on. It is not my fault that during the former years some took the initiative to strive harder. And just for the record I didn't achieve at school when my ex and I were married I took on extra study to get to and achieve where I am today and no she didn't support me. Lets make it all fair and equitable. Because two people separate males where a parent before they still are after separation. Kids are not a pawn and should have equal time with both parents. The financial side of things needs to be equitable as well. I am a payer the other party has work skills that could attract a salary of around 40,000 to 45,000 yet chooses to sit at home on government hand outs and C$A payments. Overall I guesstimate she is receiving in excess of $600 per week and not to mention the other things people get on a pension. I know a lot of people who don't earn that a week and work their backsides off. Oh yes there has been movements to do this but not strong enough and like I have had to because of the contribution I am making I now have a very restrictive life.
Posted by fairgo4all2005, Friday, 1 September 2006 5:10:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sh! There are Feminists present
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17774.html

Great article which reflects what is happening here in this forum.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 1 September 2006 7:30:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH where is it happening on this forum?

I don't think any posts have been censored yet for saying things that might offend feminists, I've not noticed any significant male bashing.

There are differing perspectives behind parts of the debate but no little women having a hissy fit because their feminist feelings are hurt.

It was an interesting article, I've not remarried but am finding my relationship with an educated professional woman far more satisfying than my relationship with my former wife ever was.

Are you certain that feminists are trying to shut down discussion here? If so just how are they doing it?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 1 September 2006 8:09:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fairgo4all2005

Thats Daddy Government. He's married to Nanny State and together they spawned Big Brother.

A lotta guys just cannot compete with that Trilogy.

Its far too easy to go the ladies for availing of this carefully constructed largesse of dependence on the state. Sort of fair enough, up to a point. Cant really blame them for doing what the system sets them up for. They're being played into underpinning the basis of the state and its reason for existence... control.

l guess it can help to argue with them about it, tho lm still not quite right about how its done.

Makes more sense to take on the source of this nonsense. Can lobby the powers that be. Seems to be of value, limited in nature, has yielded some basic change (presumptn of equality, mediation), hopefully not without further benefits.

Then again, can always 'vote with your feet' figuratively or literally. This one seems to be the only really effective ways to shift perspective. Takes a long time, but it appears that many men and women are just sitting it out. That pretty much solves the problem analysed in the article
Posted by trade215, Friday, 1 September 2006 8:12:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By and large a good article. But the issue of time spent with the children before a divorce is actually a furphy used in the wider debate. After my second child was born I put my career on hold for 7 years and worked part time 3 days per week and shared equal care with my ex who also worked part time. I was so involved with my children that I even won a State voluntary service award for all the work I was doing at their primary school. Because my ex also claimed to have been injured (from a 3rd alleged injury she was seeking compensation payouts for) I was actually the primary caregiver. None of it counted for anything in Family Court proceedings. Even if fathers were the primary care giver prior to divorce it would not make the slightest difference. The FCA will do everything it can to help a vindictive mother drive a father out of the children's lives. The notion that the FCA and anyone connected to it cares a jolt about children's wellbeing is utterly laughable.
Posted by QKAY, Saturday, 2 September 2006 12:56:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this story says what men have been saying for years that the Family Court is biased.

Anatomy of a bitter divorce
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=402938&in_page_id=1879

She is the career woman, he was the primary carer for the children.
She gets custody and moves the children away from dad.

Bingo! He put in more than equal amounts of time looking after the kids and still looses them.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 3 September 2006 8:03:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH, interesting link thanks.

Id's like parenting time before seperation, best interest of the children etc are useful tools to use when it suits but soon get hard to find when they don't suit.

If you swap the genders around it's hard to imagine the reverse being allowed to happen.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 3 September 2006 8:50:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Erin Pizzey wrote that what she was seeing is that universities instead of turning out social workers, universities were turning out political activists.

The author of this article is a post graduate student.

The author of 'Feminism is Passe' is a university lecturer.

In theory universities are suppose to broaden the mind and teach critical thinking skills. A few authors such as Daphne Patai, Christina Hoff-Sommers, are highly critical of the indocrination of students in today's feminized higher education centres.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 3 September 2006 10:40:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the extraordinary things to me is the assumption that it should be judges who should be deciding the fates of children, fathers and mothers.

Just think who judges are? They are career lawyers with old school wasp connections. They'd probably barely recognize their own kids if they came across them in the street. When these career-liars were home they probably started and ended their fathering by doing little more than beating whichever of their kids their wives told them they had to punish. That is, of course, if the kids were there - most of the year they would be away at boarding school from the youngest legal age one can send ones children away from home. And these guys almost certainly got the same treatment themselves when they were kids - who are they to judge good fatherhood? Most of them probably wouldn’t know a good father if they fell across one.

I propose a change to Family Law wherein the best psychological welfare of the children is determined by a 3 member panel of child psychologists. The financial issues are resolved under the principal of ‘each party enjoyed equal wealth during the relationship – each party should enjoy equal wealth after the relationship’. Such an equity could be easily determined by any competent accountant. The judge would and should handle all matters of law. The final orders should form a legal entity which is the judge’s synthesis of all of these factors.
Posted by Rob513264, Sunday, 3 September 2006 11:29:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob513264

I think it's a little more complicated than that. A lot of those judges would've been 'educated' during the 60s when feminists ideology began to infest the system. Some of the ideology would've surely rubbed off on them and influences their decisions today.

As for the laywers, theres a huge financial incentive to help break up families. They're scum.

Take a look at this link,it's disgusting.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2337682,00.html
Posted by CARNIFEX, Monday, 4 September 2006 1:43:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In 1848 Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. In it he identified the traditional family as being of the bourgeois class, the oppressors, and declared that traditional family was to be abolished. This, was hoped, would destroy traditional patriarchal inheritance and privilege.

In the 1960s Labor/Labour parties aligned strongly with Marxism and formed ideological bonds with communist educational institutions. During this time too, women became "liberated" from biological slavery through the invention and introduction of the contraceptive pill - second wave feminism was born in educational institutions and declared that men/husbands/fathers were an oppressor class and traditional marriage was oppressive to women. Gullible women by the millions believed it.

In 1972, Labor, Gough Whitlam, was elected. In 1975, Labor introduced the Family Law Act and "no fault divorce" to streamline and expedite divorces - in the best interests of the child, of course. Soon after that, Family Courts were established.

In the '80s and '90s feminists denigrated and maligned men/husbands/fathers telling women they were oppressed. Women's refuges were created and run by feminists. Structures were established, Legal Aid, single mother's benefits, child care centers, etc, to permit divorcing women easy access to social services. The state took on the role of the husband/father. Child Support was created, this would stop the man from having further family by keeping him broke.

Put the pieces together. This is a no-brainer. Family Courts were established to abolish traditional marriage. Legal, media and research organisations were created to spin the message. Courts systematically removed the man from the family, destroying patriarchal inheritance and biological lineage. Removing the man from his family and keeping him broke would prevent him from starting another family.

Bingo - about a half of all marriages have ended in divorce, bourgeois privilege destroyed, patriarchy smashed - EQUALITY! Marxist success.

This is not a conspiracy theory. Destruction of the traditional family is an overtly and openly stated objective of Marxism and is practised throughout the world by left leaning governments everywhere.
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 4 September 2006 4:09:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having seen family law court papers in where they mother had abducted the children to Switzerland.

It is no wonder that family court wants to keep it's findings secret!
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 4 September 2006 9:42:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's please calm the tetosterone down. What did I write that was damming to men in general.
1. I stated the laws of 40 years ago. Sorry but the local copper never interferred with domestics if it could be helped, he would take the woman to the neighbours till the man grew sober and that was that.
2. My mother was allowed to leave with a sewing machine to earn a living and nothing more.
3. I stated that the parenting principles that were shared by couples before marriage were important to keep after divorce.
So far no feminism, and hissy fitting? I will keep searching for that also. Considering the amount of men that took my view to the extreme view of prowoman and they have been proman, I believe that it is fair to state the case for either side but I clearly did state that I was in favour of both sides not just one. I was clearing up our present rights compared to 4o years ago and that we now have the ability to behave as equals. I will explain more clearly and precisely in future.
4. I did not state the womans wants and rights (I cant burn my bra, I need it too much can I burn a lipstick?)I was stating that if the family consisted of a stay at home mum correction parent, than why should the children be punished and it should change IF they are of young age, and/or have special needs after divorce.
5. I stated that if one parent did not contribute during the marriage on a stable and regular basis why should that change after divorce?
I also stated the complications of judging cases as a whole and not individually. I spoke of how each case is singular and did not demean or show any malice or hate towards men in the majority.
Posted by alphafemale, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 10:04:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NOW COMES THE HISSY FIT TO PROVE EQUALITY....LOL
I am sure there are men out there who feel they have lost everything and have nothing at a very insure stage of life due to retirement funding and to fight for your children is also soul wrenching.
It can happen to women also. I lost everything which was mine independently from my investments. I am fighting to keep my rights as the main carer for the last 19 years and 3 years since divorce while daddy played being single. I get no maintenance from him and when the older kids university bills came in and the hospital bills for the 6 year old reached $6000just in the first quarter, yes I get urinated off to see him show up in brand new cars to pick the kids up and take them to his new property and then return to his career earning $300k while I am only trying to get half of years expenses based on receipts and help with medical and schooling. The new 19 y/o fiancee was bought a 2006V6FordUte. Our eldest19 year old works 6 days a week, studies veteriarian science and her boss is one of her professors. She is so proud of herself. She is too much like me and hated by fiancee so is not allowed to see Dad. So,,Yes It can get personal. I thought that the court had agreed to everything and I come home from work at 6 with tired children, to a letter saying no go he will not agree to anything. Woe is me? Doubt it. Life goes on and letting go is important and must be done to save yourself. He can see the children and I will raise them alone. To live with revenge and hate is so far removed from the person I am, but could have become it would have ruined me and my future. I am at peace, this is what I wish for men and women to get to in their life.If I cant succeed on my own then who's fault but my own.
Posted by alphafemale, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 11:01:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
alphafemale, that wasn't a hissy fit - rather paointing out the realities of your life. I was the one who mentioned hissy fits (or the lack of them) earlier in the thread.

I think what is telling is how unwilling some of these guys are to put constructive suggestions on how to fix things.

Our family law system is destructive, that most of us seem to agree on but some are so determined to prove it's all a feminist conspiracy that they won't contribute anything which might help.

Thanks for your efforts and communication.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 11:45:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alphafemale: You didnt simply say what the law was 40 years ago, you said 'Considering 40 years ago if your husband beat you and dragged you down the street by your hair, it was his right.'

That is why you were accused of throwing a hissy fit. It never ceases to amaze me the way people rewrite history in their own minds, even when the records of it are at hand, and then manage to convince themselves that this new history is the accurate one. In my experience this is a faculty in which generally women seem to have a superior skill level.

The patronizing 'keep the testosterone level down boys' type of comment shows your attitude to any man who dares challenge your outrageous assertions.

Of course women also suffer under Family Law arrangements - the issue is the prevalence of it. For example, women also die at work however if you are a man in Australia you are statistically 3560% more likely to die at work than is a woman. That makes it a much bigger issue for men than it is for women. The same is true of Family Court injustices.
Posted by Rob513264, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 5:58:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alphafemale.

"I get no maintenance from him "

Is that maintenance or child support you are talking about?

If it is maintenance then no you do not deserve it. Boy I wish I was earning 300k a year this puts him in the top 4% of taxpayers.

"I stated that if one parent did not contribute during the marriage on a stable and regular basis why should that change after divorce?"

It may or may not change after divorce, but if fathers who question their work life style and change it to have more time to spend with the kids then that should be allowed and encouraged. Much has been written about the 'absent father' and when dads change this sould be encouraged, regardless of the previous history. Even criminals are allowed to change their lives, so why cant fathers be allowed as well?

You wrote "to live with revenge and hate" you can stay in this position or choose to move away from it, it is your choice!

Moving away from it means accepting responsibility for your own behaviour and not blaming the world or him for what has happened
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 7:44:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Claiming no receipt of maintenance as a merit badge is almost as bad as expecting to get it. Mentioning the ex's income in this context looks like latent entitlement attitude. Child support as a percentage of income is alimony by stealth, maintenace by another name.

Earnings have no bearing on the independent NEEDS and costs of raising a child. Has a lot to do with being fortunate and priviledged enuff to be born to a parent who can provide life's extras. These daze the massive middle class takes a lot of the extras for granted. A new car, 3 tvs, dvd players, latest kids fashions, 3 extra curricular activities a week, a playroom kitted out like a toy shop, private school and tertiary education are all extras in life that many folks expect as normal.

Kids dont really value much of the trappings, they want a real relationship with BOTH parents. There's usually a parent advancing the childs interests in this extra stuff... it brings in the bucks.
People get used to largesse. After a while the priviledge of receiving a gift gets rationalised as a recipient entitlement and gift-giver obligation. Sign of the times.

Best interest of the child has been very usefully distorted to push parental agenda for the sake of a buck. The idea that its in the best interests of a child to develop an entitlement, fleece-thy-parent attitude, is bizzarre. But it flies... very well.

A childs (financial) NEEDS arent 10 times higher because the parent earns 10 times more than the next person.

Thankfully we dont have imputed income determinations, driver and professional licence cancellations and prison terms for child support arrears in this country. Cant see a conservative govt letting that happen. Can see a labour govt going in that direction. In which case, a lot of mens shelters, er l mean prisons, will be going up.

Rant over, lm off to molify my raging androgens with a shot of estrogen. This HRT lve been on for several years is making my nipples tender tho and lm starting to develop a chest 'profile'. Damn.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 2:58:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus - left wing government implementation of Marxist ideologies

I would never have drawn such a long bow but can see the reason in your suggestion.

Obviously, it is why Margaret Thatcher, a fervent anti-Marxist, expressed it this way

“There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

In promoting the idea of “family” she denounces the myth of “society” and is, thus juxtaposed to the left wing rubbish of the socialist cause – especially the noxious arrogance of Whitlam.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 4:21:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trade,

Even with the latest reforms, “imputed income determinations” or “Capacity to Earn” as we like to call it, is here to stay – NB, the key words are “to make lifestyle choices such as caring for new children”.

“Parents can be required to pay additional child support (or receive less) if the Child Support Agency determines that they have a higher capacity to earn income. This happens under the Change of Assessment process.

This change more clearly defines under what circumstances 'capacity to earn' can be considered. The new criteria are more flexible for parents to make lifestyle choices such as caring for new children.” http://www.csa.gov.au/legal/2006.php

You may be right about some of other punitive measures we don’t yet have here, however that may only be true for men without assets. I’d like to see you keep any of yours, if you decide not to pay up on your arrears. Your ability to metamorphose gender may be an effective way to reduce your capacity to earn. Is it fully reversible?
Posted by Seeker, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 8:57:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Damn, l wasnt aware of that nonsense. Ah well, they build bigger mouse traps, nature makes better mice.

What about this from CSA link?

"Current research shows that non resident parents on high incomes pay Child Support at a higher rate than the costs of raising children.

The income cap, or the income above which no additional child support is payable, will now be calculated using 2.5 times the yearly equivalent of the 'all employees average weekly total earnings' (EAWE) rather than the 'full time adult average weekly total earnings' (AWE).

This will cause a reduction in the income cap amount from $139,347 to $104,702 for formula assessments where the child support period started in 2006 and from $130,767 to $98,280 where the child support period started in 2005. Changes to the assessment applied from 1 July 2006 only."

Does this mean that the "Parents can be required to pay additional child support (or receive less) if the Child Support Agency determines that they have a higher capacity to earn income" up to a max of 2.5 times EAWE with a current income cap of $105k? Or does it mean that the max cap can be lifted in light of a higher capacity to earn income? And how can a parent be required to "receive less" if "they have a higher capacity to earn income"?

There are so many ways for the proactively assertive to mitigate exposure to opportunistic abuse of CSA money train, this forum prolly not appropriate place to discuss.

CSA refers to its subjects as 'clients'... priceless.

ps. me no have arrears (no have kids)... and gender transformation only needs a change of attitude, drugs are for sexual biology.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 11:12:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
trade there is a fantasy series about a torturer and in the series they refer to their victims as clients as well. Maybe someone at C$A likes recreational fantasy as well as the fantasy that they are in some way helping either children or the taxpayer.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 7 September 2006 12:09:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trade,

Divorce planners and CSA use this calculator to determine value of prospective clients:

http://www.csa.gov.au/calculator/index.php

It is a good modelling tool and quite accurate. Breadwinner incomes should be maximised at time of breakup to establish a good “capacity to earn”. After that, you’d have a hard time convincing anyone that you lost your job and cannot earn the same amount. Oh, and there’s the automatic increase every year by several percentage points of your “capacity to earn”, since the time you’ve slacked off.

Of course, women can decide to earn less by having another child for example, which means they could get more child support (or less, if they earn more), although what they earn carries much less weight, and anything below average does not even count.
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 7 September 2006 9:29:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cant ya just push everything thru a trust or company, pay yourself a wage of own determination reflecting tweaked capacity and circumvent the whole thing?

Seems counter productive maximising income of primary earner prior to divorce. Would it not make more sense to reduce income, get the spouse working, at least part time, maybe encouraging them to study (acquire own capacity to earn)?

Ah well, lm not attached, no kids, always very 'careful'. Might get snipped soon. They're calling it a 'strike/boycott' these days... whatever. These policies dont directly effect me, tho, as a finance person, l do find myself increasingly answering these sort of money questions for friends (clients? ;))getting the shaft. Quite frustrating seeing friends getting their lives turned inside out, having the kids used (and often turned) against them to justify a cash grab. There's many bitter custodial parents out there with little compunction endulging as much scornful revenge they can. Need to get over their failed prince/princess fiarytales, grow up, be reasonable, get on with life.

l basically advise those in this predicament to 'go cash' and/or set up a trust and pay themselves minimum wage. They get paltry C$A assessment, then do the decent thing and top up, in cash, to the amount THEY, the earner/payer, deems appropriate for a level of care that THEY require for their kids... 'who has the gold, makes the rules.'

Keeps everyone civil. None of them evade their obligations, while the kids rot and starve, just for the sake of punishing the ex. Someone has to be the grown up and rise above cynically using and punishing the kids to extract a pint of blood from the ex.

Their kids NEEDS are adequately met, tho ex is pining for another widget and trying to get the ex to pay for the upkeep on a couple of investment properties they managed to grab or acquire whilst getting generous support, benefits and working for cash. Easy to bring these fools undone, a call to the ATO and DSS and they do the rest, if one is inclined to malevolent reciprocation.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 7 September 2006 5:00:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
neither ALL the 'sofa-loafer' mothers, or ALL the 'dead-beat dads' are to blame. maybe the situation is just a part of the society that has evolved. women in general are not to blame for the way the family court system has been set up, and if it does benefit us more than the dads, we shouldnt have to feel guilty for it. i, for one, choose not to go that route to do what is best for my son, and am seeing more mothers switching on to the idea of shared parenting as being the best thing for their children. until the idea was brought to me by my ex, i hadnt given it any consideration, or seen it as an option, because i knew nothing about it. none of my friends were raised that way. none of my current friends have that arrangement for their children. here, at least, it is a new concept. that in itself is one reason it might be slow to get off the ground. people dont like change. if a woman seperating from her partner sees her future as children full-time, work part-time, every 2nd weekend to herself, it might be hard for her to see the benefits of shared parenting to start with. it was for me. it felt like i would be losing my son. but i wont be. i'll still be his mum & still be here for him. (we havent started shared parenting yet, it will start when my sons dad is ready for it - which isnt just yet)(thats from him). so, give these women someone to talk to about the situation, someone to show them that they are more than a mother, more than an 'ex', and that moving forward with their lives is the best thing for them, and their kids. and let the dads know someones on thier side, so they dont have to go to 'dads on air' to collectively woman-bash. one bitter woman is not representative of all women, as the wrong doings of one man do not make all men bastards
Posted by sugarbaby, Friday, 8 September 2006 9:25:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
p.s.something i thought of today -
the prices of real estate have gotten so high that anyone who wants to buy a family home has to spend alot more time at work (unless you are a high income earner). children are left at home with mum because dad earns more (in a lot of cases), or in childcare while both parents work. money becomes a huge stress for the parents, and cuts down on their enjoyment of the kids in the time they have with them. the relationship breaks down because the couple are too tired to communicate & feel like they are being drained physically & emotionally. is it becoming a choice between a happy family, or a family home? (and i really dont mean to generalise, i know families break down for all kinds of reasons)
Posted by sugarbaby, Friday, 8 September 2006 9:26:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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