Yes well not all fathers have run away frOm their responsibilities, either emotional or financial.
The reward I get for having been there for my daughters, after their mother and I separated, is reflected in me giving one away at her wedding last year and still currently having "dad & daughter" time with my 29 year old.

I dislike the notion that a minority of miscreants depict the values of the majority.

From experience, I ensured my daughters benefitted from joint parenting, regardless of law, which at the time empowered their mother with absolute parental authority.

Joint parenting (preferably by the natural parents) is what children need and what any sensible society should encourage, rather than a system of lop-sided custodial authority.

The Observer:"do you really expect us to believe with the plethora of women advocacy groups that exist today that women are still making such poor life decisions?"

That's the crux of it, isn't it? I don't think ChazP thinks much of the average woman's intelligence.

Mikk:"All good intentioned im sure but what are the unintended consequences going to be?"

Shhh, don't mention the side-effects - there's a whole new group of victims to be milked once the whole "feminism" schtick starts to wear thin.

Mikk:"I wonder if more fatherless families will see a reduction in machoism and typical masculine behavior and an increase in feminisation of society?"

It already has. Look at the current Government, which is extremely "feminised" and ask yourself how many of those people were raised by "single mums". Just off the top of my head there's the PM and the Attorney General and there are no doubt several others in Cabinet if I could be bothered looking it up.

singlemumoftwo, try punctuation. You won't make any more sense but the nonsense will be easier to see.

All-in-all, it seems that ChazP and her NCSMC cronies are getting some flak about the cost of paying for them to sit at home and so she's trying to find a way to blame the fathers who they have excluded from their children's lives. Tragically, the same tactics have worked in the past, mostly because men of goodwill have allowed them to.

However, as the demands of the fre-riders get more strident and more men experience the gross unfairness and ineptitude of the CSA the goodwill is eroding.

As I said earlier, if the current system is driving fathers away from their children it is past time to ask why we allow it to continue. Abolition of the CSA and implementation of a levy on all taxpayers to pay for a general CS or child endowment scheme would be a good place to start. Of course, it would mean that the NCSMC grrls would lose their capacity to twist the knife in the ex whenever they felt like it...

'In NSW alone, 30,000 children born in the last ten years, have no father with whom they could have a `meaningful relationship' and regular contact, and with financial responsibilty for their maintenance.'

More fruit of our wonderful secular society. All joy but no responsibility and once again the kids pay for their parents immorality.

Isn't it better to let father who don't want to be fathers to NOT be fathers of their biological offspring? Babies and young children in particular need responsive reliable nurturing relationships in order to properly develop. Placing them in the 'care' of someone who doesn't want to know them is unlikely to have a positive outcome. There are lots of male family members other than fathers for children to relate to - brothers, uncles, grandfathers, cousins: there are also good male role models in the community - child care workers, teachers, sport coaches, religious ministers. Fathers are fabulous when they are responsive, reliable, nurturing. If they are rejecting, hostile, angry, resentful,vengeful toward their baby or the baby's mother then they are a toxic to their child and better off out of the picture.

For those wondering at ChazP's approach to fathers involvement in childrens lives have a look at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9151#145809

I'd mentioned a couple of cases I knew of, one where a father had a 3000km round trip to see kids after the mother relocated. Sometimes he would do the drive and find that mum did not show with the kids and was uncontactable, a minor inconveniance to the father in ChazP's view of the world. Another where a father relocated to be closer to his kids after the mother relocated with the children. In the process he took a lower paying job (not the same opportunities in the area where the mother had chosen to move to). CSA deemed that he still had the same income earning capaity and he was eventually forced back to a capital city to get back his old income. ChazP see's that as trying to evade his responsibilities to the children.

Enough of these gender wars, both men and women do good by their children and do bad. Both can be victims of a system that does not work well and both can use to for their own advantage or to hurts others. Continuing to make it about gender does nothing to help children.

R0bert

I am as suspicious as CJ. The initial post was simplistic, easily countered and full of emotive language aimed at men. Sure enough, subsequent posts raised other possible scenarios that make the women look bad.
It is really simple. If these women want a father in their children's life, they need to solve their own problem by making an effort to find a man who loves them enough to stay with them.