The last thing that's needed is knee jerk reactions to change laws when the fundamental problem is an accurate assessment of the adults within the family, including where appropriate, the Grandparents and their influence and involvement.

What is desperately needed is an adequately funded Community Services body that is staffed by people with appropriate family skills who are capable of detecting the tendencies to violence and abuse while not being influenced by the vindictive distortions of either party.

There is still a need for changes to Family Law that can only be implemented after continuing reviews and case studies of past decisions for their appropriateness and fairness, considering the interests of the children as the primary purpose but at the same time not ignoring the Rights of loving parents

By summarily dismissing the evidence, findings, and recommendations of the Family Law Reviews, Attorney General McLelland is condemning many hundreds of children to continuing abuse and even death, until changes are made. That must remain on his conscience and those of every member of his government and Party.
Those children will suffer for the rest of their lives from the physical and emotional damage caused to them, and the social consequences and costs will be enormous. Clearly McLelland and his Party have little or no concern for children and families, if this is an example of how they ignore the needs and rights of children and bow to the clamour of a howling angry mob with their own selfish parental rights and financial interests to protect. The government's actions will be judged by the Australian people at an appropriate time but attempts to suggest at election time that the ALP are concerned about families will be pure hypocrisy... as is their commitment to human rights when they protest at human rights abuses abroad and promote and argue the rights of asylum seekers, yet ignore the abuses of human rights of Australian children in the Family Courts of Australia. Shame Australia that it cares so little for its children.

Knee-jerk? That's a rather strange way to describe the public expecting changes to a law that 3 separate reviews have warned are putting children in danger. CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER. Forget your reference to parents rights - they don't count when childrens lives are at stake.
It is rather frightening to watch the AG brush off these reviews. They were ordered, they delivered and confirmed the doubts that motivated them in the first place. Now we trust the government to act on that evidence. They MUST so something right now to address what is obviously a terrible injustice to so many children. They are helpless - Attorney General, DO YOUR JOB and fix this - thousands of children are waiting for you to help them escape the mess that the Family Court dropped them into.
Thank you.

So, IT'S OK TO LIE IN COURT? To lie under oath?

Thats what the Rudd Government's carefully commissioned reports say. That no woman should face the prospect of punishment for lying under oath.

The Divorce Court tries to judge the best interest of the child. But if that judgement is based on a lie, the decision is unlikely to be in the child's interest... thus LYING IN THE DIVORCE COURT IS CHILD ABUSE.

The current legislation is good. It says that the magistrate can "consider" awarding court costs against a parent who "deliberately" lies under oath.

Before Howard's legislation, 97.5% of kids whose parents went to Family Court, lost a parent.

While I strongly believe that nobody should endure abuse, but think about it... do 97.4% of marriages have an abusive parent?

Clearly the previous law robbed many innocent children of their human right to be cared for by their natural parents, too often. Robbbing a child of a good parent is a human rights abuse.

The Rudd Government's reports, assigned to hand-picked feminist zealots, have delivered what they were commissioned to deliver... the feminist line on divorc.

That women never lie, and if they do, they are only lying to protect the kids from baby-eating, alcoholic, violent and bad-breath afflicted, abusive fathers.

Think about it... in divorce if you get the kids, you get everything... the house, the super, you get close to 50% of your husband's after-tax income in 'child support', and you keep him on a leash, because you control his kids. That's a pretty big incentive to lie.. and if there is noo possibility of any punishment (and the divorce court process is secret) there is no harm in trying.

No harm, except that you are robbing your husband of the house, and robbing your children of their natural father.

Today I read about an Australian mother who killed her two beautiful children, because she wanted sole custody. Allyson McConnell drowned her two young sons, because she wanted sole custody against the wishes of the children's loving father.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1007841/boys-drowned-in-bathtub-in-bitter-custody-battle

PartTimeParent@pobox.com

There have been some terrible things done to children by parents and carers recently. I was familiar with one case recently where a 12 year old child in foster care died through neglect by her carer who was the child's aunt, a callous woman who should never been allowed to be a carer, yet her history would show she had made an industry out of 'caring' A Family Services case worker had been in touch, yet the child died, not because the law needed changing but because the system is dysfunctional with unsuitable screening of foster carers and because of inept people in Family Services.

What is desperately needed is an overhaul of the infrastructure charged with administering the child protection laws. Practical people are needed as case workers, not freshly graduands with newly acquired Social worker degrees.
Funding is required to increase staff to sufficient numbers as to permit case workers to carry out more regular visits.

in custodial situations, the courts prefer equal access as a starting point. all things being equal; However there needs to be implemented procedures designed to detect abuse and abusers through medicals, teacher observations and neighbour information on a more regular and active basis. Family Court Counsellors need to be involved at the earliest possible time and often enough for the Counsellors to produce a comprehensive report on mutually agreed arrangements,to the Courts for registration. Both parties must work to the agreement

Oh come on partimeparent! This is not a competition to see who is most deserving of kids- mums or dads. The new laws were supposed to be about about getting the Family Courts to rule in favour of what is best for the kids.....not the parents.

I agree that originally some Fathers were often unfairly cut out of their children's lives after divorce. Children should be cared for by both parents in an ideal world.

However, the child's right to live free from either physical, sexual or emotional abuse should outweigh the rights of both parents in any case of disputed access to them. The current laws have pushed the pendulum too far back, and some children are spending strictly 50/50 time with each parent, no matter how detrimental it is to them.

Bringing up sad cases of children killed by their mother is not helpful in this debate, especially as we all know that children have continued to die from violent parents of both sexes, both before and after the new Family Court laws were introduced.

I would hazard a guess that there are just as many liars amongst Fathers as there are from the Mothers. Men are known to deny they abuse their partners or children, even as the evidence against them is undeniable. They will also lie about their partners being unfit mothers, purely to punish them for leaving them.

Women who lie to keep their children from their Fathers for no good reason are just as bad. Often their motive is revenge too.

The only way to get past this is to have an army of very effective psychologists and social workers who are specially trained in working out who is lying about abuse among arguing former partners of both genders. This would cost money though, so I don't have much hope that this dispute will be resolved any time soon.

The A-G said:"“Effectively bush lawyers or pub lawyers are providing advice to people ... which is wrong and that can, it seems on the evidence, result in misunderstandings.”", which Barbara quotes approvingly. What she doesn't seem to realise is that she is one of the "bush-lawyers" that he was referring to.

One of the surest signs of the breed is their inability to see past their nose, often because it's stuck firmly in a trough. Barbara has a lovely trough; she made it herself and she's very busy ensuring it's kept nice and full. The last thing she really wants is for the shared parenting laws to be significantly rewritten, since her trough is constructed and filled from their scraps.

The 3 reports, collectively, found no serious failings in the current system, but quite a few procedural concerns about the way in which those associated with the Family Court implemented it, especially lawyers. Here's a tip: have a look at the Parkinson Report, which informed the current laws - it found that lawyers were the biggest problem with the old system as well.

Diana Bryant, the CJ of the Court, has made it clear that she also believes people appearing before the Court are being badly served by their lawyers and has called for greater powers for the Court to examine claims of violence raised during early phases of a matter, which are then dropped when orders are sought.

What the reports said, in a nutshell, is that 80% of people (mothers, fathers and children) who had shared care orders were satisfied with the arrangement. They said that the rate of self-reported "violence" (including arguments over care) within those families with shared care was less than 5% over the past 3 years, which is about the same as community levels and significantly lower than the rate when primaty care is handed to a single mother
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/35/10859.pdf.

For once, I'm in agreement with McLelland - what is needed is less heat and more light. Barbara and her fellow milkers of other people's misery could best assist by getting a real job.

All of the anecdotes that Barbara used just happened to make men look bad, while the reality (as discussed endlessly on OLO) makes both genders look equally bad. Because of this, I have trouble accepting this as an impartial critique of the new laws.

I accept that some fathers are pretty bad parents. Perhaps it might help if we reduced the financial incentive for both parents to get as much custody as possible. At present, rates of child support seem to far exceed the true cost of having children. Therefore, parents who have little interest in their kids will try to get as much time with them as possible.

Single Mum:"The reviews ALL said that the vast majority of professionals agreed that the current legislation was putting children into abusive situations."

No, they didn't, they said that mothers very often allege abuse, which is a different kettle of fish altogether. They did not say that rates of abuse of children are higher in shared care arrangements, nor did they say that children are at higher risk of abuse just because Mum says so.

Single mum:"You don't have to be Einstein to work out that the defenders of these laws are examples of "abusive" parents seeking shared care"

Oh dear. Have a look at the AIHW report i referenced above. It is a comprehensive survey of violence, neglect and abuse directed at children and it says that "Single Mums" are by far the most likely to abuse and neglect their children - about 6 times as likely as a single father when corrected for reletive prevalence of both types of family structure. I'd not be real proud to be a "single mum" if I were you...

BTW, what are you doing on a blog at this time of day? Isn't it time for the kids to be getting ready for school?

Anti @ Single-mum

<<<< BTW, what are you doing on a blog at this time of day? Isn't it time for the kids to be getting ready for school? >>>>

Demonstrating bullying.

Single-mum - no matter what you do or say, there are posters here who will always damn you. Your post was excellent in pointing out that so-called equal time with children does not necessarily equal good parenting. All it has done has given the disaffected, the means to use children to manipulate and bully their ex-partners - of either sex.

Severin,

'perhaps your exes left you and it stings? Maybe they caught you do the unthinkable to your children, and you want to continue without a protective parent there?'

I think that's a much better definition of bullying. I think antiseptic showed amazing restraint.

AaaH - so the government has spent all that money and time having those reviews of the Family Law and its all a big `misunderstanding' and the fault of those naughty lawyers.!. What a simple world we live in, don't you think?. And I'm sure all those children who have been abused and are continuing to be abused and the children who have died, will be comforted to know that they have been sacrificed for a `misunderstanding'. McLelleand and his ALP cronies must really be able to sleep with an easy conscience.
Fathers can also now rest quietly in their beds in the knowledge that `their' money is safe from all those predatory ex-wives and ex-girlfriends to waste on looking after their kids that they forced them to have, while others can continue to maltreat their kids with impunity. A simple misunderstanding............. and someone really ought to talk to those naughty lawyers about twisting the laws in the way they have.

Joint custody is just mucking children about. More often than not one or both parents move away on a marriage breakdown. It puts children right in the front line of the conflict between two parents. Instead acknowledge that when a couple marry, they marry into his or her familly & in the sad event of a row between parents the children remain in the extended family that they were borne into. Keep the lawyers, psychologists and all theswe other modern day priests out of it and let parents sort it out from that beginning. palmer

First, I really doubt whether 80% of parents with shared care as a result of the changes in 2006 were actually counted. If there is no violence or abuse, and the parties get on and can behave like responsible parents and can cooperate regarding the children, dont live too far apart, and sufficient resources exist, perhaps its a workable solution for many. In other cases the children's grief during separations may be damaging.

I'd hate to have to change homes each week or even more often. I worry therefore that children must find it hard to live between two homes, with probably two sets of rules, and two sets of friends, (let alone different schools etc) and when parents can't agree, have vastly different resources and spread their venom via the children, shared care must be seen to be directly abusive and damaging to the children, even by the most virulent and apparently one-eyed groups who support men's rights over human rights, and their rights over their childrens.

Knowing they have two parents who love them, will guide them, and work in their best interests and act like adults isn't as perfect as the united, happy family model, but equally it isn't about ownership, control, dominance or parental rights, or even living with. Note I am not advocating a return to fatherless homes as various commentators might claim, rather parenting that nurtures and does its job first.

Second, the parents who have been poorly treated by courts and associated processes, and the children who have suffered accordingly because of abuse and violence could be 20% of those canvassed. No doubt there are many who never had their say either in court or in the reviews.

It is this group that need the assistance of the mens groups. How about it? Or are they simply sacrifices to the greater good for men?

If I may continue from *ChazP* by sharing a few facts about my own experience as a child of divorce.

I was born in the Summer of '69 under the constellation of Aquarius.

According to my birth certificate, my biological father did not give me his surname until December '71.

My biological parents were married quite sometime after my birth. Yes, a proper little b_stardio then and even worse now. ;-)

By '75 their brief marriage was on the rocks, their business failed amidst allegations by my biological mother of infidelity, alcohol and drug abuse.

In '76 I was "taken away" by my bio father to the eastern states by plane with a friend of his restraining my hysterical bio mother at the airport.

I was subsequently dumped in the eastern states with the sister of my paternal grandfather and then returned to W.A. courtesy of funds from my new "Step Father" to be, a kindly English man partially named *Dominique St Clair* who despite much later separating with my bio mother, I remain in contact with to this day.

I was seen by a child psychologist at this time, who attended my primary school, being the wife of a friend of my "Step Father."

Upon my bio father's return to Perth there was violence, break ins, verbal hostilities and an ensuing custody battle.

Despite all this, to which my bio father's criminal record attests, my "fool" bio mother continued to grant him access. Suffice to say from my perspective that was a nightmare and he did little other than persecute me psychologically for having feelings for my Step Father He failed to be able to coach me to speak words of falsehood and hatred regarding him that he may incorporate these into his affidavit on a "factual" basis, even though I was only 8. This process may well have scarred me a tad.

A wise judge granted full custody to my bio mother and denied access to my bio father. For a while, all was well.

Then for reasons as of yet not entirely clear to me, as I have not as of yet examined the court file, a new order was made that granted my bio father access every 2nd weekend ( and I note an issue raised in relation to this matter is on the confusion point between shared responsibility and shared custody)

What a NightMare.

An order was also made in relation to maintenance. However, bio father never paid a cent and bio mother never had the werewithall to press her claim past the point of seeking enforcement via "Legal Aid."

Interestingly, I have seen the enforcement order, and a member of the executive was indeed dispatched, but was dismissed with contempt and apparently not further followed up on, and even though this FAMILY COURT ORDER remains live, it is buried under the auspices of the prior legal framework and the unwillingness of my bio mother to see justice done.

I of course will see my bio father legally hung for this in the interests of others primarily, and good sport amusement for my own pleasure as a bonus secondary consideration, if possible at some point in the future, noting however that I am not directly involved in the matter as well as the limitations of australian law.

Of course, had my Step Father being able to easily assume legal responsibility, and I note adoption procedures whilst purporting to do what is primarily is in the best interests of parents, can fail because of the stringency, time and costs involved.

Now that I am a Step Father my Self I know for me to become legally responsible for my Step daughter will take years into the future post migration back to Australia, notwithstanding the wise words of:

DEANE J 5 - 10
Re Cook & Maxwell; Ex parte C [1985] HCA 47; (1985) 156 CLR 249 (1 August 1985)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=title&query=cook+and+maxwell&meta=%2Fau&mask_path=au%2Fcases%2Fcth%2FHCA

All things said and done, I find it difficult to take the australian legal establishment overly seriously.

OMG DreamOn! What a sad story. At least you had a loving stepfather to look up to. I am sure you do the best you can as a stepdad yourself.
Good luck to you.

Unfortunately your story resonates in many households today too. In the rush for gender equality as far as post-relationship breakdowns go, many children are left in intolerable situations such as yours was.

I too am a child of divorce, as the eldest of four children.
Although our father was not physically abusive, he was certainly emotionally and verbally abusive many times.

In those days, if you were 12 or over you could say who you wanted to live with following a divorce, and there was never any question that we wouldn't want to live with mum.
Let the kids speak for themselves I say!

What seems to be the greatest `misunderstanding’ in the Family Courts is the suffering of children who are abused or exposed to domestic violence by parents and the lifetime effects of that abuse. Boys and girls who have been subjected to such abuse often suffer mental illness in their adolescence and have difficulty forming and maintaining relationships. Boys who have been sexually abused, often go on to become abusers, perpetrating sexual abuse in their adolescence and adulthood and so the cycle goes on to the next generation. Girls are more likely to self harm following sexual abuse in childhood and to be further victimised by abusive males. Girls experience depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis, substance abuse, eating disorders, self harm and suicide. Between 50 – 60% of mental health patients have been sexually or physically abused in their childhood and adolescence. Mothers who have been the victims of domestic abuse have further abuse heaped on them when they are labelled as having Personality Disorders by Family Courts.?.
Many studies show that domestic violence impairs children’s emotional, behavioural and cognitive development. Its effects include anxiety, fear, withdrawal, highly sexualised and aggressive behaviour, reduced educational achievement, failure to acquire social competence, anti-social behaviour, and the use of drugs. Various studies report a range of mental health problems following rape and sexual assault, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and panic attacks, depression, somatic symptoms, social phobia, substance abuse and suicide.

They are likely to engage in health risk behaviours such as smoking, alcohol and substance abuse, risky sexual behaviours, eating disorders, sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancies, irritable bowel syndrome, and serious gynaecological problems.

This occurs in ALL social classes and ethnic groups

In the U.K, domestic violence accounts for 25% of all violent crime and 30% of such violence begins and escalates during pregnancy with deliberate attempts to cause miscarriages. In the UK two women a week are killed by their partners or ex-partners.

That is the price which individual children, adults, and society in Australia are paying for the `misunderstandings’ in the Family Courts and the conduct of those `naughty’ lawyers.

Barbara Biggs OLO 040210

What is the sense of a Family Law when the family is no more?

This is what Attorney General Lionel Murphy, who drafted the present legislation, could not understand and no one since has had the will to do understand.

He was warned by a delegation from the Divorce Law Reform Association of which I was a delegate, when we saw him in Canberra in 1975 that, if he did simplify divorce proceedings without holding on the children of the marriage, divorce numbers would have steely increased and a lot, a great lot of children would be scarified.

When a family, that is, the union of two adults fractures, it is the duty and the interest of the State to protect the resultant children lest these be used as weapons by parents at war or by other perversions.

If this seems too harsh to parents, the other, the trusting of custody to any of the parents, is greatly crueler to the child. Do I need to mention the horrors of cruelty to children reported in the two generations since Mr. Murphy’s 1975 law?

Wouldn’t it be wise and just to make the parents equally pay for and service an Asylum for their children who are de facto dejected by their belligerence to each other?

But Mr. Murphy was eminently a Lawyer and an astute Politician who would not keep out of a good feed his brethrens, Solicitors, Barristers and Judges

partTimeParent,

I saw a story about that case. I think it was on 7 Brisbane - it was a classic. The news reader said something like, 'two Australian children were found dead in Canada today. They were found drowned in a bath by their father. Their mother is being treated in hospital after FALLING off a bridge'

Can you believe it? That's what they actually said!

She killed her kids then didn't even have the courage to do the job properly on herself. If this were a man no one would hold back, but when it comes to a woman we can't even bring ourselves to tell the truth. How did we get so anti-male?

I took a look at PTP's link.

The article is very clear that the woman was alleged to have killed her two boys and attempted suicide. There is no attempt to claim as Dane did, that she had fallen off a bridge. Nor is there an attempt to blame the father for the killing.

Did Dane even READ the article?

<<<< An Australian woman suspected of drowning her two young children in a bathtub was trying to take them away from their home in a small town in Canada, her estranged husband feared.

Husband Curtis McConnell even took away their passports and hid them, court documents show.

But the 31-year-old confronted a far more terrible scenario yesterday when he found the infant children dead in the bathroom of their family home in the town of Millet, Alberta.

The mother, Allyson Louise McConnell, also 31, had already fled the scene, leaving the bodies for her husband to find.

She drove herself to a nearby Toys'R'Us car park and then jumped from a bridge onto a busy freeway in an apparent suicide attempt.

She survived and remains in hospital. It is believed police have spoken to her but no charges have been laid.

Investigators today expect to get results of autopsies on the two boys.

It has now emerged that their parents were in the middle of a divorce and custody battle. >>>>

Children require a stable loving environment where they are not used as pawns between warring parents, as the above article so sadly illustrates.

Severin ~ in effect it would appear that this mother and her children were being held captive in a foreign country and probably isolated from her friends and family in her home country, to whom she may have been considering returning. That is not to excuse what she may have done, but to offer a possible explanation. It is not an unusual scenario for a mother and children to be held in this way, although it is more common for them to be held by threats of killing her, and/or her children and/or her relatives, if she should leave. This certainly happens with unconscionable frequency in Australia. The most extreme form of such imprisonments were the two girls, one in Austria and the other in the U.S.A., who were held physical captives for 29 and 18 yrs respectively and were frequently raped and bore children to their captors. Male power and control of females and children is still a scourge in many `civilised' societies but is still excused as a male right.

How many of these allegations of abuse are referred to the police? If one parent alleges the other has been violent towards, or in front of children then shouldnt that be investigated, and if necessary acted upon? Does the police reluctance (still) to involve themselves in domestics play a part? What about the sadly common prospect of abused partners refusing to co-operate with police after a domestic? Is calling it "a domestic" discounting the seriousness which people here seem to be taking this issue?

Violence is violence and it is especially abhorrent in a family setting. If it really is happening as much as is made out in the family court then there needs to be some sort of serious investigation and crackdown.

A very good reason not to smack your kids at least. You never know when it might be brought up against you in a future family courtroom.

Ho hum, more of the usual "all men are bastards cos I have a uterus" guff. Do try to get over yourselves, dears. Prtsonally, I have testicles and without at least one of those your money-maker dosn't make much except trouble.

Mikk:"If it really is happening as much as is made out in the family court then there needs to be some sort of serious investigation and crackdown."

The Family Court doesn't see a lot of allegation of violence except when divorces and expecially custody matters are contested. The CJ has claimed that over 50% of contested matters involve an early allegation of violence, which is then quietly never mentioned again after the man has been duly issued with his "acceptanve without admission" DVO. She is making the point that such allegations are rarely actually tested and rarely have any third-party substantiation, such as a police report. Further, self-reporting of violence is very high among women, especially with the enormously broad definitions that are used today.

IOW, she's saying they're mostly made up or the "violence" (often just mutual arguing) is situational, not on-going. I agree, if my own experiences are any guide. The period around a marriage breakdown is highly stressful and both parties do and say things they may wish later they hadn't. Left to themselves most people sort this conflict out and get on with their lives, regretful or otherwise. Unfortunately, there has grown a large industry based on securing an advantage for "Single mothers and their children" to quote Ms Biggs and that indystry is in large part staffed ny women who, like Ms Biggs, are themselves damaged individuals, having suffered some form of real or perceived abuse. It is hardly surprising that such people see violence at every turn, jusy as Redgum's returned soldier in "Only 19" says "the channel 7 chopper chilled me to my feet".

While their experiences are not to be minimised, they should not be used as a principal source informing law, just as the cyclist who has been a road accident victim does not write the road laws.

Ho hum, its plain to see that Antiseptic views the world through the very narrow prism of `evidence’ presented to Courts and the propaganda of Male Supremacist Groups. Of course it is common knowledge that Courts are not concerned with Truth and Justice, merely with who wins.

Domestic violence is notoriously difficult to prove. It occurs behind closed doors and without witnesses. It is only forensic evidence which can be of value, but of course many abusers are extremely careful to ensure there is no physical evidence. “You go to the police and next time I’ll kill you and your kids!” are common words used by abusers to threaten their victims. The police falsely believe that such occurrences are `Six of one, and half a dozen of the other” - In every domestic violence case there is a persecutor and the victims. The persecutor is a tyrant and an ‘Intimate Partner Terrorist”. The IPT terrorises the victims. If matters eventually reach a Court, there is little first hand evidence and little forensic evidence of what has occurred. So the odds are heavily stacked against the victims of receiving a sympathetic hearing. Defence lawyers tear such victims apart. The victims are naïve regarding court procedures and are terribly frightened even to be there and are already traumatised by events and likely to be suffering severe anxiety and even clinical depression. They are further abused by the system and some women describe it as `Gang Rape’ by the boys in gowns and wigs.
Is it little wonder that victims of intimate partner terrorism and child abuse are reluctant to report such crimes and far less likely to take such matters into Courts to be further abused by the system which is supposed to protect them. Of course the Court Proceedings are held in absolute secrecy too so the public and politicians hear nothing of these occurrences and the lawyers and court experts are safe in the knowledge that their unprofessional statements and unethical conduct will never become known to professional colleagues so they are totally unaccountable behind this shroud of secrecy.

ChazP says: (due to lack of evidence) "...the odds are heavily stacked against the victims of receiving a sympathetic hearing" In a normal court, perhaps.

But not the 'Family Court (better known as the Feminist Court!) This court assumes an allegation is proven. They do this with the dodgy logic of 'unacceptable risk'. They may be 99% sure that no violence occoured, but will rob the children of their loving father on the 1% chance that the allegations are real and pose an unnacceptable risk. (see John Hirst's 'quarterly Essay' titled "Kangaroo Court" http://www.quarterlyessay.com/issue/kangaroo-court-family-law-australia )

One of the most fundamental safeguards of justice if the assumption of innocence and the right to face your accusor. Unfortunately these have been long campaigned against by feminist supremacist groups and watered down nore and more. There is no assumption of innocence in the Divorce COurt, and in rape trials, for example, men are convicted without 'cross examination', denied their right to face thier accusor.

"Male Supremacist Groups"?!?!? What planet is this woman on?!?! In AUstralia there are two (2) paid staff that could be considered 'men's rights activists'. But there is billions of dollars funding professional feminists... from academics in sociology, to 'E.E.O.' staff at every government office, to 1.3 billions of funding for the 'family Relationships Centres which are nearly entirely resourced by groups which explicitly and repeatedly oppose shared parenting presumptions

Family Law is such a minefield. Hatred and vitriole is all you will get from this debate. Some parents don't give a rats about the kids it is all about ME.

Maybe we should polygraph parents to ascertain who is telling the truth - it really does come down to one person's word against another and when there is spite, bittereness and feelings of revenge thoughts about the welfare of kids seems to go by the way. Ego rules supreme.

Shared parenting would seem the best option for many, as long as there is no risk with one dodgy partner. Shared parenting does not work for everyone and there should not be a one size fits all approach.

It is a pity that family law cannot take place around a table with a mediator, legal representation, with input from friends and family to ensure children get the outcome that is best for them.

No system will ever be perfect because the people who visit the Family Court are not perfect. It is almost impossible to get justice when only two people present know the truth in relation to serious claims.

Bring back the underground railway.

Kind words as those I received from *SuzeOnLine* are always a pleasure to receive. :-)

And there is much truth in the words of *ChazP* in my experience.

..

On one occassion when I was eight from memory we were picked up by my bio father and left at my grandparents.

Bio father then dissapeared off, and accompanied by his older brother and another male friend, launched an assault on my home and locale of bio mother and Knight Defender Step Father.

Step Father was allegedly repairing wooden furniture with a staple gun at the time.

The assault was repelled after bio father received a gaping gash wound above his eye courtesy of the staple gun.

Whilst I can look back now with amusement on such vivid memories, it is also I believe true to say that they remain vivid in my mind's eye today as they were burned in with heightened states of anxiety. The child mind as it was at that time was an unwilling observer of these events. This included such events as watching grandfather sew bio father up in the aftermath.

..

Again, how a court order could so easily subsequently be overturned to again grant custody to my vile bio father remains a fact about which I am unclear. It shall have to wait for a rainy day by the fire at some distant point in the future after I have had a spare moment to request a copy of the file. It had perhaps as its basis misconceived religious notions about what constitutes a family and a father to the children in combination with a consent order I imagine, though I do not know this for sure.

I was quite happy with my Step Father thank you very much and had some kindly person earned my trust at that time I undoubtedly would have revealed it.

But the point of contestation in the custody battle revolved around the allegation that my step father was unfit because he was a "Faerie."

In relation to that matter, though predominately from my bio father, both of my organic parents pulled at me with questions on this matter, and likely as a consequence of this, I clammed up, became somewhat introverted and did not allow my emotions to naturally ebb and flow.

This led to being flogged by a female teacher for refusing to skip on one occasion, and refusing to sing on another .. however ..

..

Living with Asian people has all but cured me of this though, being a very open and naturally expressive group, and perhaps subliminally I have in part gravitated to them because of this ..

ChazP, your absolutely correct, far too many children have been neglected, abused, even murdered by their stupid, fat, ignorant, lazy, third-rate, deadbeat mothers. The greatest danger facing every child today is now & always has been their mother. As we all know, this is a well documented scientifically proven fact.

Of course children have always been safest, happiest, healthiest when living with their biological father, while their mother has been in a harmonious relationship with him. Sadly, many alleged mothers are incapable of doing some "couples counselling" to sort out their problems, instead of, buying a sports car, when going through a midlife crisis they insist on abusing their children by putting them through a completely unnecessary divorce. In these cases the "Anti Family Law Act of 1975" should be changed to a default position of the children being 100% resident with their father, unless it can be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that the father is defective in some way. (which we all know is exceedingly rare) With supervised visitation for the mother, as we all know that deadbeat motherhood is exceedingly common.

single mum, also correct "the children" need to be protected from the likes of you.

partTimeParent, in my experience over 90% of relationships do include extensive DV by the female on both her hapless husband & children.

suzeonline, i see your ignoring the facts on DV & defective parenting again, as per usual for a femanist. You have engaged in these debates enough times before and had more than enough scientific facts quoted at you to know that women are responsible for most of the DV & child abuse whereas bio fathers are almost never responsible. BTW i note you never replied to my last comment to you about catholic nuns sexually abusing teenage boys at a boarding school.

Severin, wrong, many children got the opportunity to find out, they enjoy living with dad more than mum, some of them even asked if they could live with dad full time, which is where all this protest came from.

DreamOn, you are abnormal, 90% of abuse is female.

skeptic, the anti family law act of 1975 always was intended to abuse as many children as possible. Feman-nazism was always intended to create fear & loathing among the masses or "divide & conquer". Also with the whitlam government, beginning the process of job exportation, they needed to create new, "jobs for the girls", hence the new industries of DV & child welfare created by the destruction of families & creation of several generations of dysfunctional neglected, abused children.

dane, not so much anti male, as anti everybody, the intention was to create conflict & oppress everybody by encouraging women to abuse themselves & still, think it was somehow, a man's fault.

Antiseptic, have you noticed BTW how completely feminised left wing politics has become. As Germaine Greer predicted in her book, "alleged males" on the left especially those, still defending the abuse of children by radical, extremist, loony, left, lesbian, feman-nazi, paedophiles have become eunuchs, totally devoid of any testosterone or testicles. Just as male paedophiles are sometimes "chemically castrated", feman-nazism was always meant to socially, psychologically or culturally castrate men generally, nearly worked on me for a while, hence the name formersnag. The style of debating they use on all policy areas is also, identical to that used by a dysfunctional, emotionally immature woman to "play head, f#*%, mind games" with her partner, making mountains out of ant hills, selective memory, twisting of words, all of it.

chazP, ho hum still sprouting the radical, extremist, loony, left, lesbian, feman-nazi paedophile propaganda as usual. Did your children ask to live with their father? Is that what happened to you? Have you done any counselling?

Formersnag: I will pray that your soul, mind, heart and body heal from your negative experiences with females; just as I pray that mine heals with the dreadful negative experiences I have had with primary Aussie male figures in my life. An emotional issue that always allows emotion and prejudice from past experiences to cloud the facts of Australian history.

Gee, I hate to break in to this feminine-hate-fest, but I had to stand up for dreamOn with the nasty statement from former(never)snag that he/she was 'abnormal'.
How dare you demean someone else's misfortunes because they do not support your' bitter and twisted views of women. Shame on you.

Former(never)snag <" BTW i note you never replied to my last comment to you about catholic nuns sexually abusing teenage boys at a boarding school."
Gee you can certainly hold a grudge dear.
If you are losing sleep over this then I will say again that I don't condone sexual abuse of children by ANYONE.

Having grown up with nuns I have no doubt they did do what you said. However, I would hazard a guess that the Priests and Brothers were 99% responsible for disgusting acts on both boys and girls in their care.

This thread is about misunderstanding the Family Law however, so I will say again that whatever the laws are now, they are not good enough because kids are still coming off second best after some acrimonious divorces.
The laws need looking at again and again until they get it right.

There are however, many relationship breakdown situations where the loving parents do the right thing and think of their kids first.
I am heartened by this fact.

Suzeonline:"I will say again that whatever the laws are now, they are not good enough because kids are still coming off second best after some acrimonious divorces."

So what do you propose? What do you see is wrong with the law as it stands and how would you address that?

Formersnag, while Feminist ideology informs the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, linking mothers and children but disdaining fathers as supernumery, Feminism as such is not a causative issue with most family breakdowns, although it does strongly influence the likely course of events afterwards. Many of those who are most vocal in deriding the role of fathers are not "feminists" so much as "sociopaths". It is a sad fact that the Court is an adversarial environment which encourages conflict by providing one party (the mother) with cheap access to legal services, while allowing her enormous scope to act out her revenge on the father with impunity if she wishes.

The rest of the State paraphernalia, such as the CSA and centrelink, add further to the conflict by requiring her to take action against the father.

As long as damaged people with clearly unresolved issues pertaining to men are allowed to administer these laws and are given close access to cynical governments who know a great wedge when they see it we will have no end to the mess.

Former/NeverSnag - as the national spokesman for the Father's Rights groups, the only thing to your credit is that you never let the facts get in the way of your firmly held, but twisted and bizarre opinions. With your attitudes and abusive behaviour towards females it is not difficult to see why your ex-spouse kicked you out and wouldn't let you near her kids. Depending which State your in I would happily recommend a good psychiatrist and who knows, after treatment your kids might just want to see you again. With a police escort I would imagine.

Antiseptic/ascerbic - I see you are once again talking through your wallet rather than from any heartfelt concern for your children's needs, wishes, and rights in Court matters. But that is not unusual, applications by father's for residency or contact are most often driven by an annoyed revengeful repost to evade child maintenance. But then, money is at the heart of the whole father's rights and male supremacists campaign. Of course it is usually accompanied by crocodile tears of concern for the poor children which has so far bambozzled the politicians. When fathers rights groups stop seeing women and their children as their possessions and can get over being rejected by females, then maybe they can turn their minds to considering the needs.wishes, and rights of children. But I think it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.

ChazP:"I see you are once again talking through your wallet"

Actually, my kid's mother and I share all costs equally. We have done so for years. That didn't stop Centrelink from insisting that she lodge a child support case and it didn't stop years of bitter dispute with the CSA because I won't recognise that they have any role at all.

Tell me, how well do you reckon you'd go if the CSA took all your money from your bank account on Easter Thursday, when you have two children to feed and entertain over Easter, not to mention rent to be paid, etc? How do you reckon it helps the children?

My advice to you, if you're serious about the financial well-being of your children, is to get off your no-doubt overweight bum and get yourself a job, just like all the grown-ups have to. Days of Our Lives might just have to get on without you.

ChazP, I like your' style! :)
I think you have summed up this debate in a nutshell.
You have even got 'Septic on the run!
He has again resorted to his usual petty insults about your personal attributes to drive his bitter point home.

'Septic, I don't usually comment on people's personal relationship issues on here, but seen as you brought it up, I will.
I have never been personally involved with Family Law disputes, although I have supported many friends through the process.

I was always under the impression that if parents agreed to their own, fair financial arrangements after a relationship breakdown, that the Courts did not need to get involved?

Why then did the Family Court see the need to pursue you for more maintenance? Surely someone needs to complain about some aspect of these arrangements before the courts get involved?

The 3 family law reports point to the need for proper assessment of the capacity of parents (male and female) to provide appropriate care for their children based on past practices, current capacities and the particular developmental and health needs of each child. The family law system has no credible process to properly assess children's needs and parental capacity, nor can it assess the level of risk posed to children from parents. For example, when there is an allegation of child sexual abuse,which has been substantiated by the state child protection service, the family report writer has no expertise or capacity or direction to assess the accused parent's propensity to offend. Their task is to recommend how child contact should occur, and they do. And children who have been substantiated as victims of child sex abuse spend court-ordered time with their offender because he is the bio father. That's a normal everyday family law outcome in Australia. Offenders love it - breed your own and you'll never be alone, courtesy of Australia's family law.

Mog,

We can't have you trying to get the topic back to abuse and violence that effects children badly - why even ruins their lives, especially the grow your owns. That's the one part of the equation that 'the boys' here will not tolerate, you feminist you. You mustn't stick to the topic or the point. The Family Law must join them (as if it already hasn't) and stop women from leaving totally unsuitable human beings to pursue happiness, freedom and an absence of violence, and in particular to end any supposed female entitlement based on anything. It must understand that not only are all women evil, but having had children, the duty of the court is to save the children from female influence of any mothering kind because it is all bad. So begone with you and your racial ideas about what's best for children.

Not hard to see why relationships might have failed here. Those women with testosterone, and/or a backbone are the real enemy to these warped men

COTTER : <it is the duty of the court to save children from female influence of any mothering kind because it is all bad>

How many babies and children have you ever had day to day care of Cotter: I mean actual hands on care. You don’t have a clue what it’s all about by the sound of it. I very much doubt from your e-mail that you would be capable of the sheer sacrifice involved in the care of very young children.

I’ve worked full on 50-55hour weeks in demanding outside jobs and I’ve also raised and help raise 6children counting my own children and grandchildren. They are all great kids.

Let me tell you, he 55hour job I worked, and it was a high stress demanding job was nowhere near the hours or stresses involved in looking after small children.
Dr. Phil bought in a couple of engineers to work out the hours worked by a mother with two young children in the home because her husband was always bitching that his job was harder. They found she put in 16hours a day.
They also gave him her job for the day and told him the only thing he had to get done beside caring for the children was to vacuum one bedroom; which he could not get done. He publicly apologized on TV to his wife and all the mothers of America

ANTISEPTIC: <Ho Hum more of the usual, <all men are bastards cos I have a uterus guff>

Why do women have a uterus Antiseptic? Because they were designed and programmed by nature (which is a lot smarter than you) to have and nuture children.
You have testicles as you say , although they may father children they do not give you the ability to carry and nuture them in your body or breast feed them. Men are biologically designed for providing and territorial defense, not childminding.

Why don’t men (gays excepted)apply for jobs in kindergardens and daycare centres,and why are there no male carers in centres right across this country? Because society INSTINCTIVELY knows they are not endowed with the same abilities as women when it comes to the care of young children,( not to say they can’t do it , it just doesn’t come naturally to them.) Society also knows that they are sexually more of a risk around young children.

Why have the Family Law Courts ignored the old wisdom that young children in most cases (again there will be exceptions) BELONG WITH THEIR MOTHER, UNTIL THEY ARE OF AN AGE WHERE THEY CAN RATIONALLY CHOOSE.
Any father who really cared for his kids would know that.

PART TIME PARENT : Most women would run a mile rather than wish to be involved in a rape trial.
Men don’t even have to reveal their past sexual misbehavior (like having committed previous rapes)in case it predijuces their trial. Talk about unequal justice. There are constant miscarriages of justice in these cases and mostly the injustice is against the woman not the man

sharkfin "Because society INSTINCTIVELY knows they are not endowed with the same abilities as"

Society has instinctively known a lot of very wrong things. It's instinctively known that women were not as capable as men at managing their own lives (but could do it in a pinch) so had laws about that. It's instinctively known that gays were wrong and had laws about that. It's instinctively known that colored people were even less capable than women and had laws about that to. I think we could expand that list a long way with a little thought and research (landowners vs non-landowner, eldest son vs other siblings etc).

R0bert

Suzeonline:"Why then did the Family Court see the need to pursue you for more maintenance?"

It didn't. If you have further questions I suggest you read back over my posts. I've gone over this so many times I'm thinking about writing an "antiseptic FAQ".

Sharkfin:"Why do women have a uterus Antiseptic? Because they were designed and programmed by nature"

Oh dear...

I suggest a read of "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

Sharkfin:"Men are biologically designed for providing"

Oh dear. See above.

Sharkfin:"Society also knows that they are sexually more of a risk around young children."

And society also knows that sexual abuse of young children is a tiny, tiny problem that affects very few people, except in some dysfunctional communities. On the other hand, emotional abuse and neglect affects quite a few children in the broad community and is nearly always done by the mother. You remember Mum, she's the one who's been "designed and programmed by nature to have and nurture children", according to you. According to the ABS and the AIHW, OTOH, a child of a single mother is about 6 times as likely as the child of a single father to suffer some form of abuse.

Apparently nature was prepared to accept some pretty shoddy work standards...

Now off you toddle and see if you can't find a man to "provide" for you, since you're apparently incapable of doing so for yourself.

cotter:"Those women with testosterone[...] are the real threat"

I agree. You lot in the hairy-legged, sensible shoe brigade have caused untold damage to gender relations to suit your own distorted agenda. May I recommend a good dose of HRT?

Antiseptic. ~ “my kid's mother and I share all costs equally. We have done so for years”. But of course, she would be forced by the Court to accept a 50/50 split as that is your right under the FLA. and is enforced by the Courts. That is the law which was demanded by the FR Male Redneck groups as a means of evading Child Maintenance. The real questions are did your children want that arrangement of were they forced into it?. Does it meet their needs, wishes, and rights?. Or were they not consulted as is usual.?. What happens if they don’t want contact with you (which would not be difficult to imagine) and would rather go with their friends to a sports outing.?. Are they forced into that because otherwise you’d have to pay more.

And just for the record, I had many happy and wonderfully fulfilling years with my late partner who was a wonderful parent and partner, and our children all went on to University and all now have successful careers and families. I work 70 hours a week in my own business.

Mog an excellent summary of the issues. But of course if fathers were assessed on their prior involvement in their children’s lives and their concern for their children’s well being, before being allowed contact, then very few would be so awarded. Most are mere sperm donors and then get back to their toys as soon as they can, or hide down the garden in their sheds until they need feeding again or are totally obsessed with Footy or cricket. Children just don't interest them. Thats another reason why the FR groups are so vehemently opposing the reforrms.

The frothing fathers will oppose any changes to compulsory child distribution on demand because it hacks into the child support outcomes and power over others. Parcelling out child shares (a) reduces child support claims on the highest earner (b) gives vengeful control freaks and child sex offenders an avenue for continued abuse of their 'property'. So it is money and power at stake and that means they will pursue every avenue of resistance.
The tirades of abuse of women on here are faint indicators of what is to come.

ChazP:"she would be forced by the Court to accept a 50/50 split"

Interesting that you can't conceive of a woman acting on her own to come to that arrangement.

ChazP:"The real questions are did your children want that arrangement of were they forced into it?"

They wanted it and want it.

ChazP:"Does it meet their needs, wishes, and rights?"

Yes

ChazP:"Or were they not consulted as is usual.?."

Yes, they were and are consulted, as is usual.

ChazP:"What happens if they don’t want contact with you (which would not be difficult to imagine) and would rather go with their friends to a sports outing.?"

It may not be hard to imagine for you, dear, but you are rather good at fantasies, aren't you? The children are free to be with whichever parent they wish to be with at the time and if they have other commitments they are free to keep them. My daughter tends to spend more time at Mum's because it's a more feminine environment and she's a 13 year old girl, while my son spends more time at my place. I pick them up from school every afternoon and Mum drops them off. Because we share the costs equally, it gives the kids the opportunity to decide without their parents putting pressure on them, even unconsciously. Since the arrangements are flexible, everyone benefits, especially the kids.

ChazP:"Are they forced into that because otherwise you’d have to pay more. "

Oh dear. Do your children know you only think of them as meal-tickets?

ChazP:"I work 70 hours a week in my own business."

I guess milking the system could be called a business by some. It's obvious there's money to be made.

Were you or your "late partner" the "man"? I'm guessing it was her...

Wow!. Antiseptic you are such a perfect guy and human being, (I know that because you have told me) and what possible reason would I have for disbelieving you?. It makes me wonder however why your ex-spouse ever got rid of you. But then, I suspect she may have quite a different story to tell. And my business is thriving thank you because of my commitment, perseverance and determination and the many long hours I devote to it. Probably also because I don't employ males who tend not to be reliable, and to go missing on sickies as soon as things get busy or tough, or dodge off at any opportunity to watch cricket or some other inane activity. So it is not in any way a prejudice, just dealing with the reality. But, as they say, that is a whole other story.

ChazP, And what a sick reality you live in. No such thing as a good man anywhere, is there?

My greatest regret in life is that i never did use DV, in any of my relationships. Looking back with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, i can safely say that my children would have been infinitely better off without their mother. If only i had murdered her when my children were toddlers, they would not have been neglected & abused while i was at work? If only i had tried "slapping her around a little", then maybe i could have gotten her to do some counselling or treatment & straightened herself out? 70 hours a week, i did 80 to 100 hours a week & if i didn't do the housework when i got home it did not get done. If only the DOCS workers i went to in despair, (after years of extensive DV perpetrated by her against myself & children) to report my wife for neglecting & abusing my children while i was at work were not radical, extremist, loony, left, lesbian, feman-nazi paedophiles, then maybe they would have looked at the evidence & credible independent witnesses available to them, but they live in the same sick world as you do ChazP, where there are only sick fathers & good mothers. What a sick joke you live in? The day is soon coming when people like you will be locked up in Baxter detention centre for the good of the country & the safety of our children.

Antiseptic, have you heard about the 68's? They were an international movement of hard core communists & socialists who started out protesting the Vietnam war in all western nations, all orchestrated from Moscow. They then moved onto femanism, a cold, evil, plan to destroy the capitalist family or our entire society, white anted from within. The evidence is all there, Germaine Greer is hardly the only femanist leader who is a Marxist, almost all of them were.

'Septic, again you disgust me by the way you tried to make assumptions about ChazP's late partner... a new low even for you.

Formerneversnag <" ChazP, And what a sick reality you live in. No such thing as a good man anywhere, is there?"
What a sick reality YOU live in. No such thing as a good woman anywhere?

You guys should be poster boys for the new Family Court Laws..... as prime reasons why they were ever first enacted and as why the latest laws aren't working.

Former/NeverSnag – there are many, many good men in our society, who genuinely care for their children and provide for them, and don’t abuse them or their partners, and are in equitable and harmonious relationships But they are not to be found among the FR Redneck Groups or as contributors to this thread.

The FR Rednecks are those males who are insecure and frightened and have very bruised ego’s.

The underlying issue to the FLA, are male fears, that they are almost totally redundant in traditional roles and relationships. That increasing numbers of females don’t need or want them. Females are now in a position to pursue careers and provide for themselves and for any children they may have and all they need is a sperm donor.

But the sperm donors are desperate to be needed and wanted. Hence the FLA 2006.

“Children need Fathers” should more correctly read “We want to be needed, please somebody need us!” ~ the poor things. And what about our Rights?. ~ (Father’s Rights groups). Now how pathetic do those desperate appeals sound from such tough men!.

More and more females are beginning to overcome their early indoctrination and conditioning to become `good’ wives and mothers and that they `Need a man’ – PIFFLE!. Who needs to buy a whole pig when all you want is a little piece of sausage??.

The FLA 2006 was about father’s fears that they were losing control over females and children (as they had such control in Victorian times) and were redundant. So the FLA was going back to the past. They are still fighting a losing battle to preserve their position. So its not about `their’ kids, its about THEM and their own insecurities.

And now that sperm can be artificially manufactured from DNA, well what else are they needed for ?. .

They cleverly continue to mask these basic anxieties and fears, and try to argue that children need them and that mothers are all bad. It gives them the last vestige of something to believe in, no matter how untrue.

GIRLS' RULE. Ok Boys!.

Dear Sharkfin,

My tongue (or typing fingers) must have been so firmly in my cheek that I sounded anti MOG, instead of so 'over' the nazi-like condemnation and degradation of women and mothers that I was using sarcasm to respond. You'll note references to all these highly organised womens lobbyists groups (that are supposed to exist and I wish I knew where they are)do not respond in kind. It's like watching Domestic Abuse - only on line.
You see, many of us non-nazi-like workers in the field can dispute the unbelievable uninformed cr ap I'm reading on this blog each time children's safety is mentioned. Let alone Family Law. The blog is full of idle imaginings - for example of 'what happens in courts' and what ought to happen, which has little relationship to what does happen in the real world and real courts.

Like MOG I am pro safety of children and for some unknown reason, caring about the safety of children with these particular men equates with depriving them of something. You will note that any politician who cares about women or children as part of their constituency is immediately labelled as 'feminazi' yet they still have such laughingly low numbers in parliament compared with male representation in this land of equality of opportunity.

What I was trying (ineptly) to say was that there are people, sadly seem to be some of the men represented here, who so hate the women who left them, that they must attack all women. Rather than focus on safety for children

Sharkfin. I brought up my own daughter myself for 10 years because her mother was too lazy and useless to do it herself being more interested in spending my child support money down the pubs and on her lifestyle than on my child, while my daughter was often left alone and abused and made to go hungry,despite the thousands of dollars i paid her mother in child support. I'm sick to death of hearing how hard it is to bring up a child and keep a house. To hear many single mothers it seems to consist of lurching from one crisis to another. Dr Phill the dill can say what he likes but i found it extremely easy and that, despite only receiving the princely sum of $5 p/w from her mother. And i did a much better job than her mother ever did. As i was told by one of your fellow man hating cronies on here in another post, tell some one who cares.

Dear Cotter,

Please forgive me for my post. I can plainly see that you are very tongue in cheek when I reread what you said. The trouble is I wrote down some notes earlier when I was reading through everybodies posts and then I went away for a couple of hours I must have skimmed through too quickly when I came back the second time.

It was late I should have just gone to bed instead I think.
Thank you for confirming the truth about the realities of what is actually happening in the courts instead of some of the uneducated opinions of the womanhaters here.

Robert:
I was thinking of you when I wrote my first post that's why I said there would be some exceptions to the fact that children are in general better off with their mothers. It always comes across in your posts that you are a very caring and loving father. I am sorry to catch you in the crossfire.

Eyeinthesky: sounds like another loving and caring father. There will always be a percentage of exceptions but I still think that in the main women are more equipped by nature to mother children than men are.

sharkfin a lot of dads will be the same, some will just respond to the ongoing attacks differently.

For years the mum's lobby has played the game of pretending to want to protect kids by attacking men but staying very quiet about abuse and neglect by mums. They've attacked dad's for having concerns about unfair financial issues as though it's only men who have an interest in that issue while ignoring those mum's who clearly use child custody issues to get a bigger slice of the handout cake.

I'm seriously over the way the very ugly posts of Chaz and others are not criticised by those who take the high moral ground against Anti and other "bitter" men. The silence from some is deafening.

I'm over those who want to turn child residency into a popularity contest (with an initial genitalia test). The parent who does not discipline, the parent who gives children what they want rather than what they need, the parent who has done the best job of sabotaging the other will win that one to often to the detriment of the children. I've heard the comment more than once, our job is to be their parent not their best friend.

I'm over those who think the arrangements put in place by a family which was not working well should be the ones which determine the future.

I'm over those who think that a dad who was involved in his kids lives every evening and weekend is somehow having the same involvement having the kids every second weekend.

I know there are men who just don't get it as fathers, I've seen a couple of cases up fairly close but I've also seen the mum's who while having the "caring" role don't get the responsibility of trying to teach their children reasonable behavioral boundaries.
Both genders can put their own wants and issues above the welfare of their children, both can fail to do what it takes to be a good parent.

While some continue to make it a gender war real solutions are hard to reach.

R0bert

Yes sharkfin women ARE more suited by nature to care for the children it is the very essence of our species. If my daughters mother had been a good and caring one as most are, and had given me plenty of good time with our daughter i would have been more than happy to leave her in her mothers care. The sad fact is though, that she cared little for our daughters welfare and even minimised my access to maximise the child support she received.
The ex had well documented mental problems [since diagnosed as BPD] but she refused to take the medication she was prescribed. If you know anything about BPD you may have some idea of the abuse i had to put up with during the 5 years we lived together, as a consequence of her condition i did much of the child rearing myself. It was i who changed many nappies and toilet trained her, it was i who did much of the feeding and taught her to feed herself, it was i who would sit on her bed at night and read her a bedtime story etc etc. I did all this and held down a job yet when we split up it was she who was seen as the primary caregiver,WHY?.
When a mother is obviously unable or unprepared to care for a child surely a decent father should be the first option looked at, NOT leaving a child in such an abusive situation for 3 years. I'm sure many other men could fulfill the role of primary caregiver as i did, in these cases, unfortunately we are hardly ever given the chance and even then usually only after a lengthy and costly court battle while the mother is almost always the one who receives the free legal aid.
There are 2 sides to every story but unfortunately the current government is only listening to one side and this will be very much to the detriment of our children if Ms Biggs gets her way.

'I'm seriously over the way the very ugly posts of Chaz and others are not criticised by those who take the high moral ground against Anti and other "bitter" men. The silence from some is deafening.'

Oh Robert. Why would the female posters make comment on the words of their attack dogs? This is an us and them women vs men debate after all.

For all anti's faults, one of the first comments on this topic jumped in accusing him of being a kiddie fiddler.(It was thankfully removed). I cant believe he just shrugged that one off, I would have been going nuts. The guy dishes it out but takes it back in spades that's for sure.

I don't think you can expect the female posters to relinquish their position of morally superior. It goes in hand with women being made from sugar and spice and all that. Face it, as some have posted, they're just better parents. Better people all round even. Guaranteed to be putting the kiddies first. Who are you gonna believe in any argument between a woman and a man. When a woman fights for her children, she's the maternal carer doing what's best for the children. When a man fights for his children, he's an abusive controller in it for himself. I think it's the crux of the whole debate.

Women are just better people and 'natural' parents. It's the foundation, the starting point men have an up hill battle from ever over turning. The feminists don't even seem to want to explode this myth. Women can be or do anything a man can do, but men still cant be as good a carer as a woman. It's what holds women back from true equality.

BTW Suze: Any comments on Chaz's last post? Then again, I've heard it said anyone who knows the meaning of the word misandrist is by definition a misogynist. Of course it doesn't work the other way around for some reason.

While I'm certainly no supporter of the misogynist drivel endlessly posted by Antiseptic, formersnag etc, I don't think ChazP's recent comments in this thread are any more helpful than theirs are.

It seems as though I’ve hit a really raw nerve with the FR Rednecks by suggesting that their motivations are because they have underlying feelings of inadequacy, and insecurity. Many young women now are asking a serious question of themselves, `What do I actually need a permanent male partner for'.?. And many are actually forming a conclusion that they don't need a male partner.
My retorts have always been in response to attacks by the FR Rednecks and in like vein. Or is it only they who are allowed to be insulting and to revile and denigrate others.?. I do not want this to be a gender war, but sadly there are those individuals whose only reson detre’ is to stoke that particular fire.

Studies have shown that during marriages and de facto relationships that the average father spends approximately 6 hours per week with their children. They spend more time in the `Shed’, or watching sports, or at the pub. Why is it then that after separation they suddenly have this overwhelming interest in their children and to have a `meaningful relationship’ with them and which they never pursued before?. Go figure – Follow the money!.

There are over 125,000 children in Australia for whom separated parents. (largely fathers) make no financial contribution to their care and upbringing and are being subsidised by Australian taxpayers. So fathers who plead they are sucked dry are an extinct species.

I will reiterate my position which is that children’s needs, wishes, and rights should be paramount in any Family Law proceedings and decisions on their futures should be mesaurably and demonstrably to their benefit, children's wishes and views must be more effectively made known to the Courts, parents must be thoroughly and competently assessed regarding their prior involvement in the child’s life and their parenting skills, and that allegations of child abuse and domestic violence must be thoroughly and competently investigated. These are the major recommendations of Professor Justice Chisholm and the government must implement them immediately

ChazP

While I do not agree with you that women are inherently better carers than men, I do support your courage in stirring the pot.

Women continue to be judged more harshly than men, as evidenced on these pages. Your comments, while provocative, are a long way from the depths of bullying and denigration as spouted by an embittered contingent of males on OLO.

R0bert

Given your deafening silence on the sheer hostility that is the regular posturing of Formersnag, Antiseptic et al, I have to comment that your complaint about the lack of criticism of ChazP's more extreme views, rings hollow.

Am I to conclude that one woman behaving badly is unacceptable, but par for the course for male behaviour?

Severin – Bonding and Caring for a child is an innate characteristic of females of the human species as it is for most other species. To nurture, love, and provide for a foetus growing inside her is unique to females as she nourishes the child with her bodily fluids, and cannot be experienced or replicated by the male of the species. To give birth and to hold a child in her arms is a uniquely female experience. No male could begin to know or understand such feelings of love and achievement. And after birth in breastfeeding where the bonding and attachment grows and expands and a natural love develops between them as each gains nurture and enrichment from the experience. Then to see a child grow, first teeth, then walking, and talking are times of infinite delight to a female and confirm her care and nurture. And that first day at school when the relationship extends to other figures in the outside world and the mother’s role diminishes, but absolutely necessary in times of distress, anxiety, and pain.

Fathers are usually secondary importance and often merely a face at the side of the cot, or to rock the infant to sleep during painful nights of teething.

Fathers could never empathise with the immense depth of feelings involved in these development between the child and the mother. Fathers are peripheral figures, maybe giving occasional bottle feeds and changing nappies, till the child moves into the wider world, then its someone to share holidays and have good times on the beach or in sports activities or to read bedtime stories. But a father’s relationship, even in the most perfect of situations can never equal or be equivalent to that of a mother.In many species fathers do not play any part in the upbringing of offspring e.g. Lions, Elephants, and can be a danger, while in some other species they have a very important secondary and supportive role. Human males vary between these extremes.
Of course there are exceptions to this general picture, but the exceptions will not detract from these basic facts.

ChazP

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. While I take your point that human females do the bulk of caring in our society - and rewards and status reflect that in the form of poor pay for carers, men can and do care for the young, elderly and disabled. More men would if given the encouragement and opportunity to do so.

Human beings are social animals and, as we leave the need for men to protect others from animal predators (as we did in prehistory), further our knowledge and education, our previous 'roles' are changing. There is much resistance on both sides, resulting in some extreme views, such as those espoused by Former-"all women are nazis"-snag, and others who resent women having any form of autonomy to your good self who denies the ability of men to nurture.

Change is the one constant we can rely on and outmoded, unnecessary behaviours and attitudes will decrease - but not in my lifetime, unfortunately.

Severin the silence is not as deafening as you might think. I've made my views on Formersnag's views very clear previously. I don't think I'm the only one of those wanting a fairer go for fathers to have done so.

When it comes to Antiseptic I generally see the hostility not being very one sided. He is often attacked quite viciously by a number of posters. I've disagreed with Antiseptic often enough especially around his dislike of feminism but I think Antiseptic is often taken out of context by his detractors. When he responds in kind to those who attack him is is called a nasty and a bully.

Given how often Antiseptic is criticised by some for his "anti-woman" stance I sat back and watched to see if any of those who claim to object to the gender wars would be bothered by the very clear anti-male posts coming from some. None had been bothered enough to comment despite needing to regularly attack Antiseptic. Good to see CJ has given a qualified comment regarding Chaz's recent comments.

I completely disagree with your view "Your comments, while provocative, are a long way from the depths of bullying and denigration as spouted by an embittered contingent of males on OLO." Some of the comments on this thread have been worse than those almost anyone except formersnag would make.

Houellebecq I have seen better from some of the anti-anti posters. I don't think all want it to be an us and them situation.

R0bert

Houellebecq, you and others, both male and female, are right to be upset with ChazP's post suggesting we can do without men in our society.

I don't often agree with you :). However, I am against anyone who so blatantly hates the other gender as a whole. There are many, many wonderful husbands and father's out there, including my husband and brothers.

ChazP, while I agree with many of your points in most of the other posts you have written on this thread, I do take exception with the following statements: " The underlying issue to the FLA, are male fears, that they are almost totally redundant in traditional roles and relationships. That increasing numbers of females don’t need or want them. Females are now in a position to pursue careers and provide for themselves and for any children they may have and all they need is a sperm donor."

You are stooping to the low level of some of the other male posters on these threads if you show hatred for ALL men, as they seem to do re all women.

It is not helpful, and indeed is detrimental to the fight for equal rights that most women strive for.

I rather like having good men in my world.....and I like the old-fashioned way of making and raising babies!

Severin: <change is the one constant we can rely on and outmoded unnecessary behaviour and attitudes will descrease-but not in my lifetime

Or mine I feel, but maybe what we are going through now since the advent of the pill will bring about some gradual evolutionary change in the roles of men and women but it is till a long, long way off particularly in cultures not as advanced yet as Western Civilizations.

Here is a test of how far we actually have come in our acceptance of men as carers. How would you feel if you arrived at a new day care centre with your three year old daughter or son and there were two burly alpha males in charge? Would you be prepared to leave these very young children in their care all day for the rest of the year.

I read just such an account by a woman who said she thought she was a really modern woman who was totally accepting of equal child caring between men and women until, whilst taking her very young daughter to a daycare centre that she had booked into run by a holiday resort, she was confronted by a male carer. She said her own reaction stunned her because she just would not leave her daughter there.

I wonder if some of the caring Dad’s here would also find themselves changing daycare centres when actually faced with the option of male carers to female carers. We can all argue the injustice or prejudices etc but the reaction by mothers and fathers at the point of choice of daycare would be very interesting.

This is just a reaction to unknown male carers not the child's own fathers. So it is obviously a different situation than a child being cared for by a known loving and caring father. Still these reactions are interesting from a how far have we advanced in an evolutionary sense at this point in time perspective. As opposed to the rhetoric.

I'm just catching up here so have read the last few pages. (Hiya CJ! and Suzie!)

I took Chazp.'s post about sperm etc as a challenge to the type of men who frequent the woman-hating menz sites to reflect on how they conceive of themselves as men and what they have to GIVE rather than TAKE.

If they can't force women and children to do their will, then what else is in them as people fulfilling a masculine role? Menz are just not desirable anymore because women and children can survive, and are often better off, without them BUT MEN of a different type of masculinity are appreciated, loved and cherished.

I have described my son and his father on these pages and have been told that they're whipped; gay; probably having affairs while I'm out working and so on. I have financially supported my family for many years and am regularly accused of being undesirable, a femmo, lezzo, hairy this and that. There is a howling down of any sex role that doesn't conform to the Anti and Co. worldview. That is one of the reasons that these discussions will remain gender based.

There are other ways of being male that value giving more than taking.

I think that the majority of women are inclined and obviously better physically equipped to nurture, but not all are. Similarly, I think many men can nurture and can be outstanding in this regard, but the majority are not so inclined. For example, men have never been prevented from taking up roles like nursing, and the numbers are increasing, but they aren't all rushing into that profession.

I think we are in a state of change (for the better) where people can aim to make the best of their varied skills without it mattering that the majority of one sex or another usually do such and such. The menz are dinosaurs.

Btw - Menz sites make use of their capacity to rally men together and do parenting courses for youth and similar projects.

Sorry - correction. The last sentence was a question. Why don't Menz sites make use of their capacity to rally men together and do parenting courses for youth and similar projects ? They could do things that are constructive and contributing.

Btw: Hypothetical: What would happen if the courts made a blanket decision that all fathers take custody of the children ?

(It was like that historically and up until the 1960s, in which case a lot of kiddies ended up in foundling homes, orphanages, living with grandmothers; house bound maiden (emphasis on 'maid') aunts and step mothers. It was one of the ways of forcing women to stay; because if she left she'd be denied contact with her children and in any case few women had the earning capacity to support children, though some had no choice and managed somehow.)

However, how would things be different in today's society? There is a shortage of willing grandmother/babysitters and maiden aunts aren't as available. Not a lot of women are keen on taking on another's children and I suspect a parent who dumped their children in an orphanage wouldn't be too well regarded. So what would all the men do with all the children ?

Men: How would you do it ?

I had a good dad. Far too tough by today's standards, but a man to be respected. Rules were rules, and woe betide any of us who got into trouble at school or elsewhere. My parents thought my education was important, BECAUSE dad's sister, a teacher, had had a violent husband - a Changi POW - and she was the breadwinner. I was raised under the traditional role, where mothers looked after the kids, couldn't leave anyway because there was no where to go. Both of them (and us) were highly active in local activities, eg Dad was in the St John's ambulance for 45 years. I was one of the lucky ones. I foolishly thought the world was made up of men and women like my parents. There are still a majority of parents who thankfully can do whats right. They inspire me to do my work with others not so lucky.

Fast forward to today. Families and communities are disintegrating, roles all mixed up. Opportunities and obligations and costs have are increased, kids are in day care routinely. No fault divorce extends divorce rate. Both parents become obligated to financially support their own children after separation instead of the Government paying for all the ones where parents avoided their obligations. (continued)

continued)
In cases today where there is violence and abuse, alcohol & drug related problems in caring for kids, societal systems are frequenty inadequate, selective, secretive. In NSW there is still no 'instruction' to a protective parent in 'what to do' if a child reports abuse or assault and little protective response when they do. If the hairy legged lesbians are so in charge (as alleged) and its all a Marzxist plot, why haven't they made it easier to condemn people who abuse kids to produce a workforce that is functional? Or do lesbians allegedly hate children too?

Answer me this. If your spouse picked up your baby, threatened to drop it if you didn't comply with their demands, is that threat DV or child abuse to you? No marks, no proof. And if you fled with that child, which system do you think would give a damn?

I suspect the spouse would have you in Family Court so fast your head would spin, and they should get 50-50? These are the case BB is on about, the ones where there is a problem for the children. I know she tried to get protective men to join the campaign, for the children, but few did. I hear all this 'false allegation' but little about false denials - the VERY basis of the criminal legal system.

How long must a parent live with this type of threat to harm before they are entitled to say 'enough!' It seems to me by today's cases in FC, the bullying to 'consent' to access that will undoubtedly be unsafe, is what needs to be addresses. Shared parenting ONLY works for the kids when it is child centred.

Cotter. Barbara Biggs is interested ONLY in womens/mothers rights, and in blaming men for ALL child abuse. Take a look at the FB site "safer family law campaign, lets protect our children" which she is an administrator of. Take a look at the "in memorium" on that site. You will note that EVERY instance is of a father committing child murder. There is not a single case mentioned of mother perpetrated child murder, not one, yet there have been dozens of cases of this, many in recent times. Go on, take a GOOD look. Why would any sane man join such a blatantly sexist movement. BB is a hateful creature who is blaming men for everything. The main thrust of this loathsome creatures campaign came after the sad case of Darcy Freeman, yet no mention made of Ms garcia who jumped of the same bridge killing herself and her child only months before, no mention of Yeeda Topham who also jumped from a building in perth killing her child, and this after she was allowed to keep custody after having previously attempting to gas her child. No mention of the woman who gave her 3 children sleeping tablets and tried to gas them, killing 2 of them, just to get back at their father. No mention of Dean Shillingworth who was shaken to death by his mother, then shoved in a suitcase and thrown in a duckpond. I could go on but i think you get the idea. This vile creature is using her position as a journalist to carry out her own disgusting and hateful agenda's against men and is distributing nothing but propaganda designed to get the populace to believe that only men commit such acts. This is the main thrust of her campaign, NOT caring about childrens welfare, which she see's as only secondary.

The focus of the Barbara Biggs campaign is the safety of children after parental separation, particularly from a violent partner. Those who point to mentally ill mothers who kill their children are bringing in a different context of child deaths. Mentally ill mothers who kill their children and/or themselves are not necessarily or usually separated and their behaviour is not shaped by family law proceedings but by their mental illness. This means that there needs to be better mental health supports. The family law centred child killings point to a need for much better assessments in the family law process and decisions which focus on child safety ahead of parental entitlement.

What the current laws dismiss is the documented fact that the biggest predictor of a future relationship between parent and child is how that relationship status was PRIOR to separation. In other words, if a parent, and it is usually the father, is disengaged, disinterested, authoritarian, otherwise pre-occupied and has not established a good relationship with the child prior to separation, then separation will NOT make their relationship a meaningful one. There is no evidence available that suggests that being separated from a former spouse changes the attitudes of the parent to become more caring, nurturing, self-sacrificing and more able to meet the (emotional) needs of the child or children. What is bordering on insanity within the FLC judicial system and the current law interpretation is the dismissing of affidavits from one parent about how the former partner acted and behaved towards the children while they were together. Parents, before even going into court, are consulted in the corridors to come to an "arrangement", one where the caring parent has specifically described, in their affidavit, abusive behaviours towards the children by the other parent, are told to "give something". What's up with that? More consideration needs to be given as to WHY the abusive parent is requesting 50/50 access, while there is pressure on caring parents to give up children to neglectful ex-partners. The law has become a tool used by abusive ex-partners to control their ex-spouses finances by doing two things at once - reducing the amount of child support paid, and forcing legal fees on their ex's.

Severin ~ please read, think about, and understand before shooting off your responses. There are some men who perform caring roles and tasks, in such as hospitals, schools, nursing homes etc. But that is not the same as what I was talking about which is the total emotional and psychological experience of mother and child from conception onwards.

Suxeonline ~ I am an observer of social behaviours and social trends and have read a great deal of sociological literature on changes in human relationships. They were observations not opinions but perhaps you don’t understand the difference. I talk to many young career women and in rapidly increasing numbers they are saying that they enjoy their freedoms, their lifestyles, and their power over their own lives from being single. Just as most males do. Some reach a point when they want a child, but not the baggage that goes with it. (Their words, not mine). All they require is a sperm donor. Traditional subservient and servile `Mums’ are in decline.

Pynchme ~ Your hypothetical question ~ in some parts of the UK e.g. the Channel Islands, that still applies. Fathers are given sole custody of children immediately on separation and mothers have no rights whatsoever. Victorian and archaic but its still happening.

Females have been reviled, denigrated, and defiled by males throughout history as far back as Mary Magdalena through the witchcraft murders of half a million females, so the bitter comments of these few males are but nothing in the present day. Males have jealously guarded their power and control over females and have struck back viciously in times when such power and control have loosened. Hence the constant attacks on feminism as they see this as organised resistance to their domination. Even their religious scriptures keep females in positions of subservience and obedience, and similarly revile them and do not allow them positions of authority within those religions.

Your passivity and reasonableness are commendable but the FR Rednecks are setting the agenda and attacking females with abuse and vitriol at every opportunity and appeasement does not stop tyrants

ChazP

<<< Severin ~ please read, think about, and understand before shooting off your responses. >>>

OK, I tried to present my point of view to you, however with responses like that above I can see that you are no better than Anti-septic, Formersnag or even R0bert (who has yet to stand up to the embittered crowd - I have been around OLO for quite a while R0bert).

ChazP, I disagree with you - get over it. I know that most men are capable of being just as nurturing as women - however, it is generally not encouraged; I know whenever CJ Morgan has clearly put the embittered crowd in their appropriate place, he has been subjected to abuse. No doubt men who seek out caring professions also are bullied - men need emancipation just as much as women. Why should they be forced into alpha macho roles? Most men are just as caring as women, else life would be even more fraught than it already is for women and children. The fact is the majority of relationships work - the abusive and the abused are not the bulk of the population - nor does gender determine whether a person is abusive or not.

You cannot create balance by alienating ALL men, by doing so you divide us all.

I'm not sure who asked me, but I would have no problems with leaving my children with big burly males. Since when did physical appearance determine character? Some of the most significant men in my life have rather resembled giants and some of the most vindictive and manipulative have been of shorter stature.

Back on topic, dividing the lives of children into a 50/50 split to appease the egos of parents is an appalling law and needs immediate change. I agree that a parent who has been disinterested in the care, wellbeing and nurturing of their children are highly unlikely to change their ways at separation with their spouse. Until the needs of children are put before both parents, Family Courts will remain the arena of the embittered of either sex.

Shivers

"More consideration needs to be given as to WHY the abusive parent is requesting 50/50 access" You answered your own question a little later when you talked about money. For as long as child support payments exceed the true cost of looking after children, disinterested parents will fight for as much custody as possible. I don't think that it is helpful to see this as an attempt to control their ex-partner. This stereotype of men as controlling needs to find a home in the same gargbage bin as "women are naturally more caring".

Similarly, these women that Chaz knows who want all of the advantages of a relationship while still wanting the freedom of a single person need to grow up. Do-not encourage this fantasy simply because it is what she wants to hear.

Eyeinthesky.

Spot-on. No wonder men tend to get so defensive. Ms Biggs only damages her own cause by being so sexist.

Benk < "For as long as child support payments exceed the true cost of looking after children, disinterested parents will fight for as much custody as possible. I don't think that it is helpful to see this as an attempt to control their ex-partner."

How does the Family Court work out what payments are fair Benk?
Would any amount of money be a fair amount in the eyes of angry ex-partners? I don't think so.
Wouldn't there be massive protests by the many people affected by these payments if they were truly unfair?

I agree that money is often at the heart of some Family Court issues, however I believe that the parent who has the children for the majority of the time is quite often the poorer financially, unless they have a new partner.

On the other hand, I have known of several parents who baulk at paying anything for child maintenance because they see that money as going to the ex-partner, rather than to the children.

In other words, they would rather not pay anything for their children's upkeep than give it to their ex-partner.
Am I wrong here Benk?

It is a fantasy that child support payments meet even half the costs of children. Let's face it, the 1st $17,000 earnings are not counted and the income assessed is capped at just over 100K, then it is 14% assessed from the remaining income for children 0-12. Any partnered parent who suggested they should only pay the child support assessed amount to their child's costs would find as an average wage earner, that there was still a big gap to pay the mortgage, the school fees, the clothing costs, the medical and dental bills, recreation tickets, uniforms, fees and insurances and feed the child. Splitting the child between parents helps the payer pay less. It doesn't make the actual child cheaper.

Mog, I'm guessing that if both parents still lived with the children, that the cost of rearing the kids would be just as much?

Maybe the difference could be that now the kids get two of everything at birthdays and celebrations, and need two of everything if they are to live in two households?

I think that is a cost that the parents need to bear if they wish to live apart, and should not be counted in the usual calculations of expenses likely to be born by them.

Kids are very expensive to raise these days, whether parents are apart or not.

I'm not familiar with the Act in question, and have not read the report, but I did have a cursory glance at some of the news stories post comments made by the Federal Attorney Guvna.

The issue of misunderstanding appeared to turn on the issue of:

" ... Shared responsibility does not imply shared custody. ... "

i.e. 1 abusive parent may have to $pay$, but does not necessarily get to have any custody rights.

That's quite reasonable to me in my view. Of course, if an honorable other should come along, adoption provisions should be made more reasonable and the abusive partner, if there is one, should have their "rights" extinguished in a prompt and forthright manner.

..

Posted by ChazP, Friday, 12 February 2010 1:19:05 PM
" ... All they require is a sperm donor. ... "

I have no problems with this at all. In fact, I had a mate who used to donate in England, on a monthly basis from memory. He got paid and even got to "view" his choice of "Stick Book" for free, just in case his personal powers of visualisation were lacking or otherwise during process.

(snicker, snicker)

I also think that some Gay & Lesbian people would make fab parents. If the "I" of the individual is respected then to me it follows that part of any determination visa vi custody must be on a individual case by case basis, without gender and sexual orientation bias or an overlay of what does or doesn't constitute a "family."

..

But for those to who it applies, can you point out where exactly the legislation is sexist? Or is it suggested merely that the process of making "Findings of Facts" goes wayward in that there is a perceived bias on part of those making determinations in regard to say, male parents?

'Those who point to mentally ill mothers who kill their children are bringing in a different context of child deaths. Mentally ill mothers who kill their children and/or themselves are not necessarily or usually separated and their behaviour is not shaped by family law proceedings but by their mental illness. This means that there needs to be better mental health supports. The family law centred child killings point to a need for much better assessments in the family law process and decisions which focus on child safety ahead of parental entitlement.'

Basically what I've said all along.

ie. We must look for every opportunity to help and provide more support for the poor mentally ill mothers when they hurt children, but look for every opportunity to separate all fathers from children at any suggestion of even so much as raising their voice at the mother or 'acting their gender'.

The mothers are in need of help and support, and are acting in despair or poor mental health (They obviously love their kids, they're women!), the fathers are in sound mental health and acting in vengeance at being denied some strange notion of 'entitlement' to see (woops Control) the kids they obviously don't love (They're men!). Silly Dads.

When it comes to child support, the supposed Menz groups got nowhere until the second wives added their support. See the second wife wanted her fair share of the hubbies earning power, and could see his ex wife draining the new families money (often while benefiting from a new partner's money).

I've never been in the situation to pay any child support, but I must admit I would be happy as larry to pay direct money to the needs of my children but I'd want proof that the money was going to them and them only. I'd pay above the CSA calculation for control on how the money was spent.

Pynchme,

'If they can't force women and children to do their will, then what else is in them as people fulfilling a masculine role? Menz are just not desirable anymore because women and children can survive, and are often better off, without them BUT MEN of a different type of masculinity are appreciated, loved and cherished.'

I'm not that young and I don't know any of these dinosaur types of men you constantly refer to. It's like you're living in the 1950s or something. The world has changed and moved on and the source of your antagonism just doesn't exist anymore. Which is why you come accross as so bitter and man hating.

You are the feminist lost soldier, who nobody has told that if you'd just step out of the jungle you'd see supermarkets full of caring loving dads pushing around their much doted on offspring while they give mummy a morning off to have some me time. I know a lot of fathers and all of them are in a true partnership with their wives, sharing the burden of caring for the children and earning the family money as best they can and allowing for the needs of both partners.

This gender warfare you describe is internal to yourself.

'I have described my son and his father on these pages and have been told that they're whipped; gay; probably having affairs ..'

Hmmm. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a woman who has spent her life analysing and agonising on every fault of 'men' is probably gonna radically focus her displeasure when she has one localised, all-too-flawed husband to concentrate on.

I reckon the guy must be a sadist. I can imagine it well...

H: 'Oh, honey my hands are full, can you pass me...'

Pynch: What do you think I'm some kind of slave! Using your physical power to intimidate me! Oh, you men, you've been doing this since the year dot. Throughout the ages, women have been abused by you, yes you, you're responsible, be a man and take responsibility!

H: Yes Dear.

Last year (April 2008 to March 2009) ChildLine, the UK's free 24-hour helpline for children and young people, counselled an average of five girls a day (1,986) about sexual abuse by their father. Sexual abuse is still one of the main reasons children get in touch. For many, it is the first time they have told anyone about their ordeal.
Most girls who call ChildLine about sexual abuse are aged 12 to 15 years, but the youngest caller was just five years old. Two thirds (67%) of the girls who call ChildLine about sexual abuse say they have been raped.
One girl, aged just 11, called and said: "I'm scared at home, scared of my dad. I feel angry and sick…he raped me, it just happened. Mum won't believe me. She always believes what Dad says. It happened before when I was six…I want to kill myself."
Another girl aged 14 said: "My dad raped me. It happened last night. It happens whenever he's drunk and when Mum works late. I haven't told anyone. Dad says it isn't wrong to do what he did to me."
In ChildLine terminology, 'sex abuse' includes rape, sexual touching, harassment, indecency, incest, organised abuse. Some children calling ChildLine said they had been raped, others that they had been sexually abused. The ChildLine counsellors make a decision on whether it is rape depending on what has been described to them.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Task Force was one of the first states to document the gender bias against women in family courts. This court-initiated study expressly found that “our research contradicted [the] perception” that ”there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions.” Moreover, it found that “in determining custody and visitation, many judges and family service officers do not consider violence toward women relevant.” The Court’s study further found that “the courts are demanding more of mothers than fathers in custody disputes” and that “many courts put the needs of noncustodial fathers above those of custodial mothers and children.”
- Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts, 24 New Eng.L.Rev. 745, 747, 825, 846 (1990)
The American Psychological Association’s Presidential Task Force on Violence in the Family, the leading review of the research as of 1996, found that men who abuse their partners contest custody at least twice as often as non-abusing fathers. They are even more likely to contest custody if the children are boys.
More recently, and since the evolution and widespread adoption of “parental alienation syndrome,” a multi-year, four-phase study using qualitative and quantitative social science research methodologies by the Wellesley Centers for Women found “a consistent pattern of human rights abuses” by family courts, including failure to protect battered women and children from abuse, discriminating against and inflicting degrading treatment on battered women, and denying battered women due process. Histories of abuse of mother and children were routinely ignored or discounted.
- Wellesley Centers for Women Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project, Battered Mothers Speak Out: A Human Rights Report on Domestic Violence and Child Custody in the Massachusetts Family Courts (Nov. 2002)(hereafter “BMTP”), Executive Summary 2.

A comparable study by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence found that most of the women surveyed felt the history of abuse was not taken seriously and that they were ignored, disrespected and discriminated against by court personnel.
- Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project: A Human Rights Approach to Child Custody and Domestic Violence (June 2003),

ChazP:"the UK's free 24-hour helpline for children and young people, counselled an average of five girls a day (1,986) about sexual abuse by their father."

Given that there are roughly 5.3 million girls in the UK, this figure represents approximately 0.03% of the total number of girls in the UK. If the experience of the NSW Rape Crisis Centre is any guide, at least 50% of the callers will call at least twice, therefore, the number you cite represents about 0.01% of the population of girls.

Thanks for confirming my point that sexual abuse of children is a tiny problem within the community. Meanwhile, here in australia, a girl is about 6 times more likely to experience abuse or neglect at the hands of her single mother than her single father. There are no specific figures available for "women with testosterone".

I see you've been doing your rather limited best to trawl the "I hate men" sites to find obscure "research" to support your "I hate men cos they have testicles and I want them" position. It's quite amusing, in the way that watching a cockroach choking on flyspray gets a giggle...

The Massachusetts report you quote so approvingly was published in 1989 and has been comprehensively debunked as the nonsense it is. I refer those interested to http://tinyurl.com/ycfzqp4.
Suffice to say that as research, the report makes excellent toilet paper.

The APA report you also quote glowingly is a rather difficult document to find, although many versions of its "findings" are available; each rather different from the other. i'll content my7self with pointing out thatit quotes uncritically the false "statistic": "More than one in eight adult women in the United States is raped or sexually assaulted", which has been comprehensively falsified.

The last one specifically used only self-reported "victims", so unsurprisingly found that "all men are bastards". If I did a similar study among self-reported male "victims", I'd no doubt get a result that said (unsurprisingly) "all women are bitches".

Now, don't you have some ironing to do?

Antiseptic ~ Its not often you’re right, but you’re entirely wrong again.!.
The ChildLine figures are not the official statistics in the UK on reported child sexual abuse. Those figures are collected and maintained by the Department of Children, Families, and Schools. The ChildLine figures are only the numbers of children seeking their help and advice and its likely that only a very small proportion of those children are eventually reported to the DCFS as they are not required to disclose personal details. Even with the DCFS a number of informed professional observers in child protective services contend that they represent probably less than 10 per cent of the actual number of children who are sexually abused in the U.K. every year.
So the ChildLine figures have no utility for general comparative statistical purposes and extrapolating them and applying them to the overall population is a futile exercise.

A further correction is that the population of female children under 15 years of age in the U.K. is probably around 4.5 million of which a further third can be eliminated as they are under 5 years of age.

As for the Massachusetts documents of 1990 and 2002, it is only the FR rednecks who claim to hold no credibility in them (for obvious reasons) and their findings have been supported by similar findings in Australian research in recent years into Domestic Violence and Child Abuse as it is viewed by the Family Courts and it is certainly the view of many who are able to closely observe the workings of Australian Family Courts and by the testamentary evidence of many hundreds of Australian women who have encountered the Australian Family Court system. They frequently state that after years of Domestic Terrorism and Abuse they are subjected to similar abuse and even a mental ‘Gang Rape’ by the lawyers and Family Court officials. The 2003 Arizona study also supported the original findings.

I’ll be happy to call the SES to help you to pull your Gumboots out of your mouth!.
Now run along and play with your toys in your Shed.

ChazP:"The ChildLine figures are not the official statistics in the UK on reported child sexual abuse. "

Well done you! knew you'd work that out eventually, although you did need rather a lot of help, didn't you?

chazP:"they represent probably less than 10 per cent "

So you now claim that the rate of sexual abuse in the UK is about 0.1% of girls?

Thanks for continuing to point out that it is a tiny problem for society. You're doing a marveloous job. Really.

ChazP:the population of female children under 15 years of age in the U.K. is probably around 4.5 million"

erm... I suggest you do some research that's more recent than 1989...

At the 2001 census the figures was, as I stated, 5,293,871 females between 0-14. It is no doubt quite a lot higher now, which only makes ny point stronger. Wikipaedia has an excellent discussion on the subject, although you'll probably struggle to grasp it. Perhaps you could ask someone to explain it to you.

The Massachusetts report is not only wrong, it is not applicable to Australia. To quote the link I cited earlier:"the very same data from which this 70% claim was derived also supports the following statement: The rate at which mothers’ requests for sole custody were honored is 65% higher than the comparable rate for fathers’ requests."

As I said, it's a great piece of toilet paper

All of the recent reports into the Family Court found that shared care is working in most cases where it has been granted and that the biggest predictor of a failure of shared care is a vindictive and uncooperative mother.

The CJ herself has said that she is concerned at the number of allegations of violence or abuse that are put forward then dropped. It has become a standard tactic for ambulance-chasing lawyers and dollar-chasing ex-wives to use the claim of violence to place unwonted pressure on the father, usually with no basis in fact.

Now off you toddle and see if you can't find someone to explain all that to you.

'a mental ‘Gang Rape’'
ahahahahaha

I just pissed myself laughing over that one. Nice work!

Antisceptic ~ I must very sincerely applaud your uncanny and incredible ability to write with great authority on matters which you clearly know little, or nothing about. You will note that I said the ChildLine figures are NOT the official figures on child sexual abuse in the U.K. and therefore have no utility in applying them to the general population of female children. So multiplying that figure by ten, has no relevance whatsoever. Duh!.

“The CJ herself has said that she is concerned at the number of allegations of violence or abuse that are put forward then dropped.” ~ the CJ was corrected regarding this comment when she learned that mothers are being advised by their lawyers NOT to raise issues of domestic violence and intra-family terrorism, nor of child abuse because the perverted perpetrator will obviously deny the allegations and as there is unlikely to be corroborative evidence, then such allegations are extremely hard to prove to Family Court Judges, as it will be a case of the child’s word against the abuser's. The benefit of the doubt is always given to the accused. Some Judges will simply refuse to even consider such evidence, or not even allow such evidence to be entered into the Hearing, so if the allegations are thereby unproven then the penalties for such mothers are being made to pay the full costs of the Hearing, imprisonment for refusing contact, and probably the children being removed into the alleged abuser’s care with no contact by the mother. E.g. Darcey Freeman. These punishments have been meted out to several mothers by the Family Courts. Faced with such threats, it is little wonder that mothers decide not to put such abuse allegations by the child forward to the Court.

Houellebecq, - perhaps your mind cannot encompass the fact that there are lawyers who are FR associates, supporters, or sympathisers who take as much delight in degrading, reviling, and defiling females and with the same amount of ferocity and venom as Antisceptic and yourself

ChazP:"they represent probably less than 10 per cent"

ChazP:"multiplying that figure by ten, has no relevance whatsoever. Duh!."

Duh! indeed...

I see you've had trouble finding anyone down at the collective who understands percentages.

ChazP:"if the allegations are thereby unproven then the penalties for such mothers are being made to pay the full costs of the Hearing, imprisonment for refusing contact, and probably the children being removed into the alleged abuser’s care with no contact by the mother. E.g. Darcey Freeman."

Oh dear, where to start?
Firstly, if an allegation of a serious crime such as child sexual abuse cannot be proven, it is mostly because it didn't happen.

Secondly, children are at far greater risk of harm if the father is removed from the picture. Six times greater risk with a single mother than a single father.

Thirdly, there are many, many cases of women making false allegations about abuse, the most recent being Wen vs Denison http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/1251.html
in which the mother was granted sole and exclusive custody after making numerous false allegations despite the Court regarding her as a dishonest and manipulative witness and the father as a caring and decent man who only wanted the best for his kids. The judgement is tragic reading.

Fourthly, point to a single example of the calumnies you mention ever actually befalling a woman who was found to have made false allegations. Your fevered imaginings don't count.

If you'd like to discuss child murder, the figures indicate that Mum does it about as often as Dad and Mum's new boyfriend does it about as much as either of them, which is pretty damn infrequently. Dad's place would be a good safe haven for a lot of abused kids if Mum would only tell them where it is...

Now off you toddle, there's a good girl.

*AntiSeptic*

I am wondering. Are you aware that this place is "public record?"
Am I correct about that anyone?

And, for the record, I did not take offence at *AntiSeptic's* remarks about my alleged "abnormality," but rather interpreted it to mean that statistically speaking my case

(that I related quite openly to everyone as an additional contribution to the discussions in this thread above and beyond what I would normally make)

was off the bellcurve, but still appreciated *SuzeOnLines* in principal defence, especially kind considering that recently I had been unnecessary sharp edged and critical in regards to a particular view that she expressed in relation to "murder and mental health."

This brings me back to *AntiSeptic* If I am correct as above and you can accept that in some cases, financial responsibility should be enforced against some fathers but custody ought be declined, then why is it that you wave the flag one way or another?

Statistics for example are largely irrelevant. These determinations are made on a case by case basis, in light of the evidence accepted in relation to the requirements of the Act.

Now, are you perhaps projecting? Please forgive me if I am a little slow on the uptake, but are your circumstances one of being forced to pay with no custodial rights? Or are you just a flag waiver for a minority group.

Further, are you aware that give the impression of a hostile, antagonistic individual who may be a risk to others? If you carried on like this in the Family Court you would be lucky not to get a restraining order for good measure. Would you care to comment on that?

..

I am of the view that few parents who proceed to litigation understand the effect that it can potentially have on the kids.

Dream On:"I did not take offence at *AntiSeptic's* remarks about my alleged "abnormality,""

That's good, because it wasn't antiseptic who made that remark.

Dream On:"If I am correct as above and you can accept that in some cases, financial responsibility should be enforced against some fathers but custody ought be declined, then why is it that you wave the flag one way or another?"

But I don't accept that. As the law stands at present, a mother can behave abominably, she can lie to the court, threaten her children with abandonment, make false allegations of the worst sort against the father of her children and the Court will still award her sole and exclusive custody.

If a mother goes out of her way to prevent her children from having contact with the father then his financial responsibility must come to an end. The Court in these cases often advises the father to "move on", but how is he to do that if he is financially shackled to a family he is not allowed to have anything to do with?

My view is that the child support act encourages this sort of misbehaviour from mothers because it links the time in care with a financial outcome: more time in her care means he has to pay her more. For some women, that is sufficient incentive to interfere with his time with the kids. It's s zero-sum game, after all: if she gets more, he has to survive on less, so she "wins" all 'round.

Far better to get rid of the ideologically based CS law and replace it with a levy on all taxpayers. Children are a common good not just a private joy and we already spend a huge amount of money on the CSA, mostly to administer collections from the 70% of CSA-collect "paying parents" who are unemployed. We also spend billions annually in the form of courts to oversee the process and the collateral damage that it causes. Get rid of the whole mess and start again if you're serious about reducing conflict within separated families.

Dream On:"Statistics for example are largely irrelevant.These determinations are made on a case by case basis, in light of the evidence accepted in relation to the requirements of the Act."

And what do you think informs the Act? Ms Biggs and a few of her more dysfunctional and innumerate supporters want to "generalise from extremes" to have the Act changed. Their position is that if one child is hurt by a father, then no father should be allowed to have care, but they carefully avoid discussing the fact that giving children to a single mother while removing the father from the picture is the most dangerous thing that a Court can do to a child. If legislation was based on the few extreme examples that they provide it would lead to many, many more children suffering at the hands of abusive mothers and their hangers on.

dream On:"Now, are you perhaps projecting?"

Oh dear. Let's talk about projection, shall we? You say:"I had a bad Dad, therefore all Dads are bad". I say:"sometimes mums do bad things for bad reasons and the kids suffer". Who do you reckon is doing the projecting?

I have discussed my own case ad nauseum. I suggest you look up my posting history if you'd like to know the details.

Dream On:"are you aware that give the impression of a hostile, antagonistic individual who may be a risk to others?"

Are you aware you give the impression of a neurotic individual who just doesn't like men? Gee, this is fun.

BTW, I represented myself in the Family Court and was awarded 50:50 care, despite the best efforts of the mother to paint me as "violent", which is the standard tactic of third-rate lawyers in the FLA, with no evidence whatever other than "he intimidates me". I had to fight both the DVO and the FLA matter and I still got the best outcome for the kids.

That was way back before the Howard reforms too.

Now what was that about "projecting"? Perhaps it's time you tried to reconcile with your father?

Antiseptic.

Section 121 of the FL Act prevents me from naming, for your personal edification, women so affected by abusive court decisions. eg, one's who have been jailed, fined, given a Good Behaviour Bonds for daring to sully the good name of father - which is apparently so very much more acceptably punishable than his rape and sexual abuse of his children. Bit like breaching the 'what happens on tour, stays on tour' rule? wink wink. Or 'No fault divorce'? Do whatever, it's fine with us! Beat up / rape the missus? Move on, get over it we say.

Until the legal system corrects its process to facilitate the evidence of children - wot? listen to children! you say. Never! Whatever next - no doubt because they would be put up to it by their wicked mothers who for some masochistic reason choose to go thru a particularly nasty,demeaning, expensive sequence of processes in the mistaken belief a child is deserving of protection - even from their own fathers. To be faced by a 'self representer' with such confidence - even though I'm thinking it didn't happen in recent times so isnt all that relevent.

Grown men and women seek help from our service because of lives affected by paternal sexual abuse with impacts that seems never ending and heart breaking. Are they all liars? All mislead by wicked mothers? Should we turn them away and say 'shame on you' and 'It was really your mother you liar!'

In your own case your version vascillates between 'we had 50-50, and be damned if I wus gunna pay a cent more than she did', but our kids love us for it (oh, yes, I am paraphrasing) To I beat the lying ex cos she couldn't prove I was intimidating. Yeah - I can see how you'd never try to intimidate.....

And Chazp - you are just being an old meaney sticking up for children. It doesn't matter what you say, the likes of Anti will never hear the cracking sound of the shell of ignorance breaking.

Cotter

Other than yourself, no-one is arguing that genuine cases of child abuse aren't getting investigated. Many women make allegations that appear to be untrue and the debate is over how much benefit of any doubt they should get.

"Until the legal system corrects its process to facilitate the evidence of children." I was unaware that children are unable to testify. In fact, acting as a juror, I listened two children explain in minute detail what their step-father may have done to them.

As for ChazP "breaking ignorance" even his strongest critics would concede that Antiseptic knows quite a bit about family law. He can quote reports and find statistics to back up anything he says. Anti might be obsessed, but he certainly isn't ignorant.

Benk, I am flumoxed by your post
'Until the legal system corrects its process to facilitate the evidence of children." You wrote: I was unaware that children are unable to testify. In fact, acting as a juror, I listened two children explain in minute detail what their step-father may have done to them. 'May have? They dont usually charge on may have. Alleged would be the usual word used.

Children are neither seen, or heard in Family Court. Even the ICL is not obliged to speak to them. At all. What kids may have disclosed to others / specialists/ is often dismissed in FL because the 'accused' wasn't present at the treatment session so wasn't heard. Clinical child psychologist treatment reports are dismissed, and the children Ordered away from any psych support at all. In Criminal court, unless damage has been extreme, it is unlikely a child under 7 will be able to give evidence effectively and participate in cross-examination successfully. It may be MORE likely if there has been another eye witness, even a child. Perhaps that was the case in the matter you heard. So it's not impossible, or never, just unlikely. An accused has the right to answer allegations of when, where, and what he is accused of, and a small child has little capacity to recall exact details, especially in serial abuse cases.

You then wrote
'As for ChazP "breaking ignorance" even his strongest critics would concede that Antiseptic knows quite a bit about family law. He can quote reports and find statistics to back up anything he says. Anti might be obsessed, but he certainly isn't ignorant'.

I say that while you seem impressed by Anti's 'knowledge', I am not - but then my cases are current, now, today. When you sit in the court, you may be surprised at what goes on. Its the difference between 'research' and really happening. But 'just anecdotal - even when you are there.

Posted by benk, Friday, 19 February 2010 3:49:18 PM

" ... even his strongest critics would concede that Antiseptic knows quite a bit about family law. ... "

I can't see any evidence to support that assertion, quite the contrary actually.

Posted by Cotter, Friday, 19 February 2010 4:21:05 PM

" ... I say that while you seem impressed by Anti's 'knowledge', I am not ... "

Neither am I. Actually, I am singularly unimpressed by him.

*AntiSeptic's* rambling, ranting and raving appears to me to be largely devoid of a legal basis. I haven't seen him link any of his rabid accusations to a specific provision of the Act whatsoever, assumabley so that he can inform the nation as to the development of same in the public interest. He does rather seem to be obsessed with a series of irrational "boys versus girls" arguments.

Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 19 February 2010 6:59:00 AM

" ... I had a bad Dad, therefore all Dads are bad" ... "

Actually, I am as stated very fond of my Step Father. I have no time for my bio father whatsoever though. In the company of my school friends growing up, I have been privileged to spend time with many "Father's" of a "Good & Upstanding" nature. You have degenerated into making up facts to support your "views."

Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 19 February 2010 6:59:00 AM

" ... Are you aware you give the impression of a neurotic individual who just doesn't like men ... "

Again, you are making things up to support your assertions, and in this case, clearly it is a matter about which you are obviously incorrect. I am a male and very content being so. I have a number of very close male friends and attend regular "boys only" parties. As opposed to being a Doctor of the Mind , you are perhaps a person in need of a bit of therapy, and ought consider the fact that your behaviors could be having an adverse effect on your kids, though I come to suspect that you are not being entirely honest with us about your own situation.

" ... despite the best efforts of the mother to paint me as "violent", which is the standard tactic of third-rate lawyers in the FLA, ... "

Lawyers do not make a practice (for the most part) of going into court without evidence and or with an intent to mislead.

Whilst I admire tenacity, do you I think perhaps that you are in denial about the real reasons that you lost your family?

cotter:"Section 121 of the FL Act prevents me from naming, for your personal edification, women so affected by abusive court decisions. "

Which is why the FCA publishes its cases on austlii with changed names.

I challenge you to find a single one to support your claim that women are punished for raising allegations. Just one...

Children are most definitely heard in the FCA. My own children's wishes were listened to and heard, which was one of the main reasons for the orders.

cotter:"your version vascillates between 'we had 50-50, and be damned if I wus gunna pay a cent more than she did',"

Oh dear, you're not very clever, are you dear? Must be all that testosterone...

My ex sought over 5 years and several court cases to increase her custody and at the same time lodged several "Change of Assessment" applications with the CSA to try to increase her take from me. she eventually stopped after the last matter was decided because Legal Aid declined further funding on the grounds that she had no sustainable claim.

Since then we have had shared care and it has worked well for the past 5 years or so.

Simple really, so you's best look up ChazP and see if she's managed to find anyone to explain the last simple thing I discussed.

cotter:"my cases are current, now, today."

Except you haven't been able to provide any cases at all, have you? It doesn't matter how recent your hallucination is, it's still just in your own head...

Dream on:"I have no time for my bio father whatsoever"

And you accuse me of "projecting"...

Antiseptic: <"Children are most definitely heard in the FCA. My own children's wishes were listened to and heard, which was one of the main reasons for the orders.">

Yet I believe that contradicts some information that you posted previously. You once described how your 5 year old daughter wouldn't open the door for you because she was afraid you'd hurt her; you blamed your ex I think for that and that you couldn't visit home and school when you wanted.

I am sorry Antiseptic, but I believe that Cotter and DreamOn are trying to help you here. Me too.

Pynchme:"You once described how your 5 year old daughter wouldn't open the door for you because she was afraid you'd hurt her"

I said no such thing. Stooping to outright lies is beneath even you. As for not being able to visit the ex's home or school, that was because I was slapped with an interim DVO, based on an affidavit which contained not a single instance of actual violence, as the very nice police DVLO who gave it to me was quite happy to tell me.

An interim DVO is that it does not require an actual violent incident to justify being issued. All it takes is a woman saying "I feel scared", and as you have already told us that feelings are irrelevant, you must agree that is pretty flimsy grounds. It then has all the force of a Court-issued order until a Court rules otherwise.

I note that the lesser lights of the "women with testosterone" brigade are still on their "antiseptic's a man and he has equal custody so he must be an extra superduper bastard" kick.

Have fun dears. While you're trawling the rather limited depths of your imagination in an effort to slander me, kids are still 6 times more likely to be harmed if given to a single mum than a single dad. My own kids have never been abused, neglected or assaulted in any way except by the nasty efforts of their mother to drag their father through the muck.

Given that most of you make your living out of having a constant supply of victims to milk, it's hardly surprising you're desperate to have the kids given to single mum.

Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse...

<"Pynchme:"You once described how your 5 year old daughter wouldn't open the door for you because she was afraid you'd hurt her"

I said no such thing. Stooping to outright lies is beneath even you.">

<"pynchme:"If people are married, and the woman leaves -why would she need to pretend to be in danger or hurt?"

Because if she does so, she can get an enormous amount of additional State-provided assistance to victimise the former spouse. try having police called because you try to visit your child's school - that happened to me. Try being at work and having the police turn up "to investigate a complaint". that happened to me too. Try arriving to give your child a birthday present and having that 5 year-old child refuse to open the door "because Mummy says you might hurt me", with Mum hiding just out of sight. Also happened to me.

As I have said repeatedly and as the Court finally accepted, there was no violence ever perpetrated by me, just mutually raised voices in argument. No threats were made, no hand was ever raised.">

etc

Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 15 June 2009 6:27:08 AM

I wish I didn't have to push your own words at you Antiseptic. I remembered our earlier exchange when you were describing your separation situation earlier in this thread.

However, while remarks about your own situation are harmful to yourself and I wish you didn't suffer so through your own obstinacy; the unfounded comments you repeat often about single mothers and your opinion that child sexual abuse is a rare event are worse because they harm others, for no reason other than your desire for revenge.

Like another poster (Cotter I think), I can't talk about cases, but I see people every day who have experienced child sexual abuse. About 5 % of boys and girls suffer terribly because of it. As long as you keep advocating to hide it on behalf of people who perpetrate, it will be unlikely to stop.

Pynchme - you have to realise that it is perfectly legitimate for men to intimidate women and children, so long as they don't use actual physical violence. How else are we going to keep them in line?

Hell, without the lurking spectre of violence in the background, we might have to talk to and negotiate with them. It would be the end of the traditional family.

Of course, we only rarely actually "raise a hand" to our errant spouses. I don't know why you feminists make such a fuss ;)

Antiseptic stated:

<<<< based on an affidavit which contained not a single instance of ACTUAL violence >>>>

CJ you're right. I think Anti wants a medal.

CJ

"you have to realise that it is perfectly legitimate for men to intimidate women and children, so long as they don't use actual physical violence."
Maybe some blokes do make an effort to be intimidating without being violent. Many other blokes make no effort to frighten women into compliance and no impartial observer would claim that her fear is well justified. She will still get an AVO anyway.

"How else are we going to keep them in line?"
Couples have arguments. Men have a right to attempt to get issues resolved in a way that meets their needs. It is only when they use violence or intimidation that they step over the line. Many people describe any effort to ask her to change as controlling behaviour and this attitude is decidedly unhelpful.

"Hell, without the lurking spectre of violence in the background, we might have to talk to and negotiate with them. It would be the end of the traditional family."
Without all of the free kicks that the legal and family court system gives women, they might actually need to negotiate and compromise. Nah...much easier to just use the power they have been given.

Antiseptic, i see that in their, bizarre hast, to defame you, the loony, left, radical, extremist, lesbian, feman-nazi paedophiles and their "male apologist" backers, are not, however proudly boasting about the article in today's Courier Mail, page # 19. "MUM FOUND GUILTY" by Tristan Swanwick. Hmmm, an "evil male" journalist maybe that's where the fair, balanced reporting came from, for once.

"A WOMAN who gassed HER two children to death as an act of revenge against HER ex-husband has been found guilty of murder.

THE WOMAN, 43, from Sandstone Point, near Bribie Island, had pleaded not guilty in a Brisbane Supreme Court to two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

The court was told that in November 2002, THE WOMAN gave HER son, 8, daughter, 10, and HER 16 year old mentally disabled son crushed up sleeping tablets in glasses of milk.

SHE told them they were "going for a drive", but SHE returned shortly after the children had fallen asleep.

THE WOMAN, who cannot be named, (oooh, no public, naming and shaming of a convicted child murderer or abuser, i wonder who's idea that was) ran a piece of garden hose from the car exhaust pipe into the cabin and locked HERSELF and HER children inside the car.

The two youngest children were found dead of carbon monoxide poisoning several days later.

THE WOMAN and HER teenage son left the garage and were found alive but unconscious inside their home.

Defence barrister Craig Chowdhury told the jury the fact THE WOMAN had killed HER two youngest children and attempted to kill HER teenage son was not disputed.

However, he said THE WOMAN had been suffering from a "major depressive disorder" that seriously impaired HER ability to think or act rationally.

He asked the jury to find HER not guilty under the laws of diminished responsibility.

Prosecutor Simon Bain told the jury THE WOMAN had undergone an acrimonious separation from HER husband in 1997 and they had since been embroiled in CUSTODY and PROPERTY disputes in the FAMILY COURT.

THE WOMAN was further angered when HER...

The only reason she can't be named is because she is a woman and therefore protected. I note that Mr Freeman has had his name constantly plastered everywhere and he hasn't even been convicted yet. And of course little mention of HIS mental state at the time, or any suggestion that he might be found guilty because of diminished responsibility.

..."ex-husband began seeing another woman in 1999.

BTW apologies for earlier mistake. Prosecutor Ms Simone Bain (female) said the pair's relationship improved briefly in November 2001 before it again deteriorated.

She said THE WOMAN began planing HER children's deaths in October 2002 after a Family Court ordered the man be given custody on Christmas Day.

"SHE stated that SHE would rather see the kids dead than let him have them," Ms Bain said.

"At the end, the defendant was so angry and bitter towards HER ex-husband that SHE committed the ultimate act of hate."

The jury retired about 11:20am yesterday and took six hours of deliberation to reach their verdict.

They found HER guilty on all charges.

Justice McMurdo adjourned sentencing until Wednesday.

Under Queensland law a conviction of murder attracts an automatic sentence of life in prison." (i wonder which gender jihadist's pushed for that change in law?)

ChazPropaganda, single mum, suzeonline, Severin, Cotter, pelican, we are unique, mog, sharkfin, C J Morgan, Pynchme, shivers, care to comment, ladies, or are you going to continue with "the truth, the half truth and nothing but the spin doctoring, raving, ranting, dogmatic, rhetoric, emotive personal abuse, etc. Perhaps you would like to wait till after sentencing, but there is plenty of time available, before then to get some deliberate, premeditated lies in?

Gentlemen, maracas1, partTimeParent, Antiseptic, benk, Howler, skeptic, dane, mikk, RObert, eyeinthesky, anybody offering odds on the likelihood of further commenting, or do you think the girl's will continue, finding some truths, a little too, inconvenient?

BTW Anti, i notice that as usual, when some of them attack you, personally, "with rubbish", that you, "laugh it off", like the rest of us. Whereas they, engage in the usual vicious, verbal, violence after you and others have posted fair, reasonable, opinions backed with good science.

This discussion has like so many promising discussions before, degenerated from sensible debate and then into provocative attacks and ultimately into an ugly mud-slinging gender brawl. Rather than a search for solutions to the lunacy of Family Court decision-making processes, which would hopefully improve the situation of hundreds of children who are forced into residency and contact with toxic and dangerous parents. I am therefore leaving the discusssion and no doubt you will find ample opportunity in my leaving to continue to hurl your insults and abuses. Good wishes boys and I do hope you will eventually find some happiness in your poor sad empty lives.

Chaz

We are happy to discuss solutions, but you may not like what we come up with. The simplest way to reduce child abuse is shared parenting. It reduces the amount of stress on the parent with most custody and ensures that the children have two networks of adults keeping an eye on them. Child abusers choose children that few adults spend time with.

Lowering child support payments is another step foward. It ensures that parents want to spend time with their kids for the right reasons, not simply to save money.

BTW Don't think we haven't noticed the amount of ill-will coming from your direction. In future, you might consider making actual specific suggestions and providing a rationale for them.

Pynchme, in your zeal, you seem not to have noticed one little thing: my child was not afraid of me, but was doing the mother's bidding. The abuser was the mother, both for telling my children the lie that I was likely to hurt them and even more so for forcing the child to act as a mouthpiece for her while she hid behind the door. No doubt you think that makes her heroic.

You wouldn't know child abuse if you fell over it while it was happening.

Pynchme:"Like another poster (Cotter I think), I can't talk about cases, "

And like Cotter, that's because they don't exist except in your twisted mind. You're not only no sort of professional mental health worker, you're nothing but a liar and a fraud.

You offer nothing of interest, say nothing worth listening to, give no genuine information, have no knowledge, provide no insight. You're a waste of oxygen.

No wonder the Pomeranian wants to hump your leg and the "women with testosterone" want to give you a hug (or whatever it is they give each other - probably herpes).

Was that better, Formersnag?

Benk, your summary is spot on. There is an enormous disparity between the power of women and men to call on the help of the State.

That has lead to very real disadvantage for men, especially low-income men with poor educations, who appear in the Court. As a member of this forum told me privately, "if it was that bad for a well-educated, well-connected man like me, it must be terrible for a yobbo in a blue singlet"

It has also lead to a massive number of single mother households from which Dad is excluded, which has lead to many more kids being placed at risk.

If the victim-riders were serious, they'd be pushing for more shared care, instead of trying to create more victims to ride. As pynchme has shown, they are all about themslves, the kids are just a means to an end and if Mum does the abusing, they simply can't see it.

Anti. Apart from placing more children at risk of abuse and neglect, it is also producing huge numbers of dysfunctional children who don't have a father in their lives to give them the discipline and guidance which is traditionally the responsibility of the father. I believe studies in the US have shown that over 70% of children and young adults that go through the criminal/legal system come from homes where there is no biological father figure. Perhaps our own government should do some studies here on that subject. The social engineering agenda's of the extreme feminist groups [ as opposed to mainstream feminism] is slowly but surely leading to the breakdown of our society. These modern day feminist extremists are more interested in stripping men/fathers of their rights than furthering their own.

eyeinthesky: <"I believe studies in the US have shown that over 70% of children and young adults that go through the criminal/legal system come from homes where there is no biological father figure.">

At least one million children (19%) of a total of 3-4 million aged 0-14, living with one parent.

"The number of children living with one parent is projected to increase to between 1.4 and 2.1 million in 2026 (up from 1.3 million children in 2001)."
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3236.0Media%20Release12001%20to%202026?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3236.0&issue=2001%20to%202026&num=&view=

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3236.0

There are approx. 24,000 prisoners Australia wide - 20% indigenous and about 7% female.

Even IF what you're saying (using US Menz site statements and, as usual, poorly founded) were true - that would mean that criminal behaviour of less than 18,000 of 1,000,000 young people may be attributed to being raised by a sole parent.

Btw: the highest proportion of male and female criminals in Australia exists in the NT (at 942.9 per 100,000 adult population, compared to the nation average of 290.8 per 100,000 adult population), where
"Unlike other states and territories, the Northern Territory has more lone male households (8,000 in 2001) than lone female households (5,000 in 2001)." - but nevermind, since household type and criminality is a correlation (and a weak one) in a range of factors - the strongest of which is poverty. Others include the amount of conflict and violence to which the child is exposed and mother's educational level.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ExjWDtstbQYC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=fatherlessness+and+criminality&source=bl&ots=UOGLLFtHpa&sig=oSJaV5oSbF9aQYi8wb1I7Ogcgg4&hl=en&ei=Dp6AS6z6DI2AsgOppeXrAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=criminality&f=false

In any case, as Michael Kimmel points out, comparing single parent households to two person households for the purposes of determining factors leading to criminality is a false comparison - the comparison should be made between single person households where the children grow up fine, and single person households in which a criminal develops.

There have always been fatherless households either through war, abandonment or natural attrition.

Antiseptic: I understand how much rage you must be experiencing especially to be pantzed in public. I'm sorry but given your stance and this particular medium of exchange for responding to that; it's unavoidable.

You can dress it up all you like, but the raw data speaks for itself. Why would you not support studies done in australia to identify this problem. Would you?. I note that you people constantly criticise us using the WA figures on child abuse and neglect, yet despite attempts to get released the figures of other states under FOI, those states have by and large refused to do so.WHY?. Would you support our fight for the release of all relevent data on this subject?. And if not why not.

eyeinthesky: <"but the raw data speaks for itself.">

You didn't supply any. However, statistics for Australia refute your claim by a landslide.

I don't know who you're referring to as "you people constantly criticise us" and in "... you don't support release of figures under FOI". This all sounds a bit dramatic.

What figures is it that you're seeking and WHO is refusing to give them to you? What study has been proposed that's been refused data? Have you any PROOF of what you're saying?

I support any research related to child abuse. I despise any child abuser regardless of sex.

Btw - nobody can stop you doing research on this topic. Why don't you and some of your cohorts get busy with it. Or is it more of a situation of you not knowing how to proceed?

pynchme, you are, as usual, unable to grasp basic statistics.
Firstly, many (most) minor criminal offences do not attract a prison term. For example, wilful damage; minor theft such as shoplifting; even quite serious theft if there is no aggravating circumstance; some forms of white collar crime, such as stealing as an employee; fraud, except for serious fraud; minor assaults, for a first offence at least; etc, etc, etc, do no normally attract jail sentences. They are all at very high rates among children of single parents.

See http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2008/1%20recorded%20crime.aspx for more data and do get someone to explain it to you, won't you?

Perhaps they might explain to you at the same time what constitutes abuse of a child, since you obviously have no idea on that subject either.

That report says that in 2007 (the latest figure) there were 282 homicides, 176,427 assaults, 19,781 sexual assaults, 17,988 violent robberies and 730 kidnappings, as well as 248,423 "unlawful entry with intent" (burglary), 70,650 motor vehicle thefts and 492,222 other thefts.

The same report shows that for every age group, male victims of assault outnumber female victims, despite the broadening of terms which has meant many more females complaining they were assaulted merely because they got into an argument. Male victims of robbery also outnumber female victims by a huge margin. 69% of unarmed robbery victims were male against just 26% who were female.

Frankly, you're nothing but a ninny who doesn't know her arse from her elbow, but knows that "all men are bastards".

As eyeinthesky said, the rising number of single-mother households has correlated quite well with crime rates. Whether there is causation is something that has not been studied.

As the ABS points out "Over the last two decades, one-parent families increased substantially as a proportion of all families with children under 15 years. In 1986–1988, one-parent families accounted for 14% of such families on average. The proportion increased to an average of 20% in 1996–1998, reached 23% in 2002–2004 and then fell slightly to 22% in 2004–2006." and

[cont]

The AIC report I referenced above shows in chapter 1, figures 3 and 4 that both violent and property crime rates have followed quite a strikingly similar curve.

So there is prima facie evidence to support your claim, eyeinthesky. Other statistics have already shown the protective effect of a biological father being close to the children, so it's interesting to see it confirmed from yet another angle.

pynchme:"I despise any child abuser regardless of sex."

But you wouldn't know a child abuser if she's female. You don't have the capacity to do so, because you're so fixed on the idea that women are only ever victims, never perpetrators of abuse. You're a fraud.

How do you reckon my 5 year old son felt when he had to watch through a security door while his Dad left his birthday present on the steps and went away without giving him a hug and a kiss for his birthday?

Yes, I am angry. I'll be angry about that for a very long time. The fact that you can't understand why makes you sociopathic as well as stupid.

Antiseptic

Do you treat the women in your life with the same dismissive contempt you use on the female posters on this forum?

I don't doubt Pynchme's sincerity regarding fair custody arrangements for children, that she puts children's needs first and that she is appalled by child abuse irrespective of whether the abuser is male or female.

You place yourself in judgement of all females here, can't take it when you in turn are judged - claiming Pynchme wouldn't recognise that a woman can be an abuser - what complete nonsense.

For all of your writing here - and you are very articulate, nothing appears in your posts about the well-being and best outcomes for children - generalisations like claiming all single mothers are bad is not in anyone's interest. Yet that is all you continue to do.

And you wonder why you are called anti-woman - when have you tried to discuss instead of deride?

Severin
I was about to contribute to this discussion but your last post has convinced me it is a waste of time discussing the reality,s of Family Law with people that refuse to be objective.
No wonder antiseptic et al reply so aggressively.
It is like a discussion about alcohol with an abstainer or drugs with a prohibitionist.
No discussion at all.
Fathers have been shafted by Family Law in this country and around the western world ,to the detriment of children, for far too long.
Generalisations are one thing but when out and out lies and screwing of data is used to justfy your position expect no favour or respect.
We all have barrows to push but one wonders what is achieved by shooting the people that point to the obvious flaws of the system.

Antiseptic, the figures that you've given are for the number of offences perpetrated by people of all ages and both sexes, rather than the number of offenders.

I provided a link to a book so that you could read the information there about all the factors that contribute to adolescent crime. I used numbers of people incarcerated because they have already been convicted (all other figures include allegations).

If one wants to look at number of offences, then one needs to also look at victim surveys and to consider the rate of offences per 100,000 of population over time. If you do that, you'll find that property crimes of all sorts, including B & E, have decreased (despite an increase in relative poverty), as have homicides, while assaults (all sorts) have increased in terms of police involvement (includes alleged as well as proven). HOWEVER, the victims surveys have maintained about the same level of reported victimization. This means that some proportion of the increase can be attributed to increased reporting.

Even so, there has been an overall reduction in crime during the past 20 years or so (well, graduating downward and stablized at the same rate for the past 7-8 years):

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2008/4%20selected%20offender%20profiles.aspx), though whether that trend will be maintained one can't tell.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB39.pdf/$file/BB39.pdf

<"Since 1999–2000, offender rates of males in the 10- to 14-, 15- to 19-, and 20- to 24-year age groups have decreased by a quarter or more.">

Even if we pick one of the highest rates of any age group at around 8,000 per 100,000 of population of that age bracket - that is 8 in 100. How many of those 100 live in single parent households? If we consider all male offenders of all ages, the rate per 100,000 is more like 4 - not even that.

This is all presuming that eye's statement is accurate - no evidence has been presented that it is. Even IF 3/4 of criminals did come from single parent households, that doesn't mean that 3/4 of all single parent households produce a criminal.

styx - the flaws in the system are apparently in the eye of the beholder. We need to rely on whatever data is available to us and make the best assessment of the situation that we can. I can't help the data being what it is. Do you think I should lie about it to appease Antiseptic and whomever?

Severin:” Do you treat the women in your life with the same dismissive contempt you use on the female posters on this forum?”
Not at all: I don’t associate with nitwits IRL. Sadly, it’s a bit hard to escape you here.
Severin:” And you wonder why you are called anti-woman”
I spend a great deal more time wondering how people like you manage to feed themselves without a handy teat to suck on. You’re obviously incapable of rational thought, so getting together a meal must be a real struggle.
Styx:” Fathers have been shafted by Family Law in this country and around the western world ,to the detriment of children, for far too long.”
And the victim-riders who make their living out of “helping” children need a constant supply of fresh victims, so they do their best to ensure the situation continues. It’s all about making “work” for themselves; every child damaged is money in the bank.
Pynchme, thank you for the NSW lawlink report. Have a look at Figure 4, which is the robbery rate. It shows the same correlation with single-mother households as the AIC one does. The assault rate continues to climb in NSW.

Moreover, if one looks at the historical data, there is reasonable correlation with the crime rate and the rate of single-mother households. Let’s not forget that they have been with us in large and generally increasing numbers since the 70s, so it is to be expected that some of those damaged children of single mothers are now damaged adults and committing crimes to survive.

Rates of juvenile crime as a proportion of the total population are decreasing, because there are fewer juveniles within the population, proportionally. Rates within the age group, however, have increased.

Pynchme:” there has been an overall reduction in crime during the past 20 years or so “
What are you on? None of the reports say anything like that. We already knew you were dishonest and sociopathic, there’s no need to keep showing us.

The rest of your post is deluded.

Puynchme
Dont lie but how about being subjective.

FL in Aust has been an exercise in financial aggression tempered with sexism.

When you can display an unbiased opinion on that I may consider that you have the right to make comments about childrens relationship with their parents.

I cant believe we're still going.

Still putting antiseptic on trial, charged with being am abusive husband and father. All because he doesn't agree any bloke accused of being abusive should be stripped of any access to kids, and believes in a starting point of shared custody.

pynchme I thought a feminists would be all in favour of shared parenting. I mean, I get that in the feminists eyes any man who is accused of abuse is guilty as he's just acting his gender, and any women accused of abuse is innocent (She's a nurturing mother!) and even if guilty just needs help and support for her mental illness and addiction problems.

But on a higher level, don't feminists want men to share the burden of child raring? Don't you want more house husbands and women providers? Don't you want it recognised that men should be capable of bringing up children? Don't you want the stereotypes of gender roles to be crushed, allowing women to take on all those CEO jobs while their husbands stay at home.

Well, this is the start. Recognising men's equal rights to be primary carers, or at the very least 50% responsible for the caring and bringing up of children, rather than just a pay packet.

Don't you want men to be able to break out of their gender role of outward aggression. To help them, allow them to show weakness so they can get help for their mental illness and addiction problems like women can, rather than just hardening them further by breaking the emotional ties they have with their children, making them even more angry and frustrated.

Or do you rather just want to continue the propaganda that men are just naturally controlling and violent to further your goals of maintaining the abusive man/victim woman dichotomy?

Yay! Antiseptic, Finally, inside the drivel, selective stats, ignorance, pontification, love of your own voice, adulation of those who know even less, abusing those who know more - you were right!

There are more male victims of violence - by males.

Even if your narrow ideology can only extend to concern for males, is placing a boy-child with a dangerous, abusive, drug-using, alcoholic PARENT OK? If you could move that far this discussion might have a point.

The BB campaign was only EVER about children's safety and the way these types of cases were being treated in the FMC and the FC, twist it as much as you like. Shared care may work in the 80% of cases where courts are not needed and I applaud that. I doubt it's going to be in the child's best interest always but whats a few more tragedies hey?

All the recent studies identified that the laws were not working for children where violence had been or was a factor. I'm not going to quote the studies - look them up and read them.

While you and your backscratchers applaud each other on your feeble posts, who is looking after the abused children? Or is it a case of 'I'm alright Jack' so too bad, because 'she dun me wrong is my life's theme song!

Thank you for calling me a feminist. A badge I wear with pride. It doesn't mean that I agree with any or everything all women do, and it doesn't mean I engage in this obviously terrifying 'I hate men' threat you throw at us. If it took feminists to identify violence and abuse was unacceptable, good on them. And as for us being paedophiles - did you watch Four Corners last night? Not a single mum in sight.

Or am I now to be castigated for my attemtps to discover whether you have any sympathy for any victims of abuse and crime in your quest to denigrate these alleged 'victim-riders' - those people who after centuries of unpaid work, may now receive payment. Wicked folk, damn feminists.

Goodness gracious me, what have I wrought here on OLO?

I criticised a male while being female.

How could I have not known my place, remained (as all good women should) silent and not comment on Antiseptic's predictable generalisation on the behaviour of women? I am sure that in Anti's 'real' life the women-folk know their place.

When will I learn that all women simply want to leech off men, produce children for their personal use and abuse and generally bring about the apocalypse of the human race? Because that is the only explanation for this appalling female behaviour - women don't want the human race to continue.

Fortunately Antiseptic has his pals, most recently, the outraged Styx, to put yours truly, that pesky femme, in her place. Seems that Styx has never heard a women present her honest opinion before and such revelation has been a massive shock.

If only I could learn to shut the fcuk-up and not be outraged when single mothers are continually targeted as the bane of all human enterprise. I should not point out that children are hurt by the parental tug-of-war by an adversarial court system which fails in its duty of care to children. Nor should I opine that continual denigration of either sex for real or perceived failings helps no-one, least of all our children.

Nor should I hint that Antiseptic never, ever presents any women in a positive light - except for those in his 'real' life apparently.

I am a bad, bad girl to have the temerity to present my point of view AND question that of a man's.

Guess I'll never learn my place.

Therefore, I can only conclude, Anti & pals, get over it, not everyone sees the world the way you do, some of us realise that there is good and bad in everyone, that both sexes have their human flaws and strengths.

Cheers m'dears

Severin

"I am a bad, bad girl to have the temerity to present my point of view AND question that of a man's."

It must be handy to have a general purpose comeback like that. You don't need to generate a counter-argument, instead you just attempt to put men in a position where we appear sexist for disagreeing with any woman. This tactic will do nothing to resolve issues.

"some of us realise that there is good and bad in everyone, that both sexes have their human flaws and strengths." Why then do we tend to position men as villans and women as victims. Why are allegations of child abuse overwhelmingly used to disadvantage men? Too hard? Just come up with something like "I am a bad, bad girl to have the temerity to present my point of view AND question that of a man's."

Oh Severin!

How stupid are you! You and your type can just NEVER blame a woman, ever , no matter what they do! Can you! The boys say so so it must be right! When they gave you TWO sides to your brain, you have the secret weapon they hate.

Why there was a case last week that one on the nongs used to show our bias because it hadn't been introduced to the list - where a mother killed her family. You cannot be female and anti violence, because that is translated to female = antimale. And 'septic is in charge of thinking so I'm glad you've 'accepted' that.

You are going to be called an apologist for women's violence, no matter the circumstances - yet these same nongs can't imagine how the criminal system actually works - talk about apologists for violence! -cos they read it in a newspaper, or sat on one trial (and obviously are far more knowing than we plebs. They know - ignorant as little piggies. Can't get them to comprehend that false denials = much of criminal law and Family Law, plus the completely out-of-balance victim-offender rights. Because they know! They are all-knowing. Why they manipulate stats as good as anyone (with half a brain)

That then apparently proves The Family Courts are wickedly anti male (sigh) and no one will believe you because you are a wikkid, feminist, female,

So I'm glad you have admitted your flaws. Mea Culpa
Lets get out of here - looking for a teat - OMG what an indicator of the depths of nongness.

Cotter:"There are more male victims of violence - by males."

And there are more child victims of violence - by females. Glad to clear that up for you.

Cotter:"is placing a boy-child with a dangerous, abusive, drug-using, alcoholic PARENT OK?"

Quantify the question? How dangerous, abusive in what way, what sort of drug and how much and how dependent, alcoholic by whos definition?

What actual evidence is there of any of those things? What is the nature of the evidence? Is there prior "form" for any of the allegations, such as assault charges, arrests for drug offences, drink driving record?

Is it just Mum claiming these things about Dad in the context of a divorce, with no evidence? How do the kids feel about it? How do we know? What does the accuser stand to gain, if anything?

It's not as cut and dried as the "women with testosterone" would like to make it. Statistically, children are much safer with their father close to them and involved than if Mum is given sole and exclusive custody. when Dads have the kids by themselves, they are much less likely to harm them than Mum is: about 6 times less likely, according to the ABS.

IOW, if the Court is to err on the side of caution, it should give majority care of the children to their father, with their mother kept on a short leash.

cotter:"I'm not going to quote the studies "

Well that's hardly surprising: they don't support your claim. i have read them and they all recognise that shared care works well and that there is less violence reported in shared care situations than otherwise.

Where they don't work is where one parent, usually the mother, sabotages them.

Severin:"Baa baaa antiseptic baaaaaa"

Cotter:"baaaaa baaaa grrrrl"

Good to see the standard being maintained, ladies.

Antiseptic is restating the same completely unfounded 'information' that he has constructed before.

Women are responsible for about 3/4 or more of child care. Here is some data on who has done what circa 2005:

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

In one of my main occupations, I work with people - male and female at approximately 55/45 - about 75% of whom have suffered serious childhood abuse. Many are victims of more recent abuse - for example, male on male rape. By far and away males (often but not always biological fathers) are the most frequent perpetrators. I also meet a fair share of dysfunctional mothers, but (except for a couple over more than a decade) they are not identified as perpetrators by my clients.

I have no trouble with believing that there are female abusers but it just so happens they are fewer or most of the abuse they do perpetrate results in less severe long term pathology. There are exceptions of course - women are capable of great evil; there is no doubt of it. However, the statistics demonstrate that the more lethal the abuse, the more likely it is that the perpetrator is male.

That's just how it is.

One thing I don't understand is why saying that men commit more violence than women is taken as a sign of hating all men. How is it that men are apparently unable (at least on this forum) to distance themselves from men who are abusive ? How is that men on this forum are unable to express disapproval of any male abusers ?

Pynchme

<<< One thing I don't understand is why saying that men commit more violence than women is taken as a sign of hating all men. How is it that men are apparently unable (at least on this forum) to distance themselves from men who are abusive ? How is that men on this forum are unable to express disapproval of any male abusers ? >>>

A few men do (express disapproval), but most of the reasonable stay clear of these threads - for good reason - there is no reasoning with someone who resorts to bleating like a sheep when cornered into an inarguable position.

I find it interesting that, as in the past (prior to the 50/50 custody requirement), the same percentage (80%) of separations and divorce amicably and parents manage to move on with their lives.

Also interesting is that Antiseptic himself makes the point that overall in crime statistics, men are more likely to be victims - yet fails to acknowledge that men are also more likely to be the perpetrators.

Finally, however, none of this mudslinging achieves anything positive for abused children or other victims of crime. I am not sure how the likes of Anti, Formsnag or even Benk hope to achieve a good outcome for the lives of children and other victims of abuse, while they insist on placing ALL the blame on women.

A couple of years ago I was having the same argument with Anti (under a different moniker - OLO not capable of resurrecting a previous incarnation) and he has not managed to progress. Still bitter.

Part of the problems for Family Law (and they are legion) is that one cannot legislate against antipathy and vengeance. So for the 20% of cases that wind up battling over the well-being of their children, it is tragic when people cannot put their differences aside and work on what is best for the children which may or may not be a 50/50 custody arrangement.

pynchme,

' How is it that men are apparently unable (at least on this forum) to distance themselves from men who are abusive ? How is that men on this forum are unable to express disapproval of any male abusers ?'

I just think it is something you'll never understand as you're female. You'll never understand what it's like to be constantly under suspicion, why men are reticent to be primary school teachers, what it feels like to be the victim of domestic violence in a world that says just for being in that situation you must have been the aggressor. To understand the 'best thing for the children' so neatly corresponds with business as usual for a woman (Same house, little less income) and a world turned upside down for a man (1 bed flat, see kids every other weekend, double the bills) after marriage breakup.

I sum it up the way I heard a black person once say on TV. 'Acting your color'. Well men are quite often thought to be 'acting your gender'.

I think most men on here just want to have the male abuser/ female victim dichotomy broken down. To have men abusers treated as someone who needs help like a female abuser is treated, rather than the lowest of the low needing punishment. People like you are so threatened by that happening. I wonder why that is.

The tactics you use are commonplace.

Misogynist Male Abuser: Wants recognition that the majority of violent domestic disputes involve two violent partners, and want the subject tackled in a way that doesn't make it always the mans fault, as portrayed in every domestic violence campaign.

Sweetness and light pynchme: 'You are minimising violence against women! You are pro-violence! Hell, since you are rude on an internet forum, I think you're probably a wife beater! What have you got to hide? If you're conscience is clear you wouldn't be so defensive! In fact you're male, denounce violence at once, just like all Muslims should denounce Terrorism.

Pynchme: << How is it that men are apparently unable (at least on this forum) to distance themselves from men who are abusive ? How is that men on this forum are unable to express disapproval of any male abusers ? >>

Yeah well, some of us do. However, I usually tend to point out the most egregious examples of misogynist drivel that emanates from the B&T sad sack brigade, and then leave them to hurl abuse at me. As Severin says, there's little point in trying to reason with losers who can only resort to animal metaphors and other puerile insults.

In any case, I think it's mostly troll-feeding when it comes to the gender wars that these inadequate men insist on perpetuating any time a gender-related issue comes up at OLO. They wouldn't carry on in real life the way they do here anonymously because most men and women would just laugh at them, so any response at all to their online whingeing and moaning just encourages them.

CJMorgan:"there's little point in trying to reason with losers"

Which is why nooone bothers trying to reason with you, little fella, you're just not equipped.

I do hope that was "abusive enough for you, little fella, we wouldn't want you feeling as though you'd answered the whistle for nothing.

Severin:"they insist on placing ALL the blame on women. "

you just don't get it, do you? ALL the blame has been placed on ALL men while the greater part of child abuse and neglect is carried out by women. When that is pointed out, one of the grrrls brigade, usually pynchme, will jump in with a 20 year old statistic that's supposed to show that women have good reason to abuse their kids and that all men are bastards anyway, so it's men's fault, so there.

When that is shown to be the rubbish it always was, it's time for the "anti-anti"posts. If only they weren't so devoid of either content, intelligence or humour...

My aim is and always has been to point out that the focus on "male abuser/female victim" is at best a sop to the weak-minded female sheep who infest the bureacracies and some of the less rigorous corners of academia. It helps to make them feel as though they're actually not the waste of space they so obviously are.

As for your whinge about my wanting male victims of abuse recognised, you show yourself to be a stereotypical manhater by immediately trying to turn the discussion back to perpetrators, whereas you'll focus interminably on any woman who mught claim victimhood.

You don't even realise you're doing it, because you have been indoctrinated so thoroughly. Years of unchallenged propaganda have left you unable to think beyond the approved paradigm, if you were ever up to the task in the first place. To try to do so probably gives you a "migraine" or "chronic fatigue" or some other untestable and hence unchallengeable excuse for lying around doing bugger all.

Anti

You continue to selectively read posts made by those with whom you disagree. And reading in meanings that simply aren't there at all. You are so completely unable to deal with contrary opinion that you have to convince yourself that others are "programmed" or mere sheep. Sheep do not sit at their computers attempting to communicate with people who loathe being crossed.

No-one is saying that women do not abuse children - not I nor others - it is an appalling fact.

That the bulk of crime is committed by men to other men is also a fact - as unpalatable as that may be for you.

Continually insulting me and others derails any chance of arriving at solutions. There is no chance of reasoning with you, no matter what anyone tries to say. No wonder you still are unable to move on from your marriage while you remain trapped in such rage. Before you hurl another insult, take a good hard look at yourself.

Severin:"you have to convince yourself that others are "programmed" or mere sheep."

And then of course, there are the ones like you, who make an excellent case for the affirmative on their own behalf.

Now, let's talk indoctrination, shall we?

Firstly, let's look at a definition (from wikipasdia):"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned"

Sounds pretty damned close to the mark, wouldn't you agree?

Now, given that there has been a consistent effort by professional feminists over at least 40 years to inculcate certain attitudes and ideas within the population at large; and given that these efforts have been made government policy since the early 80s thanks to UN treaty obligations taken on by the Hawke government; and given that you have spent most, if not all of your life in a world in which those efforts have been in place, it's a bit rich to claim that you're immune thanks to your great force of mind.

It's also a bit insulting to all those people who worked so hard to make you think the way you do. Of course, their job was easier because they were saying what you wanted to hear.

I only broke out of the mould because I experienced first-hand the abuses and bias of the system. I and my children were nothing more than a means for a group of scum-of-the-earth ambulance-chasers to milk the State. The ex was just a stooge for the turds who make their living off the breakdown of other people's relationships. She just did as she was told.

Severin:"That the bulk of crime is committed by men to other men is also a fact"

Well, yes, it is, but some crimes, like child abuse and neglect, are perpetrated far more often by women. About 6 times more often when care ratios are taken into account. Thanks for letting me clear that up for you.

Antiwomen: << ...little fella, you're just not equipped >>

QED.

'wikipasdia'site Anti?

People are gulled by the law, bureaucrats and services, not just men. My concern here on topic is when it affects kids by bad shared care decisions.

I do not know who killed the 8 year old child in Queensland or why, but I do know there were probably signs to be seen in the perp (male or female)prior to the killing. A background of violence and abuse - probably. Which if someone is 'caught' will be used as their excuse in the criminal system, and to reduce culpability and sentence. It's a predictable cycle.

I couldn't really care less whether stats show this or that. I've been here long enough to learn there really are stats, selective stats and damn lies. At best, limited scope questions on limited scope topics selectively chosen to push a point. No thanks..

I'm more of an idealist/realist who would seek for every person (boy, girl, man or woman - why even the gender neutrals) to be entitled to get quality assistance as required and a fair go before the law.
So to me, your abusive posts (if one chose to be offended by such expressively illuminating feedback) are simply a common tactic standing in the way of progress to a safer society.

If I have been indoctinated to a different place than you, perhaps my life's journey has taught me different things. Which is why this 'the feminists are in charge' diatribe is so laughable.

anti, you asked earlier 'how dangerous' but danger means exposure to harm or injury. An instant or cause of peril (according to Macq). Hazardous, unsafe.

I would prefer that any person who had access to my child, whose behaviour took them into this arena, resisted 'dangerous'.

I do not mean slippery dips, riding a bike, or other activities that could see them injured in an accident, but I would expect supervision, bike-helmets, seatbelts, allowing psychological care if necessary. I much prefer the dad model where the children are not used as pawns, or abused or harmed. Funnily enough, I really prefer the same model for mothers.

And why is the behaviour of the absent dad always missing from your posts? You know, the ones who set up the kids for a visit, then dont turn up, call to the house and create havoc when drunk or abusive and demanding, who spend their minimal (by choice) access time denigrating the mother, dont feed the kids etc. Who take the missus thru court because they can, then still dont bother turning up, or actually take the kids to share care - so its to reduce child support / or Centrelink it seems. I'm sure you could find a case where a mum did similar things - but why no men? Why are jails full of men, yet you cant see their violence?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1016578/nt-woman-threw-baby-onto-footpath-court,

girls, girls, girls, i see we are reverting to the old, ignore the facts, when they don't suit us, routine again. Particularly when they come from an allegedly nasty man, like that horrible formersnag fellow or anti, etc. Boo hoo.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1016090/wife-charged-with-assaulting-us-wrestler

http://www.heineraffair.info/

Pynchme, why don't you try some honesty for a change? Instead of twisting crime stats, to suggest that, not all CODs, (children of divorce) end up in jail. Why don't you mention the surveys into the phenomenon of CODs that clearly showed, all children whose parents are divorced, end up damaged, by the experience. The only difference between them, being, by how much.

Why don't you mention the surveys that have shown children in male, single parent homes, doing better than the children, in female, single parent homes? The surveys showing better prospects for children in harmonious, intact homes? There is more than 2 decades of scholarly research on these subjects, international bestselling books, and you, severin, suzeonline, C J Morgan, etc, never mention any of it.

As for the personal abuse, "methinks the pot calls the kettle black", every single forum discussion i have ever witnessed on this site & others, it always starts with the left wing nuts, fauxmanistas first, the alleged right wingers & men, last. I have seen good, decent men like Antiseptic, eyeinthesky, RObert, calmy, quietly copping abuse, posting comments that are fair, reasonable, include good science, offer solutions, & what do they get in response? Nothing but viscious, verbal violence, no solutions, lies, damn lies & more of your rigged statistics.

Feman-nazism is corporatised, state sponsored, child abuse on a grand scale. You constantly claim that we are the extremists or weirdos, let me tell you that what you have seen from us on these forum pages is nothing compared to what ordinary, average, blokes on the street are saying to each other privately, to some of their family, friends, or in men's groups. I often meet men who tell me i am an idiot for trying to talk to you people, only shooting feman-nazis will work.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/12/the-cultural-devastation-of-and-by-feminist-women-tell-your-stories/

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1016781/mum-who-gassed-kids-gets-life-sentence

You were saying, Cotter?

Cotter your piss and wind comments about absent dads are just that when you allow the system to demonise,ostrasize and demolish fathers as detrimental to childrens welfare.
With a little bit more insight you may realise fathers move on for their childrens benefit.
I do not expect you or anyone else to understand this phenomenom and I am prepared to wear the mealstrom.
But if you and the system tell me to f#ck off then do not be surprised when I do.
Oh and the kids, well your in charge arent you.

This is a post by SJF that is worth reiterating:

According to various sources, the difference in parenting time between mothers and fathers varies from 4:1 (World Handbook of Childcare) to 5:2 (ABS). Added to this, 87% of Australia's single parent families are headed by a mother.

Given the WA child abuse figures, and taking into account that children are in the care of their mothers, say, approximately 70% of overall childcare time, compared to about 30% for fathers, then a different picture emerges.

Taking this percentage ratio into account, fathers perpetrate in 30% of the time:

1. 47% of physical abuse
2. 33% of emotional abuse
3. 87% of sexual abuse
4. 5% of neglect
5. 27% of total abuse.

… while mothers perpetrate in 70% of the time:

1. 53% of physical abuse
2. 67% of emotional abuse
3. 13% of sexual abuse
4. 95% of neglect
5. 73% of total abuse.

So, on a time/ratio basis, fathers are OVER-represented in physical and emotional abuse, and grossly OVER-represented in sexual abuse, whereas mothers are UNDER-represented in physical and emotional abuse, and greatly UNDER-represented in sexual abuse.

Also, while mothers are grossly OVER-represented in terms of neglect – which also skews the total overall abuse figure against them - this high percentage figure is almost certainly caused in part by the way in which neglect is reported. For example, if a mother is found to have neglected her four children while in her care, that is more than likely counted as 4 neglect cases, rather than one. By contrast, physical and/or emotional abuse would be recorded as one incident at a time.

So the claim made by the MensRights.com.au article that ‘while there are some abusive fathers, there are in fact a larger proportion of violent and abusive mothers’ is at best, spurious, and at worst, misogynistic opportunism.
Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 12:04:41 P

Never-snag - If such research exists by all means please post links. The non-academic propaganda that the MENZ sites circulate will not do. Please find legitimate material.

The child abuse video is heartbreaking. Poor little kid.

Styx - Yes, your post is what one would expect.

CJ, Cotter, Severin and anyone else intelligent enough to read and understand stats and research and empathic enough to understand the social issues - it's been as always lovely to see your posts. Cya on another thread :)

Severin

Welcome back, since you have returned, I see that Anti has spent plenty of time thinking of you as he does his one handed typing.

This comment by Houllie pretty much sums up my opinion; "I just think it is something you'll never understand as you're female. You'll never understand what it's like to be constantly under suspicion, why men are reticent to be primary school teachers, what it feels like to be the victim of domestic violence in a world that says just for being in that situation you must have been the aggressor...."

Every comment has a context and the comment above sums up the world that us men inhabit. When someone posts something about female child abusers, the context is a world where you could be forgiven for thinking that men do all abuse. We aren't blaming women for all abuse. When Anti quotes statistics about single mums, the context is a world where far too many men lose meaningful contact with their children because we are supposed to be a danger to our kids. No-one wants women to be treated like men. Sure we get angry for being accused of sexism just for disagreeing with a woman. The context is a world where you will never be accused of being controlling, just for disagreeing with a bloke.

And what would that be Pynchme" honesty".
A bit more of that between you and your mates would not go astray.
Do you realise the damage that you are inflicting on children that have no say in your unforgiving self rightous gender position.

benk - very well said.

R0bert

Pynchme, yet another effort to tell lies for women. Well done you! Not a fact in sight, but lots of excuses for women who abuse and neglect their children - unsurprisingly, it's all the man's fault in your world. After all you've already demonstrated quite clearly that you're incapable of recognising abuse when it's the mother who perpetrates it.

The ABS has a nice little publication http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4402.0, which contains the following little gem:"The proportion of children aged 0-12 years who usually attended child care was higher in one parent families (56%) than in couple families (41%). Of the 599,000 children aged 0-12 years in one parent families, 43% were in informal care and 24% were in formal care (of these, 11% were in both types of care). Of the 2,899,000 children aged 0-12 years in couple families, 26% were in informal care and 21% in formal care (of these, 6% were in both types of care) (table 3).

For children aged 0-12 years, grandparents were a major source of informal care used by both couple and one parent families (19% and 18% of children respectively). However, for children aged 0-12 in one parent families, non-resident parents were the most often reported source of care (21%) (table 3)."

So it seems that single mum is quite keen to get rid of the kids to someone else as much as possible, which bears out my own observation.

Do you think that kids are best served by being brought up by day care centres?

The ABS also has another interesting publication i've mentioned before http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/3A8D1AA0F3AB7D66CA25732F001C94E6/$File/41020_One-parent%20families_2007.pdf, which contains the following :"The
proportion of lone mothers employed full-time was 18% in 1997 and 19% in 2006;" and "Almost half of lone fathers worked
full-time (48%)".

So, it seems that lone Dad manages to both work and care for his kids, but lone Mum can't do either, according to the ABS

Septic single parents do what they can to earn money and look after children simultaneously. Some have more extended family support, some have a stockpile of money to whittle away until the kids reach school age.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove with all that. If it's an attempt to counter the assumed absent father who doesn't fight for contact I suppose I can understand the motivation.

pynchme,

I don't think anyone says women do more abusing. If they have I haven't been listening. Regardless, why is it so important for you to make sure men are rightfully seen as doing more abusing? Isn't abuse bad regardless of the perpetrator.

Oh, that's right, these majority of single mothers, left to fend for themselves by the absent deadbeat fathers, are just doing the best they can under the circumstances. They need help because they are so overwhelmed, and women just have that nurturing instinct and wouldn't ever do anything bad to kids unless their were vast extenuating circumstances. We must look to support and help these women more.

The men, well, they're just acting their gender. Better tighten up the Family court Laws to ensure we save the children form the abusive gender.

BTW: So selective use of stats to fight for a cause for menz is 'misogynistic opportunism'? What is it when the White Ribbon lot abuse stats. Oh, that's right, to bring that up would be hampering a good cause due to misogynist opportunism.

Houellebecq:"single parents do what they can to earn money and look after children simultaneously"

According to the ABS, nearly half of male single parents (like me) work full-time (like me). Male partnered parents work full time more frequently still. Female single parents work full time much less frequently.

The report also made the point that "for children aged 0-12 in one parent families, non-resident parents were the most often reported source of care (21%)", which suggests that non-resident fathers are doing their bit to look after the kids, contrary to the oft-repeated mantra of the Victim Appreciation Society.

Houellebecq:"What is it when the White Ribbon lot abuse stats?"

Normal.

If we can do it, why are the female single parents sitting around doing bugger all, while still using childcare at higher rates? Why do we as a nation tolerate that? Childcare costs this country billions of taxpayer dollars every year and it looks like single Mums are doing more than their share of chewing up those bucks, for no good reason.

anti,

Well, I've no interest in judging parent's use or non-use of childcare.

'non-resident fathers are doing their bit to look after the kids'
As they should.

'If we can do it, why are the female single parents sitting around doing bugger all, while still using childcare at higher rates?'

Maybe they're at UNI trying to better their job prospects after being out of the workforce for a long time.

I don't think it's necessary to attempt to prove single moms are lazy biatches to counter that most men aren't deadbeat dads.

Houellebecq:"Maybe they're at UNI trying to better their job prospects after being out of the workforce for a long time."

That's actually a bit of a sore point. My ex did just that, despite already having several degrees, while i was forced to curtail my own studies because I could not afford it thanks to being forced by the CSA to earn as much as possible via a "capacity to earn" determination that somehow came up with a number that was 25% higher than I was actually earning. That meant that i was forced to pay 25% more than I should have had to and meant that even basic expenditure on food and rent was marginal, let alone discretionary spending on education.

In the meantime, my ex, who left a part-time job to go to Uni full-time, was given extra money by Centrelink to do so.

Now, I've no wish to see people excluded from pursuing education, but ISTM that separated fathers are not given the option of choosing that path. If it's good for a woman to improve her job prospects, is it not equally as good for a man to do so?

On the whole, the stats I quoted show that men take a greater personal responsibility for providing for themselves and their family than women do, even men who are left "holding the baby" as it were.

"I don't think it's necessary to attempt to prove single moms are lazy biatches to counter that most men aren't deadbeat dads."

I hate it when I agree with you but it's been happening to often lately.

R0bert

If 'the stats' show that 80% of surveyed parents are 'happy' with shared care - (leaving 20% of the the nations kids at probable/possible risk of emotional or other harm in 'high conlict'cases, what is defined as 'a single parent family'?

A sole parent?

Is it where only one parent has involvement (for whatever reason)

or in shared care arrangement - so it that two single parent families?
effectively giving two bites at the same cherry irrespective of what sharing actually means?

If it includes parents who have have repartnered, is there a distintion between ones who have, and those who haven't? Are they still 'single parent households' irrespective of reality and difference?

Some repartner quickly - even before they left,others doubt they will ever again trust or choose another partner.

Some have vulnerability forced on them, like the real impact of extreme violence, and find themselves, like me, in a wheelchair, excellent business gone, unable to work for two years and never in same industry because of disability,and two young children to raise. Alone. Not because I ever excluded their dad from them, but because he chose and remains unattainable to them.

When he eventually moved on to a new marriage, my kids thought I'd be sad, having never put him down they thought we might get back together. I resisted explaining beyond assuring them I wished them well.

Child support? Infrequent. My wikkid side loves that he is still paying off his meagre csa bill, years after the children have left home. (all growed up, educated to honours standard, teeth fixed as required and employed despite trauma, abject poverty and new beginnings). Surely I can't be the only sole mum to do OK? But I've never been surveyed about what's what.

So if 80% of separated families = 40% mums and 40% dads (we'll sort of gloss over the granparents / same sex, widows, widowers etc etc for the sake of simplicity,) and although we know shared doesn't mean equal , and 21% of non-resident dads are doing their bit with care, what does it all mean really?

'what does it all mean really?'

Don't ask me, I'm having trouble following yours and antiseptics long winded rationalisations attempting to prove your world view.

All I see here is two people who have been dealt a bad hand. That's the sum of what I've taken out of this.

Houellebecq: <"I don't think anyone says women do more abusing. If they have I haven't been listening. Regardless, why is it so important for you to make sure men are rightfully seen as doing more abusing? Isn't abuse bad regardless of the perpetrator.">

All abuse is bad and I am opposed to any family violence especially where children are exposed to it.

The reason it's important to identify which sex is doing most:

1. The Menz sites have been minimizing that attributable to men - which is in keeping with the minimization (as research shows) that perpetrators of all sorts of violence typically engage in.

http://www.xyonline.net/content/use-violence-fathers%E2%80%99-rights-activists-compilation-news-reports

http://www.xyonline.net/content/fact-sheet-3-how-fathers%E2%80%99-rights-movement-undermines-protections-available-victims-violence-

In contrast btw; women who access counselling and other services including womens centres and shelters typically undertake individual and group work concerning drug and alcohol use; relationship issues which usually also explore the use and experience of anger, effects on children, parenting, work skills and so on.

2. When perpetrators hang together and obtain no mediating input the use of violence is normalized and justified amongst them.
(I guess prison culture could be seen as an extreme example of that but there are also examples where followers of the menz groups have used violent means in their campaigns).

3. Perpetrators of each sex need different approaches to finding ways to resolve their issues and meet their needs without using violence. It isn't that their wants and needs are unimportant; it's that they can learn to have them met in non-violent ways or decide whether obtaining them is worth the consequences of violent action.

4. While women are portrayed (incorrectly) as the main source of family violence it detracts from efforts to reduce violence overall. Focusing on female violence is a smoke screen that isn't offering any information at all about how men can be less violent.

http://www.xyonline.net/category/article-content/mens-fathers-rights

Pynchme, there are no "Menz". Furthermore, the current official figures show that most neglect and abuse of kids occurs when they have no father present.

The best way to protect kids is to ensure that their natural father has a close relationship with them. Most fathers want to be close to their kids, but some are not very good at it, just as some mothers are pretty substandard.

Often, the main reason for dads dropping out of their kids lives is the desire of the mother to maximise her entitlement to benefits and child support. If she decides to make it difficult for him, he has little chance of doing much about it. Courts won't enforce orders when mothers breach them, as a huge number of cases demonstrate. I strongly recommend you have a look at Austlii and see for yourself, rather than relying on the silly Michael Flood site.

Pynchme:"there are also examples where followers of the menz groups have used violent means in their campaigns"

And there are examples of the various grrrl power groups using and advocating violence against men.

The point, of course, is that people become inflamed on these subjects. What is needed is a means of decoupling the children from the money, so that there is no incentive on either side to use the children as a lever. A huge amount of conflict is generated around child support and time in care, so if reducing that conflict is really your goal...

Cotter, I appreciate your position. There is no doubt that some people are bastards. The figures don't show that only 21% of separated dads are doing their bit, it showed that dads provide 21% of the child care for single mums. It doesn't mention what the relative custody arrangements were.

Focusing on male violence is a smoke screen that isn't offering any information at all about how people can be less violent.

The men's sites sometimes get it wrong but in the context of government funded campaigns which only mention male violence and the ruthless misrepresentation of family violence and child abuse mothers groups desperate to regain maternal bias in family law a moral stand against the flaws on ''Menz' sites without a corresponding concern over the other does not look all that genuine.

R0bert

Pynchme and Anti

This competition about which gender is worse is getting us nowhere. It achieves nothing for Pynchme to "prove" that men are worse than women. The list she wrote was very good, expecially the second point. Whatever the faults of women, there are people who resolve conflicts with violence and those who choose not to. However, simply pointing out that many men are responsible for the violence is enough to prove her point.

It also achieves nothing for Anti to "prove" that women are worse than women. All us blokes want is to move past this attitude that men must be the villian and women must be seen as the victim. Proving that women are responsible for much DV does that.

BTW: women have much to gain by overturning current gender roles as well. It must be annoying to be expected to be nice all of the time. To be expected to do most of the caring for sick family members. To be seen as pathetic little petals, unable to fix one's own problems. To be demonised for not caring enough. Lets start by ending the female victim/male villian dichotomy.

Cotter: Pardon me for being nosy; I understand if you don't want to answer - but what was/is the wheelchair for?

Antiseptic: <"Most fathers want to be close to their kids, but some are not very good at it, just as some mothers are pretty substandard.">

I agree absolutely. Btw: you might be interested in some recent research about the importance of fathers to their daughters.

Re: the rest of the comment: I can't imagine anyone plotting to shed a partner that they loved and committed to enough to bear children, in order to pick up some lousy money.

<"there are examples of the various grrrl power groups using and advocating violence against men.">

I don't know of any. If you do I'd be most interested in the information - links and articles.

<"What is needed is a means of decoupling the children from the money.">

I don't know much about the mechanisms but this seems to be a good idea. Do you mean that parents would pay towards children's upkeep even if they had no contact with them? I hope so. As a parent I would be glad to pay to fulfil my responsibilities so I'm guessing other parents would feel the same way.

R0bert, the more serious the outcome, the more likely that a male is the perpetrator. A quarter of women who are injured gain their first experience of DV while pregnant. Most revenge killings of women occur after they have left the marriage and premises. I'm sorry but that is fact, no matter how unpalatable you find it. No matter how much you wouldn't do it; other men would/do. If you don't like how OTHER men represent your sex, then stop minimizing their violence. I have no trouble condemning women who are violent because I am not like them.

Benk thanks for taking the time to consider those points and for posting in response to them.

This is a bloke writing about being a man experiencing the cultural crisis of masculinity (I guess one would say):
I'd be interested in your opinions of it:
http://www.zcommunications.org/sexuality-masculinity-and-mens-choices-by-robert-jensen

Nenk:"It also achieves nothing for Anti to "prove" that women are worse"

I agree: I've never tried to "prove" women are worse anything, merely to show that the constant stream of anti-male propaganda is just that - propaganda. It has no basis in any objective reality at all. Some women and some men are unfit parents, but without my input on this site, that would remain unacknowledged, as it was when I first startd posting here.

At that time, any discussion of children or the Family Law consisted of a few man-hating women berating men for everything, with R0bert doing his polite best to point out the odd fact and divorce doctor trying to promote his book.

My posting drove away some of the more rabid man-haters, simply because I did use genuine facts and figures and I wasn't prepared to allow them to bully and abuse me off the site, as was their standard practise. At one stage there must have been about half-a-dozen of them posting a couple of times for every post of mine, doing their girl-gang best to shut me up. I simply abused them back, albeit more effectively, using precisely their own tactics. It worked: the stuff you see posted now is much less vile and the ones that remain are much less virulently misandric, although a few "women with testosterone" still poke their bibs in occasionally.

R0bert:"the ruthless misrepresentation of family violence and child abuse mothers groups desperate to regain maternal bias in family law"

That's the nub. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and she will use whatever means she can to express that fury, but only if she thinks she has a "big brother" standing by while she does so. The Family Law as originally written gave her that "big brother" and the fury was truly hellish, with no constraint at all on the nastiness offered to fathers who wanted to be involved with their children after divorce. Paedophilia and violence became standard allegations used against decent men - evidence not required.

Pynchme:"Do you mean that parents would pay towards children's upkeep even if they had no contact with them?"

Yes, but so would every other adult, whether childless or a parent. A previous government was fond of "levies", like the gun buyback levy and the East Timor levy, the Medicare levy, etc. Why not a child support levy? If separating parents had one less thing to argue about, that could only be a good thing.

What's more, abolishing the whole ghastly mess that is the CSA and handing the responsibility back to a competent authority like the Tax office would save billions. At present, according to the DHS budget estimates, the CSA costs our country about $1.2 billion annually increasing to nearly $1.3 billion this year and CSA collect cases (the ones where the parents can't get it together privately) amount to just over a $billion, so it actually costs 20% more to collect the money than is taken in. The CSA try to hide this in their own report, making dishonest and misleading statements, but the DHS estimates budget can't be fudged.

Private collect cases account for a bit more than another billion, but those are happening without the CSA doing anything other than recording that they exist.

Get rid of the CSA and replace it with a cheaper and more efficient direct levy on all personal taxpayers. About $10 a week would do it.

Pynchme, I've never minimised male violence, that's dishonest spin you and others use against those who who object to the utterly one sided representation of family violence which you seem to be OK with. I've disagreed about the representation of violence when really broad definitions of violence are used to maximise "violence" by men but the same definitions are not used for the same actions by women.

I object when I hear carry on's about the increased risk of harm to women after separation by those who dismiss the concerns of men impacted by maternal bias in the family law system telling them to toughen up or dismissing them as bitter men rather than honestly looking at why so many are bitter.

I object when ancient self serving studies with about the same credibility I'd give to a study by the American National Rifle Association "proving" the benefits of widespread gun ownership are used to defend sexist views.

I object when men are attacked for being negative about women by those who so regularly focus on attacking men.

I object when those determined to attack men focus on the extreme end of violence to defend their actions but refuse to honestly address the behaviors and problems which lead up to that other.

R0bert

Benk

Thank you for your thoughtful and considered post. I agree that it is to the benefit of both sexes to be freed from gender stereotyping; there are aggressive women, passive men. I imagine always having to be competitive and 'tough' is onerous for many men.

Anti

Drop the 'hate' speech and maybe you would be taken more seriously. How many years since your separated from your partner?

Pynchme, i just read your link. i think this quote sums up the author's position:"I cannot resist masculinity alone; "

Here's a tip for you and your friend: masculinity doesn't need "resisting", no matter how much he'd rather not be a man. It needs to be embraced as different to femininity. I do not wish to be a part of a society in which the only acceptable way for me to express myself is as a somewhat hairy woman.

That's true for most normal men, just as most normal women would rather not be somewhat flabby-chested men.

For "generation Y" women will be the dominant gender in politics, academia, bureaucracies, business and possibly religion. Why is that? For two reasons: firstly because they have received better opportunities throughout their schooling and secondly, because women are consummate "networkers", while men are driven to be individualistic and competitive. Men have had to work to create clubs with a narrow focus of interest to get together, often specifically making rules about doing business and other competitive activities. Even excluding women has evolved as a means of damping down inevitable competitive impulses that may arise if they are present.

Women, on the other hand, are wont to be overtly supportive of each other (at least face-to-face)and to want to find commonality as a means of ensuring mutuality of support. That has lead to the enormous proliferation of women's groups focussed on "all men are bastards" since it's an easy thing for a woman to agree with (doesn't offend any of the other women). It's also meant that once women have achieved power they tend to offer patronage to other women.

The competitive nature of men remains for women in power, a threat to that power, so it's hardly surprising they do their best to demonise it and diminish it.

Pynchme

I read the article, thank-you for valuing my opinion enough to ask me for an opinion.

I agree that the content and popularity of these movies says something troubling. I cannot succinctly explain why many men might enjoy them, but I do have a few thoughts.

The degradation of the woman was sick, but the choice of a cheerleader character was at least understandable. They epitomise the sort of woman who might be seen as arrogant and needing to be brought back to earth. This type of woman has never appeared concerned by the feelings of those men who she sees as "beneath" her.

His thoughts about men who are involved in domestic or sexual violence are unhelpful. The current language of shaming these men, even being violent towards them is a step in the wrong direction. I have never denied that some men are violent towards women or claimed that everything is her fault. I would like to see some empathy for them. Most DV is reciprocal, meaning the men are both villans and victims. How can anyone expect these blokes to be less violent without modeling some empathy?

Language is important. Feminists alienated others with their smug use of jargon and self-rightous tone. This bloke could be more down to earth himself.

Benk

<<< How can anyone expect these blokes to be less violent without modeling some empathy? >>>

I do believe it has to start WITH men - clearly there is an instant raising of hackles whenever a women tries to speak out against male violence - look at Antiseptic.

There is no denying female violence from any of the female posters here, however, this is being treated in the many support services that women have established for themselves. The overwhelming bulk of violence is committed by men to men, women and children, maybe it is an anachronistic leftover from primitive times, but intellectually most humans have moved on. Remember, most violence is committed by a minority.

What I, and I suspect other women, find dismaying is the lack of men speaking out against violence, rape and humiliation of others. Men such as Michael Flood are vilified by some men. Should CJ Morgan be subjected to abuse because he disagrees with some men here? Should I?

BTW the use of a "cheerleader" in that porn video - it could be ANY stereotype; salesgirl, model, actress, prostitute, it is YOUR interpretation, YOUR reaction that the "cheerleader" is snooty and your response is quite disturbing, please think about it.

Severin "There is no denying female violence from any of the female posters here"

Limited outright denial in recent years but there has been a long history of comments which do minimise it or try and make it the males fault. One post I recall by Pynchme set's the tone.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3252#77365

I don't recall any of the male posters denying that male violence occurs, what has been objected to is the double standards many choose to apply, the blaming of men for violence by women, the misuse of perceptions about male violence to support gender bias in family law and other issues which fall out of that.

It's not women talking about male violence which raises the hackles, it's people using the issue to attack men whilst applying a double standard when it comes to women. I detest Flood because he attacks the men's groups quite ruthlessly whilst staying very mute about the way mothers groups have used similar tactics to support their own agendas.

My impression is that most of those who find themselves on the pointed end of Antiseptics nastier comments are those who have partaken in attacks on him. I could be wrong, if anyone cares to point out that they have never got personal about Antiseptic but cop abuse from him I'll willingly reconsider. I don't like Antiseptic's approach but I also don't like the way he is portrayed by people who seem to use similar tactics themselves.

R0bert

Severin:"What I, and I suspect other women, find dismaying is the lack of men speaking out against violence, rape and humiliation of others"

What a lot of complete bollocks. I see your stay in hospital hasn't affected your ability to speak shite.

What you find dismaying is the fact that some men are seing through the feminist smokescreen put up around the issue of gender relations.

Interpersonal relationships have always been conflictual. Women tend to be far more "controlling" than men in their relationships, often taking possession of the family finances, deciding what social activities will be participated in, choosing their husbands clothes, making all the decisions around the kids, etc, etc, etc. if a man does any of those things he is being "violent", while if a woman does, she is being "responsible". If a man objects to any of those things, he is being "abusive", which gives her carte blanche to abuse him, since "he started it". If he then responds angrily, he is immediately labelled "violent" and told he has "an anger management problem". He can't come out even, let alone win.

What you don't seem to grasp is that if you want people to be nice to each other, there has to be both give and take. Playing the "men are bastards, aren't women wonderful" game is simply stupid. I suspect a great deal of violence in our current society (most of which is perpetrated against men, not against women) is down to a sense of "damned if I do, damned if I don't"or "just as well hung for a sheep as a lamb".

Fair dinkum, you're thick.

Severin:"Men such as Michael Flood are vilified by some men."

Michel Flood is an opportunist who saw the vast opportunities the feminist gravy train offered and climbed aboard. Academically he's on a slightly lower level than David Irving and his writing is about on a par with the stirring polemic offered by Mein Kampf, although his research isn't as good.

No wonder the weaker-minded members of the feminist community like him.

R0bert

<<< I could be wrong, if anyone cares to point out that they have never got personal about Antiseptic but cop abuse from him I'll willingly reconsider. >>>

Please read Antiseptic's latest post above in response to my latest post. I rest my case.

As for your claim that Flood attacks men's groups ruthlessly, until men's groups start to look at marital issues in their entirety and place some of their focus on male behaviour as well as female, then I'm sure he will continue to do so.

I have never denied that your experience, R0bert, was appalling, your ex sounds like a very controlling, manipulative woman. If anything, surely that experience would increase your empathy for women who experience the same. Until recently, women were expected to be obedient to their husband's - it was even a part of marital vows. That has changed, however, for some men, their status is threatened by having to treat women as equals. Had women been the dominant sex for eons, as were men, I am sure that they would be kicking and screaming at their perceived loss of power as many men are doing now. I don't believe that either sex is particularly more moral than the other. Human history shows that no dominant institution ever acquiesces quietly and with dignity.

As has been noted time and time again, our law courts are still dominated by men, most of our laws are still set by men: men who still have the traditional idea that women are the primary care-givers in our community and, in fact, women still are. For that to change, men will have to prove themselves as just as capable care-givers and to be vocal about it. However, vilifying women in general; single mothers in particular, doesn't convey the empathy, compassion and understanding that is required for good parenting.

It is not other women you have to convince, while the balance of power remains as it is; with men. Therefore, it is other men who require both convincing and to take positive action: against all abuse and exploitation.

pynchme,

1. 'The Menz sites have been minimizing that attributable to men -'

As the womens sites maximise violence attributable to men, which in effect minimises any violence attributed to women. R0bert's link to one of your posts shows a whole post where you minimise female violence, even to the level of attributing different motives.

'Womens violence seemed to be a form of resistance to being controlled or subdued. Mens violence seemed to intend to exert control and dominance.'

That sums your attitude up totally. Men; The abusive gender. Women; Sometimes violent but only because of the abusive gender.

3. 'Perpetrators of each sex need different approaches '

Yes we know all about that. Women need to be helped, men need to be punished and denied access to their children.

4. 'While women are portrayed (incorrectly) as the main source of family violence it detracts from efforts to reduce violence overall. Focusing on female violence is a smoke screen that isn't offering any information at all about how men can be less violent.'

Focussing on male violence is a smokescreen to deny any women are violent, and offers no information about preventing violent domestic disputes in which the majority involve both partners being violent.

'the main source'. Huh! I think most blokes on here would be happy with 'a source' being acknowledged. As it stands, any talk of DV is solely on a male=abuser female=victim dichotomy. Something you are very keen to hold on to. One wonders why. Sure you can admit personally you accept female violence, but your attitude is to hinder at any turn, any discussion of any responsibility for women in violent domestic disputes.

In fact you label anyone who disagrees with this dichotomy as a closet abuser.

'possibly from fellows who have attracted AVOs already. '

Severin

I still maintain that the choice of a cheerleader was deliberate. I was asked for an opinion, so I attempted to explain what I read. This was never meant to sound like a justification.

I also said that this type of porn should be condemned, but that choice of language is important. As a bloke, I find matter of fact type explanations and suggested solutions much more convincing than "let me show you how nice I am by acting as horrified as humanly possible." Language that implies that everything is men's fault also alienates us, in the same way that you aren't receptive to messages that imply that everything is the fault of women.

"There is no denying female violence from any of the female posters here, however, this is being treated in the many support services that women have established for themselves."

No, women tend to be told "don't blame yourself, it's all his fault." By condemming him, the speaker makes themself look good by supporting the "victim" and distancing themself from the actions of the "villan." It does nothing to solve the problem. Both participants need help in learning the exact same conflict resolution skills, so they can recognise the other person's attempts to keep things civil. Both participants need to be asked what is more important, the problem or the relationship?

'They epitomise the sort of woman who might be seen as arrogant and needing to be brought back to earth. This type of woman has never appeared concerned by the feelings of those men who she sees as "beneath" her.'

Sh1t benk, you've got me agreeing with fractelle. You really piss me off. 'this type of women'?

The chick just waves pom poms around man. All I can say is.. Wow! Maybe these 'men' should show her a thing or two and bring her back down to earth aye?

With regards to the article (which benk seems intent on validating)...

THIS IS WHAT PORNOGRAPHY LOOKS LIKE
Nup. This is the image you are using to represent all pornography.

THIS IS WHAT QUALITY EROTIC FILM ENTERTAINMENT FOR THE COUPLES MARKET LOOKS LIKE
Nope. Amateur porn showing willing partners seems to be the most popular choice for couples. ie reality TV porn.

What you describe is about as 'quality' as McDonalds. American accented, faked 'oooh oooh', repetitive boring cycle through positions, featuring an ugly bloke licking his lips while having sex 'on' a fake tanned, fake boobed, died blond, shaved, anal bleached 'woman' isn't considered 'quality' with anyone I know.

WHY HAS THE FEMINIST CRITIQUE OF PORNOGRAPHY BEEN ATTACKED SO STRENUOUSLY?
Because it relies on the misrepresentations you use as described above.

'I am not telling women how to feel or what to do. I am not accusing them of having false consciousness or being dupes of patriarchy.'

Nope, you're telling men how/what they do/should feel accusing them of having false consciousness or being dupes of patriarchy.

'your own sense of unease about masculinity. You feel it; I know you do.'

I feel no sense of unease about my masculinity. I feel a lot of unease about your skewed representation of masculinity.

'I don’t hate men. I don’t hate myself. '

That's definitely not what comes across mate.

benk: Thanks for your comments; I really appreciate it and your frankness. I think I get where you're coming from. Tell me if I understand it properly:

When you referred to bringing the cheerleader type down a peg or two (to paraphrase) - you were offering me a glimpse at the mental process of someone in some stage of arousal? I think I get that - not because it's thought to be 'right' (not by you I am presuming) but by a bloke at some point in the viewing. Like, maybe, a nerd who sees a cheerleader as the unattainable female because she is so picky about the blokes who flock around her?

The porn, if he identifies with the fellows somewhat, allows him to live in an illusory world for a little while where he is the one handing out the contempt.

Do I understand it properly? Can you just set me straight if I haven't grasped the right meaning.

(Severin - hey girlfriend! I don't think Benko was speaking first person - just giving an insight.)

Benk: <"Both participants need to be asked what is more important, the problem or the relationship?">

No, not once someone has been hurt physically. The risk is too great, plus people who are in a relationship where they are frightened of the other are too intimidated to accomplish much in family therapy.

There are cases of someone speaking in a therapy session then getting seriously punished later for speaking out.

Family therapy only has a chance after the abusee is safe and the violence has stopped. It's at that point that people can make decisions about whether they want to give the relationship another go (maybe with therapy if both agree that they want to do it).

Hey Pynchme

Thanks, I hope that is what Benk meant. I guess.

I find the idea of porn as revenge quite disturbing, especially after reading your link to Robert Jensen's article. He voiced a lot of what I have thought about.

Cheers

From the article linked to by Pynchme

"A common insult that boys hurl at each other is the accusation of being a girl, a being who lacks strength. No insult on the playground is worse than being called a girl, except perhaps being called a “fag,” a derivative of girl."

So what does it mean when an adult woman call's another women who she disagree's with a bloke. Does that prove that the person making the call hates men or rather that attacking someone over their gender identification is often an effective insult?

I'd go with the latter in most cases. Maybe not for pre-teenage boys who delight in not liking girls but then they are hardly a reasonable indicator of the state of masculinity.

That's one of the problems with articles such as the one Pynchme linked to, authors with axes to grind tend to run with a examples which suits their purposes regardless of the context or alternative explanations and it's all to easy to not question those examples and assumptions.

I've never much liked or fitted in with the "blokey" masculine image but the author left me feeling under attack by his apparent one size fit's all interpretation of masculinity. Is my enjoyment of making something in the shed part of the masculinity which he want's to get rid of? Is it CJ heading off to a quiet fishing spot with some beer and whatever tackle he uses? Is it the variety of other ways that men live out their own version of masculinity (via what are predominately male interests and pursuits). The author targets porn but attacks masculinity in much broader terms.

For those who think that the authors assumptions are fair and that calling a boy a girl shows a hatred of women then you might like to consider a recent post on one female poster directed at another female poster.

"I think Corny is a bloke btw; though some have wondered if he/she is
Antiseptic'c mum."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3480#82994

R0bert

Robert: I wondered what the author meant re: getting rid of masculinity. It seemed over the top to me. That's one of the reasons I wanted to hear what men thought about it - notice that the author talks about a couple of ways that masculinity sans violence could be formulated. He goes for a complete rebuild, apparently.

I can't tell you or him how to reformulate yourselves; I don't even have an opinion on it, as interesting and important as it is.

When he talks about youngsters calling other young males girls - you know he is talking about socialization from the earliest stages of male-development and inculcating the notion that feminine traits are inferior and undesirable. I think females have some quite nice traits that are not exclusive to them but which are human. Not inaccessible to males (as many men have discovered) - but it's up to individual men to decide how they want to incorporate those; portray themselves and be portrayed.

I don't know of any women who refer to other women as blokes to deride them. Do you? Just can't think of any examples off the top of my head. Maybe it's a bit close to bed time. You'd need to jog my memory.

As to Cornflower - I honestly don't know if Cornflower is a woman or a man, which is kind of cool. I'd say male by the nature of the posts and the anti-female sentiments - however - a bloke using a flower name? That's the only thing that suggests that Cornflower might (just possibly) be female. The matter of being Antiseptic's mother is from an old argument some time way back. Do a bit more rummaging through my old posts and see what other dastardly comments you can try to bend about in your insipid efforts to have a go at a feminist.

Btw: have you obtained Houellebecq's approval yet? Do you think this will do the trick to stop him jibing you in his petty way about your supposed fawning after feminist approval?

I didn't think you needed it.

Severin: Yes I agree. I believe that Benk is a better type than that - I hope so.

The idea of porn as revenge IS disturbing. Now I'm wondering what types there are that aren't like that. Maybe one of the pornography connoisseurs in our midst could describe some.

That would explain why the author separates himself from a certain type of male culture. He didn't try to explain how it works (the way Benk did) which I was hoping as I read that he would.

It's a beaut article - a lot to think about.

Pynchme, I think Houellebecq enjoy's that too much to let it die completely although he may eventually decide that it's got old (like the pomerainian joke).

"you know he is talking about socialization from the earliest stages of male-development and inculcating the notion that feminine traits are inferior and undesirable"

I differ on that. There is elements of socialization but there is a big part of it that's just kid's getting used to their own gender identity. I take it about as seriously as I take little girls not liking little boys and I think that the author is reading far more into it than is reasonable.

I found the wording the author used very annoying, about as helpful as someone suggesting that femininity should be done away with completely because some women like unrealistic daytime soaps which objectify people and could create unrealistic expectation on men regarding their earning capacity and how they look.

In regard to the porn that the author discusses, I've never watched that style, no appeal to it what so ever. Houellebecq summed it up pretty well http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10006#163394 and I'd agree with him regarding amateur porn being much more appealing (dam I hope I don't get his approval for that).

I don't personally get what the appeal in the other stuff is but there are a lot of things which I don't get about other peoples taste's, I've known people who I respect a lot to regularly watch Home and Away. Many people enjoy entertainment which bears no resemblance to how they want to live in the real world.

I suspect that for a lot of people their objection's to porn have more to do with their own discomfort about it's image than an objective analysis of the realities around it's creation and or use.

R0bert

Thanks Pynchme, you explained the thought process that I attempted to describe more articulately than I could.

Pynchme

I once heard a story about a married couple who used to argue about the correct way to fold the towels. They stopped when they started asking "what is more important, the problem or the relationship?" Asking this question stopped arguments from becomming too heated.

I agree that family therapy is only effective if all participants feel safe.

Houllie

I apologise for not knowing as much about porn as you. That article and one other http://newmatilda.com/2009/11/05/how-liberating-porn-really was all I know about modern porn. Both painted a similar picture. I commented on Pynchme's article. Next thing I knew, I was in trouble for attempting to describe the thinking of the viewers without displaying enough righteous indignation.

I think that aricle benk, well, it's symptomatic of the problems the wowsers have. 'In reality'? Hahaha. It's fantasy. I've gone over all this on another thread. Look up Nancy Friday, read some of the femle fantasies and you'll see this isn't a 'male' phenomena.

It's just convenient, as r0bert suggests, for feminists to twist every thing that is 'bad' in the world, and relate it to the innate evil that is 'men'.

Look at all sorts of issues. If male circumcision was commonly performed on girls (say, the cutting of the outer labia for hygene reasons), it would be an example of the misogynist men wanting to mutilate the female body. But when some random phenomina like that happens to men, well, it's just an outdated currently unfashionable but still justifiable medical procedure. There is no filter of gender politics, and it isn't seen through the bitter eyes of a woman hating philosophy. But, if it were something routinely done to girls, it would be seen through the bitter feminist gaze. It would be used in all sorts of articles as an example of misogyny.

As r0bert says, ' the author is reading far more into it than is reasonable.'

As I said in my symbolism rant, sometimes a game of pool isn't metaphor for ethnic cleansing.

benk,

'describe the thinking of the viewers without displaying enough righteous indignation.'

Oh, I'm just recently getting into righteous indignation. I've been missing out. Have a go at telling off antiseptic, it's really fun!

pynchme,

I have no desire to 'reformulate' myself, and certainly no desire to arrogantly proscribe a new masculine identity for others.

Just as the phrase 'equality for women' attempts to position the debate with women universally disadvantaged compared to men, this 'crisis in masculinity' is attempting to position a narrow (and universally negative) definition of masculinity onto all men.

'You feel it; I know you do.'

Hahaha. What crap!

'Maybe one of the pornography connoisseurs in our midst could describe some.'

Try Abby Winters.

Benk

Thank you for your clarification, that goes a long way to understand where you are coming from. However, I will provoke you and ask how you know what goes on in women's shelters and groups vis a vis female violence. I would hope that their behaviour is a part of any program - for some that would mean being more assertive, for others less.

Pynchme

I was struck too, by Jensen's suggestion to do away with 'masculinity', not quite sure what he meant, unless it means a rethink of stereotyping the rigid role models that men are expected to live and portray. I'm more for men and women just being in a position to excel at whatever positive qualities they have and to minimise our worst behaviour. Male and female best qualities are identical; compassion, courage, love, empathy - just to name a few.

R0bert

I have never heard 'bloke' used as a derogative term. However, there exists: 'run like a girl', 'throw like a girl', being a 'pussy' all terms to ensure that young boys see their sisters as weak and a need to differentiate themselves.

80% of couples manage to work their custody arrangements out without resorting to court action. Of the remaining 20%, out of those; the 50/50 arrangement has not been working - I do not know what percentage. However, where the 50/50 arrangement results in a child being placed with an abusive parent, clearly this is an appalling result. Of abusive parents, males are more likely to use physical abuse and females are more likely to use neglect and psychological abuse, however there are no hard and fast rules: women can be violent and use psychological manipulation, so too can men. This has as much to do with conditioning as anything: women are encouraged to be less aggressive, whereas boys are encouraged to be aggressive, else they be called a 'girl'.

Finally.

There is no excuse for Antiseptic's personal insults that he uses on me or anyone else - these insults far exceed any real or imagined slights he may have received.

Severin:"I have never heard 'bloke' used as a derogative term."

I have, usually in the context of a couple of girls deriding men for being "blokey", which seems to mean "not sufficiently under the thumb".

Severin:"women are encouraged to be less aggressive, whereas boys are encouraged to be aggressive, else they be called a 'girl'."

When was the last time you were at a Primary School? There is no possibility of boys behaving even slightly aggressively. If they do they face massive censure and sanctions including suspension and expulsion. If they model typical female bullying behaviours such as social axclusion, rumour-spreading, etc, the teachers' response is very different. I know this because I have experienced, via my children as victims, both types of bullying and have raised complaints about both.

The second was far more damaging and caused my son great distress, since he had no idea what he was supposed to have done, but none of his "friends" would talk to him or play with him. The teacher's response? "Oh, that happens all the time, he'll make new friends", which may be true, but when my daughter was tormented by a boy from the grade below hers, including such dire behaviours as hair-pulling (once pretty normal for both genders), the kid was suspended.

She hadn't been especially bothered by it and simply gave as good as she got (he probably had a crush on her if truth be known).

It is good to see you acknowledge finally that this is a complex issue. we seem to be making progress.

I'll make you the same offer I made the Pomeranian: you avoid offering insults to me and I'll avoid doing so to you. Not surprisingly, the little fella wasn't man enough to keep his end up, but I'm sure you will be.

All that terrible socialisation telling boy's how bad girls are. I remember an example that was quite popular when I was younger

What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails
That's what little boys are made of !"
What are little girls made of?
"Sugar and spice and all things nice
That's what little girls are made of!"

My memory is that the girls seemed to like that one a lot more than the boy's.

Severen I don't think that the repeated claim that Cornflower is a man are intended as a compliment. I posted a link to one example, I've seen other attacks on Cornflowers gender identity previously - she does not fit in with the predominate attitudes expressed by women on OLO therefore her gender is questioned. For most the insult lies in questioning the other parties gender identity rather than it necessarily being an attack on the other gender.

R0bert

I had it as "frogs and snails...."

Making "Rendezvous with Rana" all the more disturbing.

Rusty

Houllie

No one is going to take righteous indignation from you seriously. It just isn't you.

Severin

Regarding DV and what happens in shelters; Fractelle was right into this false dichotomy where everything needs to be either all his fault or all her fault. She used to assure us that any criticism of her or expectation that she could fix her own problems equalled blaming the victim. But of course, you are completely different to her...

Pynchme

The blokes that are the problem don't even understand the word "masculinity." The language that Jensen used was far too tosserish to convince these guys of anything. Secondly, these guys don't have as much interest in reforming society etc. Changing would need to appear to be in their interests. At the moment alpha males get all of the toys. Stop that and you will be stunned at how fast these guys can change. Remember the early 90's, when these blokes became convinced that snags got the girls and they all pretended to be all sensitive?

Benk

I am Fractelle. My only explanation for your interpretation of her/my posts is that maybe I was not clear enough. I will try to be clearer in future.

R0bert

I apologise on behalf of all little girls for the psychological damage a single poem made upon your psyche. Now fellows, how about apologising for every time you have used the intimation that a man is a bit feminine as an insult.

Anti

You must lead a very sheltered existence, go out and meet a few women, get to know them, make friends.

severin:"you avoid offering insults to me and I'll avoid doing so to you"

Severin:"You must lead a very sheltered existence, go out and meet a few women, get to know them, make friends."

I take it back, you're far too much of a man to ever accept an offer such as I made...

Severin:"Now fellows, how about apologising for every time you have used the intimation that a man is a bit feminine as an insult."

Why? It IS an insult, just as referring to hairy legs is an insult. It implies that the person is lacking an essential quality that defines the way their gender is expressed. See above.

And please don't try to turn this into a gay-bashing claim. There are many homosexual men who are not in the least feminine. Think of Ian Roberts, Steven Fry, Graham Chapman. Ditto for lesbians: Portia de Rossi, the Brady Bunch girls, Meredith Baxter; not a hairy leg in sight.

Benk:"At the moment alpha males get all of the toys. Stop that and you will be stunned at how fast these guys can change."

You're buying into the notion of social constructionalism which I reject as no more than Leninism writ small.

Masculinity and femininity have some pretty obvious disjunctures, which any social construction can do no more than paper over.

As Goebbels said, so much better:"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Trying to make people into something they are not is doomed to failure.

Trying to make people into something they are not is doomed to failure.Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 4 March 2010 9:30:39 AM

That has worked for many a single positionist.
I thought this discussion was actually going somewhere but ohwell.

Anti

At the moment, there is one type of bloke that seems to be on top of the pile. Alpha males are noted for being very confident, competitive and assertive, even aggressive. These blokes are top of the pecking order in school. As you pointed out in your NRL thread, these blokes get promoted further in many workplaces. For all of the women complaining about the shortage of nice men, it often appears that these men have the least trouble getting girlfriends. There are examples of these blokes getting further in any walk of life.

Pynchme was concerned by claims that porn featuring the ritual humiliation of the actress is very popular. If this type of porn is at all popular, then I agree that this says something troubling about the way that male viewers have been taught to act. Houllie claims that amateur porn is more popular and I don't believe that there is anything wrong with that other type of porn.

I simply argued that men won't change while nice guys finish last. Some of us manage to be blokey without being a complete tosser. It is annoying thinking that we could have gone further in life, if we had been a bit more of a mongrel.

Severin I assume that you are being sarcastic with your apology rather than a genuine apology for some serious harm you believe that I have suffered.

My point is that the poem is kid's play and does not provide proof of a massive hatred by women of men just as boy's calling each other girls is not proof of widespread hatred of women by men.

By the way I've often heard women tell a boy who is crying about something not to be a girl. Does that imply a belief by those women that women are inferior.

I'm also right wing enough not to place much faith in the idea of one person being able to apologise on behalf of others.

R0bert

benk,

Do I smell a bitter snag?

Come to think of it where is formersnag? I'm sure a lot of his problems come from his unsuccessful attempts to get the girl via dedication to a snag image. Although I fear there is probably a bucket load of reasons apart from the flawed snag routine.

Just goes to show, men who just want to be men and ignore what women want them to be are the happiest. They get all the chicks too.

I often think this alpha crap is just that. Tough guy footballers get the girls and pretty girls get the footballers. This creates a lot of bitter nerds and bitter ugly chicks.

But then, later in life, there is a bunch of successful professionals with happy families and the world at their feet, and there is a bunch of guys in low paying jobs decrying the world is unfair, that the nerds don't deserve their money, and there's a bunch of women bitter their looks have faded and they're stuck with the abusive drunken football hero.

Well, that's what happens in the movies. It must be true.

Styx:"That has worked for many a single positionist."

But never for long.

benk:"It is annoying thinking that we could have gone further in life, if we had been a bit more of a mongrel."

Ah, the lament of the middle-class. The fact is that our hierarchies are natural outcomes of our biology, modified by overlays of social niceties designed to ameliorate the worst impacts of the "savage beast" on subordinate members, or at least give them a sense of self-determination and hence minimise aggressive dissent or "dominance fights" that lead to poor outcomes.

It's all about letting the Alpha dogs (and their alpha bitches) have their way with minimum hassle.

Any social structure that tries to change this basic reality is not going to work on a broad scale. Even on a small group scale it is dysfunctional since every group settles out into a hierarchy quite naturally.

Our particular personal rank within the hierarchy is a product mostly of genetics, I suspect, modified by our learning. A milquetoast man will never be an "alpha" and a plain-Jane blue-stocking will never be an "alpha" either, unless she possesses especially ruthless qualities. Think perhaps of Rosie o'Donnell or Hilary Clinton.

Houellebecq:"I often think this alpha crap is just that."

It may be once the social overlay is applied, but it's always just below the surface.

How old is the former Justice Chisolm? Has he ever experienced family law issues within his own family? Presumption of family violence in every family law matter? Presuming that every man in Australia at some point commits an act of domestic violence against their partner. So if my husband argues with me, calls me a name, disagrees with me, then he is being domestically violent? Mr McClelland why would you get an old man who is out of touch with real people to write a report about real people's lives?

Perhaps we should call a review of the family laws as a consequence of the mother in Brisbane who gassed her two children in a car or the case in Melbourne and many many others. It is a well known statistic that in 60% of cases, it is the mother who killed the child. Why are we not discussing this.

With regard to equal shared care, it should remain a presumption and the courts work from there by looking at distance between the homes, family violence (we only want to consider real physical violence), mental health issues of both the husband and wife (if either parent has a history of severe mental health issues, self harming, stays in mental health facilities, suicide attempts or overdoses then the presumption should be that the child spends majority time with the other parent whether they are male or female), drug abuse issues (again if one parent is a drug addict the other parent should be the majority of sole care provider).

Reports have proven that it is in the best interests of the child to spend as much time as they can with each parent and maintain family connections with both families.

There should be no changes to the law other than to more fully recognise that parents with mental health issues / drug addictions should not be the majority care givers. Domestic violence is already adequately dealt with, in fact, Magistrates give them out to women like candy whether or not there is any justification for doing so.

Medical Journal of Australia, 2008.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/190_01_050109/nie10592_fm.html

Mothers are responsible for at least 70% of child care.

R0bert

I am willing to wager that you have been called a 'girl' far more often than you have been regaled by an anachronistic poem which stereotypes BOTH boys and girls.

In case you haven't noticed girls as just as likely to get into the situations described in that poem as boys, and if you would like to be considered to be made of "sugar and spice and all things nice" -

Well, be my guest. As far as I'm concerned that poem should remain in the 19th century where it belongs.

Another thing for you to consider (seeing as you failed to think through the poem) try this:

Why is the worst epithet one person can call another is a part of female anatomy? A Cvnt?

Look I'm not really into a scoring match with you, but I am trying to encourage you to think.

If you are so sensitive and easily offended - stop being such a girl.