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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nation moved - father and son reunited > Comments

Nation moved - father and son reunited : Comments

By Warwick Marsh, published 16/9/2010

The whole nation has been moved by the story of a brave and resolute father who set out to find his little boy lost.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All
I have always thought the term “absent father” was a term applied to demonise fathers and make them look irresponsible.

It is a term liberally applied by academics and feminists, most of whom say they believe in equality.

Liars.

I know of no father trying to see his children, who calls himself an “absent father”
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 16 September 2010 8:52:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This cycling father must have had an idea where to look and enough money to do the looking. Imagine accommodation and food costs.

A lot of us have had our children stolen. The names of mine were illegally changed in schooling, impossible to find as I now know. My two taken at 7 and 9 years of age are now 22 and 25, children I never saw grow up now adult, children lost forever. The youngest has not spoken to me since he was 7 and my best friend. Stolen children are not encouraged to keep in contact.

Brainwashing for recrimination seems apparent. There is also too much women's lib, should be 50/50. The mother is now in her 4th marriage. It's not always fault of the male. Law needs to change.
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 16 September 2010 9:17:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How did she survive in Europe without income for 2 1/2 years? Europe esepcially Germany Switzerland and Hollad are expensive places. This is where the AFP should be looking now. I see her well heeled brother IAG chief investment officer Joh Stratton has now openly appointed a lawyer to represent her after stating he 'had not heard from her since before she ran away'. Pull the other one mate ! At least the kid has learned some languages but at what cost? His mind will have been polluted against his father by the twisted woman runaway. She only ran when she saw her own pschyiatrist report and realised she might lose custody til they fixed her wiring. There was talk about doing a deal by mediation with the criminal mother. I say throw away the key as an example to others and future possibles - she can get treatment for her paranoia in the lockup which is what she deserves for torturing the poor lad.
Posted by Dark Knight, Thursday, 16 September 2010 9:24:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF said: 'This cycling father must have had an idea where to look and enough money to do the looking. Imagine accommodation and food costs'

Just the opposite. He had no idea where in the world they were and there were sightings from Singapore, Vietnam, Costa del Sol , Norway and elsewhere. He lived on a bike and slept in a tent most of the trip at about Euo 50 a day which was to raise press coverage and awareness of the parental abduction problem, which he achieved. The Morcombe foundation committee allocated him AUD 3k towards his costs. His mobile phone bill is in teh thousands and his lawyer bill astronomical. If the mother had skipped before the case was in court there woudl have been no arrest warrant issued - how STUPID is that for a first world country ? You cannot mediate for a child return when you cannot find someone. They need laws to stop this happening.
Posted by Dark Knight, Thursday, 16 September 2010 9:31:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
secularism/feminism has changed Father God to mother earth, created a total feminized education system, feminized political system, feminized court systems, created fatherless children and we wonder why so many of our young men are confused and suicidal. Usually pathetic men who have not the guts to lead their on families have added to this problem.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 September 2010 9:59:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am so happy to hear that father and son have been united - what an epic journey the father has made - surely there is a book in that. I also hope that assistance will be given to the boy's mother, if she did not have good reason to take her son away she surely must require psychological help. Also the boy will require much help and support as well.

All I can do is wish for positive futures for all; the father, the mother and the son.
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 16 September 2010 10:06:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10994#183080

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10994#183085

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10994#183086

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10994#183087

Excellent work gentlemen, the kind of research that warwick quoted in his article has been around for about 3 decades now. Carefully done peer reviewed research by internationally reknowned academemics.

Yet still the radical, extreme, loony, left, lesbian, Fe"Man"Nazi Paedophiles insist upon "grooming" children for abuse and neglect.

Several hundred years ago when the UK really did have a patriarchal society, its purpose was to protect children from their "deadbeat" mothers and to protect women from themselves.

Every mother who is not living in a happy, harmonious marriage with the biological father of her children is neglecting or abusing them in some way, shape or form. This is a well documented scientifically proven fact.

If he is not neglecting or abusing his wife or his children? And 99% of biological fathers are NOT. Then just because she is going through a self imposed "Mid Life Crisis" and is too lazy or stupid to do some counselling so she can grow up and get over herself? Why should the children be psycologically tortured?
Posted by Formersnag, Thursday, 16 September 2010 10:16:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formersnag

Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments regarding mothers. I have just one question to which I do hope you will apply your considerable intellect:

Do widows abuse children as well?

As you are so well informed about women and their parenting skills I am sure you will be able to answer this question honestly and without recourse to vilifying women in general.

Fond Regards
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 16 September 2010 10:46:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see that statistics about fatherlessness are quoted. Did it ever occur to anyone at all that maybe the males who lived without a father were also living in poverty? Typically those who live in poverty do not reside in mansions in Beverly Hills. They live in the Bronx or in the ghettos of LA. They live in small houses and mothers struggle to find the next meal for the children. They do not have everything they need for growing up. Other children get the cool gadgets and toys and clothes while they wear hand me downs and thrift store reruns. This causes anxiety in many children especially teenagers. This anger could and does cause children to turn to a life of crime in order to get money to have the things that their friends have.

Maybe if a mother is given the resources she needs in order to provide a good life for her children without the struggle, there would not be so many boys turning to a life of crime in order to obtain possessions. Maybe if allegations of abuse were not routinely ignored, these boys would not be so angry as to turn to a life of crime.
Posted by AbuseVictims, Thursday, 16 September 2010 11:27:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abusevictum,

"given the resources"

This is the same old thing. The mothers are not being given enough money, but who has the money to give them.

Most people have enough difficulty paying their mortgage, paying for their own children, and saving for their retirement, without having to pay for someone else’s children.

The philosophy of feminism was based on a Marxist philosophy that the father is removed from the children, and then the children are raised by the mother and the state.

This was agreed with by academic feminists such as Germaine Greer, who few people would ever want near their children.

The ultimate situation is that the state can’t afford to pay for all those children being raised under the Marxist/ feminist philosophy.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 16 September 2010 1:16:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Vanna

You are so wise, could you please point out where it is written in the Marxist/Feminist manifesto that fathers should be removed from their children? It is dreadful news indeed. Breaks my heart to hear of it.

I am very concerned because most mothers and fathers appear to be very good people, doing the best they can - clearly evil feminists are hiding their vile natures from all of us.

I dread to think of the numbers of women who are secretly evil, evil Marxists just waiting to remove children from their caring, wonderful, fair, strong and manly fathers - how will the little ones gain a balanced perspective without their dads? Especially as it means the dear children will be poorer, because instead of two incomes they'll be surviving on a combination of whatever job or Centrelink benefit the evil feminist mother rakes in and whatever the poor father is forced by the evil, evil CSA to pay.
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 16 September 2010 3:01:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin,
To give you a quick history lesson.

Many feminists might think themselves somehow modern when saying words such as “patriarchal” and “oppression”, but these words can be found sprinkled throughout documents such as the communist manifesto produced in 1848.

Marxism was very hip in the 1970’s, together with free love, lots of drugs, and the breaking down of the establishment.

A number of the heroines of feminism came into prominence during this time, such as Betty Friedman.

"Professor Horowitz documents that Friedan was from her college days, and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America's Cold War fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in Berkeley's radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer. Her famous description of America's suburban family household as "a comfortable concentration camp" in "The Feminine Mystique" therefore had more to do with her Marxist hatred for America than with any of her actual experience as a housewife or mother.

Under the Marxist / feminist system, the family unit was called the “bourgeois family”, and was regarded as a part of the establishment that had to be destroyed.

Marxism believes that the state should control all, and wanted to abolish the family, with children mainly being raised by the state, for the state, with some influence from the mother, and none by the father.

And so it has to come pass, that so many women have been, and still are, being indoctrinated into believing that they can raise children by themselves with money from the state, (or from the taxpayer), and the children do not need a father.

These women have simply been a brainwashed pawn of Marxist/feminists who came to prominence during the 1970’s, but now, most people would not allow their children anywhere near.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 16 September 2010 3:39:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna

I had no idea. As Marxism is dominated by men, how clever of the women Marxists to fool men into believing that "bourgeois family" is just evil and that a patriarchy will lead us all to doom without proper, real men to lead the way while women do what they do best - getting pregnant and raising babies under the guidance of their revered husbands - lest they be tempted to abuse their babies.

Probably after being permitted to vote, the next worse thing was to allow women in universities in courses other than nursing and primary school teaching; gosh, even a secretary (now called a Personal Assistant) can wield much power.

It is so scary - my own mother is a woman! How have I managed to survive, buy my own home and provide for myself all without a good man by my side?

I really have to give your thoughts, Vanna, all the due consideration they deserve.

Many thanks.
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 16 September 2010 3:57:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
However Germaine Greer did make blistering attacks on the nuclear family as do (say) gender feminists and radical feminists. Most women shrug their shoulders, accepting that any movement has its cracked bell(e)s.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 16 September 2010 4:21:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin,
Most women have no idea of how women or men lived in the past. The stories they hear from feminist are, at best, a bigoted, distorted view to say the least.

But know the history of feminism, and where it came from, and the remnants that we left, which is the view that fathers are only important for paying money to oppressed “woman and their children“.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 16 September 2010 5:37:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article.

Good luck trying to get the Sydney Morning Hysterical being fair to men though. I mean, what next...male reporters at the ABC?
Posted by dane, Thursday, 16 September 2010 5:40:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many of the feminists of the 1980's era reinforced the idea that fathers were not necessary.

Add to this is what is known as maternal gatekeeping, (do your own google searchs)

Erin Pizzey wrote a discussion paper on the family terrorist, where she wrote that family may even be recieving treatment whilst the terrorist remains undetected.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 16 September 2010 6:03:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day all...

I believe it was you 'DARK KNIGHT' who stated inter alia, that the AFP should be the responsibile body to pursue Mother's or Father's who unlawfully spirit away their respective children ?

As a retired 'jack' I can assure you the AFP would rate such a crime very much down the list of priorities. Unless the child was from the union of a Politician , a member of the Judiciary, or similar, you've got Buckleys, my friend.

Further, for the edification of everyone, though I've never dealt in matters of family law, both the Husband and Wife are generally equally culpable. And anything to do with either, maltreating or psychologically molestation of a child, in my view is both egregious and abhorrent in the extreme.

The harm occasioned to the mind a child, during the often protracted process by Mum or Dad 'tugging' and vying for the affections of that child, in order to prove a point, exert a legal right, or satisfy an ego - again in my view, amounts to a serious emotional hurt to that child !

Somewhere in the Bible (I'm a 'born again atheist')? Anyway, two women before the King 'bluing' about who had the right to a child...the King suggested in order to settle the arguement, they cut the infant in half, thus each woman had an equal share... ? One of women, who loved the child unconditionally, gave it to the other woman, rather than having the child obviously killed ! So the moral goes ?

The Family Court in this country, tries pretty hard, in probably the most onerous and demanding jurisdiction in Law. Where there is generally no winner, and many many losers ! You may get a favourable ruling/judgement, but you still may not win in the long term ?

Cheers...Sung Wu.
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 16 September 2010 6:12:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
where it becomes filthy is where the woman dumps her man for someone else and then uses the 'abuse' card to ensure custody. It happens more often than one would like to think. Any father who does abuse his kids disqualifies himself from that position.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 September 2010 7:23:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin you will only be beating your head against the proverbial brick wall on this one.

There is no doubt it is great news that father and son have been reunited. The father showed great restraint I thought about his wife's actions and demonstrated greater understanding and forgiveness when it would have been easier to be vengeaful.

It is disappointing to see all the anti-woman vitriole in the comments so far - and lets not pussyfoot about that is what it is.

Much nonsense about feminisation of society while all the time these same commentators would have no problems with reverting to a strongly unequal patriarchial past. Very hypocritical and denies the value that more feminine characteristics and attributes can contribute to society as a complement to masculine attributes. If anything some feminists by striving to be equal adopt some of those same male attributes thinking that this approach is the only valid one for entry into 'equality'.

If you saw the documentary about this man you will know that the wife took the son OS because she believed he was abusing him. Who would do less under such circumstances if you truly believed it to be so. The father described the situation that led her to this conclusion, and agreeably it was a flimsy interpretation of what the boy described that led her to make the choices that ensued. But she believed it to be true - even the father acknowledges this was her motivation.

Using the 'abuse' card in a marriage breakdown is despicable when it is unfounded and only used to gain advantage in custody disputes. It not only ruins an innocent man's life but the relationship between a father and his children, and diminishes and shrouds other abuse allegations in a cloud of uncertainty to potentially great detriment for children experiencing abuse.

Let's all try and retain a rational approach to these issues and not let negativity and bitterness get in the way of finding better solutions for the future.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 16 September 2010 9:14:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another anti-female article from the manly Mr. Marsh.
He has managed to turn a wonderful story of a man finding his son after so long, into an anti-feminist diatribe that only serves to taint the story of this determined father.

What I want to know from manly Marsh is exactly how he intends to turn around this apparent feminist-led era of 'fatherless homes'?

Will we force couples to stay together (married of course!) for the sake of the children?

Should the case be that a loveless marriage or an abusive marriage is preferable to a fatherless household?

No one ever disputes that a child is better off with both the parents living happily with them all their childhood years.
However, we all know that the 'happy, married God-fearing family' are few and far between now.

We can't turn time back to the 'good old days' pre-feminism, and when the man ruled the household Mr. Marsh, no matter how hard you pray.
Posted by suzeonline, Thursday, 16 September 2010 9:15:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"This is a well documented scientifically proven fact".

Where is the well documented scientifically proven fact Formersnag?

Please provide Australian results from Australian research and the relevant studies.

Thanks Formersnag in anticipation.
Posted by we are unique, Thursday, 16 September 2010 10:27:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are some very sad statistics mentioned in this article. And of course everyone becomes an instant family relations expert at the mere mention of single parents and its outcomes for children. This subject has as many drivers as cars on the road.

My involvement in a boxing club in our local community brings to notice the prevalence of single parents looking to present their sons to a tougher reality of life which organised boxing can do. That is a decision they make which is positive for the childs development, but sadly there is a trend. It’s a tough call for many of the boys when early on in sparing, tears are common, which is natural since boxing is personally confronting and often painful; but isn’t life?.

Aggression is a shocking encounter to many of the boys, but more-so to the mothers who quickly scoop up the son, never to be seen at boxing again. You draw your own conclusions from this. Here is mine. It’s a tough call, a single parent role for a mother. Many of them endure their own personal pain, loaded onto the added responsibility of sole parenting, while endeavouring to accept the “dreams” end of a failed relationship they often should have abandoned much earlier than they did.

There is a serious tendency to overcompensate with smothering protection. I am afraid that act of kindness is deprecating to a boy with an urgent need to find himself and rise to the challenges of life; which includes the physical challenges. It is why involvement in sport for these boys in particular is essential, I believe.

Through all the hype of this media event,two obvious questions remain, firstly, what fear prompted the mother to such elaborate behaviour to hide her child and herself from her husband, and secondly, what motivation prompts a husband to display such obsessive and exhibitionist behaviour in his attempts to find his wife and child?

I personally do not believe ken Thompsons mission should elevate him to hero status so soon
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 16 September 2010 11:24:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree Diver Dan, although I was loath to suggest that maybe there is more to this story than meets the eye.

I can't believe that the mother was so mentally ill that she imagined horrible abuses against her child, and yet had the presence of mind to hide herself and the child from authorities and all other support systems in foreign countries for two and a half years?

I sincerely hope it is all above board, although I guess the original Australian court ruling that the father have custody of the child must surely prove that he was the more fit parent- at least at that time?
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 17 September 2010 1:21:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It didn’t take long before the words “abusive” and “loveless” and “patriachial” were being mentioned with the word “father”.

It is routine feminist propaganda practice to use such words when mentioning fathers, similar to Hitler attempting to match the word “Jew” with “vermin”.

Interesting that so many fathers are being denied proper contact with their children, yet they are not in jail, they have broken no laws, they are allowed to walk down the street, and of course, they are allowed to work and pay their child support.

Those vermin fathers are always good for something.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 17 September 2010 8:56:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well suzionline,

I do not share your trust in the ability of the family law court system to get it right. I have much personal experience in the Court spectrum which includes the Family Law Court of Australia. The reality is that justice tends to follow the money.

Sadly, we as the gullible public, too often draw conclusions on face value and on information supplied; one natural consequence of being human is the tendency for sympathy.

So in the case of Ken Robertson and his push bike ride around Europe for two and a half years, the funding of the venture has to be an issue. Who can afford to feed themselves while on a two and a half year odyssey? The rich can!

Also, the other fact pointing to money is his past occupation as deputy fire commissioner, delivering a handsome pay check. At one interview he commenented to the journalist, in answer to the question “what are your feelings now towards your ex wife”? Robertson implied; (after wasting two and a half years of his life chasing her across the countryside in Europe), that he showed no antipathy at all towards her. For me, that answer is a marker for evil!
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 17 September 2010 9:36:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clearly there is more to this story than is reported by the media - a mother in obvious fear, a father determined to retrieve his son. Very sad and my thoughts are with the young boy at the centre of this strangle of a triangle.

Of course, it is all the fault of evil, evil feminists for demanding that men pay for the upkeep of the children they have sired - if women would just get on with producing children and stop this incessant whine about equal opportunity, that biological fathers should contribute to the welfare their children... Next feminists will expect the men in their lives to bond with their kids and spend time with them in activities(!), instead of going to the pub or watching porn on the internet. World is going to hell while women expect parity with the menfolk.

Poor Vanna, shut out of universities, prevented from proving his claims that universities are hotbeds of Marxist Lesbians bent on world domination.

When will the truth out?

Real men like Tony Abbott or Chris Pyne never attended universities did they? Else they would be pussy-whipped and subjugated to their wives' every whim, wouldn't they?

Just look at Rupert Murdoch - no influence over a supermarket sales catalogue let alone a media empire.

Such a sad time for men - no power or influence whatsoever.
Posted by Severin, Friday, 17 September 2010 1:57:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Of course, it is all the fault of evil, evil feminists for demanding that men pay for the upkeep of the children they have sired - if women would just get on with producing children and stop this incessant whine about equal opportunity, that biological fathers should contribute to the welfare their children... Next feminists will expect the men in their lives to bond with their kids and spend time with them in activities(!), instead of going to the pub or watching porn on the internet. World is going to hell while women expect parity with the menfolk.'

A ridiculous comment, especially on a thread with an author and many contributors wanting recognition of fathers and lobbying for the rights of fathers to see their kids.

There is NOBODY here complaining about paying for the upkeep of their kids, just the opposite in fact.

'Next feminists will expect the men in their lives to bond with their kids and spend time with them in activities'
The men here are desperate for just that, it's the feminists that were only interested in men as wallets as far as I can gather from the posters here.

'instead of going to the pub or watching porn on the internet.'
A nice characterise of the 'average' man, who chooses these activities in preference to and in neglect of their children? Or perhaps a vicious slur on the male posters here? Either way, it says a lot about you Fractelle.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 17 September 2010 2:19:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The word 'satire' is completely lost on you, isn't it, Houllie?
Posted by Severin, Friday, 17 September 2010 2:56:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As opposed to vanna who is the paragon of impartial analysis.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 17 September 2010 3:05:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fractelle,

I don't think you truley know what satire is. Your 'satire' doesn't even reflect the target at all. You're expressing something that you want to assign to them that doesn't bear any resemblance to the arguments on this thread.

Well, that and the fact it's not the slightest bit funny.

pelican,

'As opposed to vanna who is the paragon of impartial analysis.'
I wouldn't say that. Though obviously I do hold others who have shown previous aptitude for logical argument (however slim) to higher standards. Especially when they profess to attain these standards.

If you really want, I'll call a nutjob a nutjob before ever daring to comment on the stupidity of the slightly less than nutjobs. How's that?
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 17 September 2010 3:15:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day all & 'SEVERIN'...

If I didn't know better SEVERIN, I would've thought that you had a 'chip' on your shoulder about the part men play in custody issues ?

Any reasonable individual would recognise that 'fault' per se is pretty equally apportioned. I agree absolutely, little thought is given by either, as to the BEST for the child. And as I stated in my earlier Email - egos, being right in law, etc etc is often the prime motivator for why a parent will unlawfully spirit a child O/S without the knowledge of the spouse.

As a retired detective, I can assue you that culpability is equally divided between both.

'Bashing up' either party is a mistake. What appears prima facie, to be a crime often, is in fact an escape mechanism, in order to get a bit of 'clear air' without the other party continually trying to intimidate or menace the other.

Then there's the In-Laws. Who can exert tremendous pressure too.

So SEVERIN there is no absolute right or wrong in Family Law.

Cheere...Sung Wu.
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 17 September 2010 3:20:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would add though...

'It didn’t take long before the words “abusive” and “loveless” and “patriachial” were being mentioned with the word “father”.'

Sometimes little Gems come from the nutjobs. There's no denying that's the standard course of events on OLO or anywhere you find a feminist with an axe to grind.

The stereotype of the cold heartless father is just that. A propaganda tool for feminists to change the social order. Or do we really believe men only started loving their kids and being involved in their lives in the last 20 years. My grandfather would say otherwise, and so would my father.

But, according to Fractelle, it's all booze and porn for the fathers of today. Yet she gets upset about antiseptic's characterisations of mothers.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 17 September 2010 3:22:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq
I haven't heard of any academic feminists calling for women to see their children every second weekend, and to be out earning money to pay child support.

I wonder why that is?

BTW. I've done two courses in universities in this country, but I wouldn't bother doing any more courses with universities in this country.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 17 September 2010 3:23:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houlley, I completely understood the satire in Severin's post.

I read it as a response to vanna's usual one-eyed view of the world and the broad sweeping generalisations he makes about women and his well worn hard-done-by syndrome. You profess a dislike of this victim approach in women but it is equally annoying in men.

Sometimes we agree other times not. Don't take my retort as that of a moral moderator, heaven forbid.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 17 September 2010 3:26:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But it's not satire. Well I suppose on the level of the emotive dramatic prose, but not on the content.

Severin, via her 'satire' was arguing vanna would be against men being in their kids lives and he has been arguing for the opposite. All the men here have, no matter what they think of feminism. And they are also more likely to be pro men providing financially, in fact they are unhappy at the idea that that's all that is allowed/expected.

Can you imagine a satire of Tony Abbot being really upset about women waiting to be married before having sex?
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 17 September 2010 3:45:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies Houllie, I know you like to think you're the irony queen on OLO, that's why I thought you would've twigged when I mentioned Abbott and Pyne not attending Uni, that women don't want their partners involved with their kids and that Murdoch has no power.

All I can do is post the following Youtube (warning there are expletives) and maybe, THEN you'll get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE1x5Xp8Azs

This guy is one of my fave characters on Youtube - great therapy.

(Guess I did not dig a big enough pit either)
Posted by Severin, Friday, 17 September 2010 4:36:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houllie

Severin has just given us all a licence to defend any hate-filled rant against women or utter misinterpretation of another's views as satire.
Posted by benk, Friday, 17 September 2010 5:16:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

"As a retired detective, I can assue you that culpability is equally divided between both"

The problem isn't who is at fault: it's what happens afterwards when one party gets the bill and access every fortnight while the other party gets to raise the child.

I'm also very sceptical with you being a fmr policeman. Police always assume it is the man at fault regardless of the evidence. Police are not even close to fair when it comes to domestic violence or allegations of abuse.

Lastly, I'm astounded at how gullible some people are on this thread. This woman had the presence of mind to evade international authorities and live on the run for a number of years but 'honestly' believed her husband was sexually assaulting their child? Seriously.

What is it with our society and our 'madonna complex'. We just can't seem to bring ourselves to admit that women can be vindictive.
Posted by dane, Friday, 17 September 2010 5:22:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good evening 'DANE'...

You doubt that I was a copper ? Well, that's entirely your prerogative of course.

The two post's that I've lodged on this particular thread were NOT dealing in specifics. Rather in generalities. It's been my experience, blame can be apportioned equally in matters of family law.

It never ceases to amaze me how much venom and vitriol emerges in these matters. You state inter alia how cunning and vicious women can be ? And men aren't ? Violence is not only the exclusive preserve of males. I've personally witnessed some appalling injuries to men, occasioned by women.

DANE, neither sex is ever totally blameless. Very early on in the job, you quickly learn - there's her side, his side and the truth !

And your assertion, the coppers will always take the side of the woman, is conspicuous nonsense.

At a violent 'Domestic', the very first responsibility of the coppers, is the protection and preservation of life ! Irrespective, of who's to blame ! That often means removing the male person from the dwelling, until tempers cool, and appropriate measures can be introduced, in order that no further 'Breach of the Peace' occurs.

This strategy is standard police practice. Initiated to ensure, ALL occupants in the house, are adequately protected (often from themselves) should events therein, deteriorate any further.

I'm no academic, I have no degree/s, nor trained in Psychology et al.
But in over thirty two years in the job, you do tend to pick-up the odd clue or two, apropos human behaviour.

Cheers...Sung Wu.
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 17 September 2010 7:05:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin, if it helps, I found your 'satirical' comment above quite clever.
What amazes me is that even on a topic that started by praising a father who fought so hard to find his child, it is the men on this forum who have turned it around again to be a gender issue where females are found to be lacking, yet again.

Yawn.

O sungwu,< "G'day all & 'SEVERIN'"
Oh yes indeed, I can see you have learnt appropriate behaviours when dealing with someone you don't agree with- you YELL the name of the person who wrote the post several times during your post!
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 17 September 2010 9:51:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is extremely giving, brave and wonderful for a former detective or law enforcement officer to contribute/post on issues that she/he has experienced over many years.

The fact that others do not bother stating or opening up about their own careers or backgrounds, in order for Australians to learn and gain an insight, is disappointing [Suzeonline and Severin excluded, as you both have been most giving].

I notice that it is often some posters who target and challenge other posters regarding their line of work or personal revelations, when at the same time guard their careers, backgrounds, family life and selves, out of fear. In other words, no 'giving and sharing' of experiences explained, based upon their work and life experiences.

I wish more people could be a little more giving and generally touch on their working backgrounds and lives as O Sung Wu, Severin and Suzeonline have done in the past.

In all fairness Suze, I have capitalised words when attempting to make a point on the odd occasion too; recently learned not to do it, as the odd person has misinterpreted as anger or aggression occasionally.

I, for one, am most grateful that you are contributing O Sung Wu, and have learned a great deal already from your postings.
Posted by we are unique, Friday, 17 September 2010 10:52:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzanonline,

You seem an honourable feminist, so maybe you can answer this question.

How come, and I repeat, how come honourable, gracious, honest feminists haven’t been calling for women to see their children only once a fortnight and half the school holidays, and to be out working so that they can pay child support.

I’ve never heard a feminist say that women should be doing that.

So, how come.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 18 September 2010 12:33:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Vanna,
As you put it all so nicely above..... I will answer you to the best of my lowly female self!

I have never said I was a feminist, ever. I don't like labels.
However, I can answer you as a woman who has had some varied life experiences, if that is ok?

In actual fact I don't presently know any divorced couples who share the custody of their children as you describe - at least not since the 1980's.

My own father left my mother in the '80s to move in with his girlfriend and her two kids. There were four of us teenagers at home with mum. He never paid her a cent maintenance.
My mum did it hard alright.

My best friend and several close female workmates who have had relationship breakdowns at various times over the past 10 years, all share the custody of their kids 50/50 with the fathers of the kids.

The arrangement my neighbour has is one week she has the kids, and the next week they go to their dads place. And so it goes on all year.

I'm thinking the reasons they do this arrangement so well is because none of them felt the need to go to the courts for custody. They worked it out for themselves.
They seem to also manage the financial arrangements reasonably well at the same time. Of course, they have their problems, like all families.
They seem to put the kids needs first though.
Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 18 September 2010 1:09:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First point in this story is that the mother broke the law.

Secondly it was not that long ago in Australia where a father failed to return the child after his visitation and virtually the whole australian police force, and the media were out to find him.

If I recall correctly he was gaoled.(when I find the links I'll post them)

It is good that Suzie does know of instances where 50/50 works. However there are mothers who do regard children as their property and dads as a mere inconvenience.

Recent findings of the ombusman found that the child support agency is biased against men. Yet in Australia there are no legally enforcable penalities to encourage custodial mothers to comply with visitation orders/arrangments, the police do not get involved, until a dad fails to return a child.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 18 September 2010 6:56:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzanonline,
I can’t seem to get an answer to this question, but it is so fundamental.

If 90% of the time the children are with the mother, and the man works and pays the child support, then gracious feminists should be calling on more women to work and only see their children occasionally, or not at all.

But I don’t hear that from gracious, honest, truthfull, nonbigoted, nonprejuiced, nonparasitic feminists.

It does seem incredible that so many men build the buildings, run most of the schools, run most of the hospitals, develop most of industry, pay most tax, do most of everything really, but can’t see their own children because these men are evil and abuse “women and their children”.

In the case of the article, the ex fire commissioner couldn’t see his own child because he would abuse them. Yet he was wanted as a fire commissioner.

There are more and more questions. If only I could find a honest feminist to answer such questions.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 18 September 2010 9:18:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Questions generally have question marks.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 18 September 2010 9:55:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH

>>> However there are mothers who do regard children as their property and dads as a mere inconvenience. <<<

And there are fathers who hold the same ridiculous point of view.

>>> Recent findings of the ombudsman (sic) found that the child support agency is biased against men. <<<

11 of the senior staff of the CSA are male, 5 are female (that's if Nik Prisc is female). The CSA is stuck in a time warp believing that females should be the primary care-givers to children. It is not and has never been a feminist plot. Numbnuts.

http://www.csa.gov.au/agency/structure.aspx

Vanna

>>> You seem an honourable feminist, so maybe you can answer this question. <<<

You are so judgemental and ignorant you took my previous posts to you seriously, heard you fall in my moron pit way down here in Victoria.

__________________________________________________________________

Back to topic, yes the mother did the wrong thing - she like many parents (male and female) thought she was doing it for the right reasons. And yes the father's attempt to reunite with his son is nothing short of heroic.

Now can we stop vilifying women?

Or do I start another piece of satire?
Posted by Severin, Saturday, 18 September 2010 10:41:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting how we get so obsessed with gender politics instead of looking at the individual cases on their own merit.

There was a father in the US a while back who ran off with his children to avoid his wife gaining full custody. The reason being her lack of care as a mother, some continuing drug isues and other reasons that contributed to her not being a fit mother (I cannot remember them all). The children in this case wanted to stay with their father and said so to the Judge but the ruling went the other way.

Can you blame the father in this case for wanting to protect his children? When interviewed, the children supported their dad's decision to essentially kidnap them.

Most reasonable people would agree even if they disagreed with his tactics, but given the long winded journey through the legal system one can understand his motives.

The trouble is we can all comment on these cases (and we do) without really knowing all the back stories and the people involved.

Most divorced couples now share custody. In the past it was mothers that were given custody because of traditional expectations just as men were paid more for doing the same job because it was expected they had to support a family.

We can all live in the past and some posters can dump their bitterness on all women without rational thought or at least attempting to see the view from the other side.

What 'feminist' on OLO has said fathers should not see their children more than every second weekend?

No, it is much more fun to wallow in self-pity than to get out there and look at what changes have occurred in child custody arrangements.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 18 September 2010 12:32:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,
"Most divorced couples now share custody"

Statistics please.

Also, there seems to be a problem.

For some decades we have had all these social scientists, feminists and various hangers on running around in universities, with their arms constantly ssttrreettcchhiinngg out for that taxpayer’s dollar, but nothing seems to be getting any better.

We have one in four households now a single person household (and increasing). The rates of fatherless children are not decreasing. The rates of homelessness seem to be increasing, and we actually had a homeless person receiving the OOA recently. We also have a father having to ride a bicycle 6,000 km trying to find his child, because the police couldn’t be bothered looking for the mother who had broken the law.

So all these social scientists, feminists and various hangers on running around in universities, endeavoring to change society for the better, have been a total failure.

So, can you nominate an area where these people have been successful, and society is actually improving.

I don’t know of any.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 18 September 2010 1:13:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10994#183099

Severin? fractelle?

Any female widow, would for her own benefit, without a shadow of doubt, be better off, having her own parents move into her home while she goes through the painful process of grieving.

The "Maternal Grandfather" would then be available to provide a "Male" role model for her children, in the absence of their dead biological father. This role could also be fulfilled by her brothers, her dead husband's father, uncles and brothers, etc.

However, in recent decades, the "Politically Correct Thought Police" have discouraged the healthy involvement of extended families or shock, horror, the local church community, in family welfare in favour of taxpayer funded "Social Talkers", (they are not workers, nothing they say or do, ever works or benefits children, your own research shows that child abuse & neglect has become an exponentially growing, publicly funded spectator sport over the last 5 decades as a direct result of Fe"Man"Nazism)

The best way for any people with issues to work through them, is to be able to share them with other people who have been through the same difficulties. Once upon a time widows of both sexes were encouraged to socialise with each other. This gave them all shoulders to cry on, without it costing the taxpayers anything.

Sooner or later they could move on and usually with each other.

A healthy win win situation, but that does not provide an excuse to whinge about the need for more social talkers does it?

BTW, while we are on the subject of vilification, radical fauxmanista's, are still to this day, implying or flat out stating that all men are, etc, with rubbery figures, etc, with little or no correction from you or any of your sista's in da hood.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10994#183105

AbuseVictims, correct, but 99% of the single mothers in this poverty are there because they voluntarily chose to live that way, encouraged by Fe"Man"Nazi paedophiles, to live on welfare, or leave good men, for no reason other than boredom, laziness in marriages, or the big screen TV bonus.
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 18 September 2010 4:09:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna

Unless a father has died children are not fatherless. Shared custody and greater access ensures time spent with both mother and father. By your interpretation children are also then motherless. Being a parent is more than just about who lives with the children most of the time.

Many children are fatherless because dad has run off and decided not to be involved in their children's lives. How is that the fault of feminism or university academics. When a man is deserted by his wife and left with the kids he is made into a hero - "what a great dad", "he is doing it tough on his own" but the same hero status is not afforded to single mothers. In fact they are pilloried.

The improvements in society are that men and women have more choices, women are not seen as inferior mentally nor treated as second class citizens. Men now have more rights in regard to shared parenting. How can that be a bad thing? Shared parenting (SP) does not work for all children and while SP should be the starting point each case should be judged on an individual basis.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 18 September 2010 4:38:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont/...

The reason why we have more single parent households (men are also single parents when they divorce) is that people are less likely to work at their marriage as in the past. Marriage meant forever even if it meant coping with physical or mental abuse. People are now less likely to put up with this sort of behaviour and rightly so. People have also become selfish and the 'me me' society probably has not helped men and women find contentment in the marriage home when things become difficult and the gloss has worn off.

The outcome should always be what is best for the children and usually this is involvement with both parents, but not always. It has been found that some women are now hesitant to report violent behaviour, lest they be accused of false claims in relation to custody issues which, as it came out, was relevant in that case where the father heartlessly threw his daughter off a bridge. Do you think a history of violence (either mother or father) should be taken into account in custody cases?

vanna, how do you think society should be structured? Please tell me what your utopia would look like in relation to gender roles?
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 18 September 2010 4:39:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10994#183121

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10994#183129

Severin, twice, i do understand that after 5 decades of indoctrination by the "Politically Correct Thought Police" you would have some difficulty believing anything said by a fair, reasonable man like Vanna. So how about i treat you to some links, peer reviewed by world renowned academics from both sides.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

http://www.savethemales.ca/000185.html

http://www.henrymakow.com/australian_satanist_exposes_wo.html

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7962804/mum-charged-over-pot-smoking-toddler-video

With a couple of bonuses thrown in, but the first 2 are best.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10994#183130

No, Cornflower, almost all of the Fe"Man"Nazi leadership were loony, lefties, or lesbians, or mentally ill, or all of the above.

And the average woman sat back & let their husbands, sons, fathers, brothers, be vilified because they thought they were gaining some advantage, in the "battle of the sexes", which was started by communists to destabilise, modern western capitalist democracy.

Its the ultimate, "divide & conquer" strategy, (been around for thousands of years) women fell for it, but men did not, women still don't want to believe it, even when presented with evidence.

Kinda says something about the real, physical, difference in brain size, (roughly 15%), between men & women doesn't it?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10994#183142

o sung wu, sorry to disappoint you but when it comes to marriage breakdown the stats show that more than 90% of the failures are down to "her", as well as the neglect & abuse of children.

Despite 15 years involvement in the men's movement, i have never met, 1 single, abusive husband or father, thousands who have been falsely accused, but not 1 who ever did it.
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 18 September 2010 4:52:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<It is not and has never been a feminist plot. Numbnuts.>

<You are so judgemental and ignorant you took my previous posts to you seriously, heard you fall in my moron pit way down here in Victoria.

Or do I start another piece of satire?>
Posted by Severin, Saturday, 18 September 2010 10:41:27 AM

Never a feminist plot? Well Hoff-Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Melaine Phillips, Christine Stobla, Erin Pizzey disagree with you.

On the other hand perhaps certain dysfuntional female personality types may be using feminism as a cover to serve their own personal agenda against males.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050306012220/http://www.nojustice.info/Courts/TheBestInterestoftheMother.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20050309230433/www.nojustice.info/Courts/childsupport.htm
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 18 September 2010 6:09:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good afternoon to all of you, and 'We are unique','Suzeonline' and 'Formersnag'...

Firstly, I must apologise unreservedly if by capitalising your pseudonyms herein, has offended or aggrieved anyone who contributes material on OLO. It's certainly not my intention to cause any acrimony or enmity in this place. Gosh, there's enough negativity all 'round us without my (unintentioned) contribution adding to it.

I note 'Formersnag', you state, statistically 90% of marriage breakdowns are precipitated by women ? Actually, I don't know, so I'll certainly take your word for it.

Nevertheless, assuming the above stats. are correct. It doesn't necessarily follow, that the woman is to blame. In any case, it is NOT the job of police to determine blame. That (difficult) duty falls clearly within the aegis of the Family Court.

Essentially, the (only) role of police, in Family Law matters are:

(a) In matters of Domestic Violence - the protection of life and property and, preservation of the Queen's Peace (an old-fashioned and whimsical term, but still very current).

(b) When necessary, enforce ALL judgements, orders, conditions, and requirements of the Family Court.

And, basically that's it. Of course, should a crime emerge, as a consequence of any Family law issue/s, then it becomes the normal responsibility of police to prosecute the author of that crime.

Thank you 'We are unique' for your support, I really appreciate it.

Again, I'm sorry for any exasperation I may have occasioned to any contributer to OLO, it was not my intention to do so.

Cheers...Sung Wu.
Posted by o sung wu, Saturday, 18 September 2010 6:44:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,
You will find the statistics regards shared parenting have hardly changed in 5 years. There appears to be some that believe that shared parenting is now the norm, but it is not, and the problem of fatherless children has not decreased.

For example: -

“THE shared parenting law introduced by the Howard government has resulted in more children spending time with both parents after divorce, but the numbers who do so are minuscule and most children still spend the majority of time with their mothers.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/shared-parenting-law-brings-little-change/story-e6frg6nf-1225826082938

"how do you think society should be structured"?

I would think there should be less demonizing of men and fathers. The father who threw the child off the bridge is one case that is repeated over and over and over, but have you ever thought of the number of fathers looking after their children every second weekend and ½ the school holidays (now 100,000’s) and there is not any reported problems.

Repeating the case of the child being thrown off the bridge is a part of the process of demonising fathers.

The issue of the fraudulent claims made by the Office of Women in SA is another example of the demonisation of men.

The fact that few can seem to find an academic in a university who has ever written anything positive about fathers is another part of the demonisation of fathers.

The vilification of men rights groups by university academics is another part of the demonisation process.

The lack of positive comments from university academics about men in general is also a part of the demonisation of men.

Etc, etc, etc

Now that the Office of Women is out of the way, the next on the list should be those in universities who seek to denigrate men and fathers, and who should also be on the list are the vice-chancellors who have employed such people.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 18 September 2010 8:16:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read the story about the Dad missing his child after just 3plus years. I emigraited from the UK to Oz in 1989. Biggest mistake of my life! My ex, a community health nurse, abducted my 2 daughters twice in 1999 from Whyalla South Australia. I haven't seen either (youngest) since march 2000, mainly because of Oz secrecy laws. I got them back the first time but not the second, despite 9 applications to the Family Court in Adelaide in Jan 2000. Nothing was done. The Mother managed to get the girls enrolled in Adelaide schools in contravention of the Family Court Order residency provision which the schools chose to ignore, and which Ombudsman Biganovsky would later describe as "not lawful". Fathers are not permitted to participate in Family Court of Australia trial proceedings, ( I have had 2), so I got wiped out financially including the seizure of an award for post traumatic stress injuries sustained some years prior to my marriage during an armed robbery in Lagos Nigeria. So no opportunity to challenge. Because of the Mothers status she has been able to intercept my eldest daughters complaints of abuse, meaning that the Mother and her partner are above the law.
The South Australia police are worse than useless. I have no faith in the integrity of any Aussie Agency except for the ABC
Posted by ukusaoz44, Saturday, 18 September 2010 8:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ken's real life story is similar to mine. I have not seen my children since December. All I did was to report my children's abuse to DHS, and the message was quickly passed onto my ex and her social workers.

I wrote to OCS, Chief Justice of Family court, but to no avail. Finally I decided not to return the children as they were scared to return as my daughter was inappropriately touched by a unqualified male from Connections, the ex's family support group.

My daughter gave evidence to Police but nothing happended. DHS version was, "father's time needs to be supervised".

my ex's allegations of violence and abuse were thrown out by court at an IVO hearing and she continued to abuse the children. Who is really listening? the answer is 'No one'. It is very true that the system is operated and run by feminist.

My heart goes to all fatherless children and I hope the system changes for good of the children and liars are charged for perjury.

Thank you
Posted by JITEN, Sunday, 19 September 2010 6:36:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who is Ken?
Posted by benk, Sunday, 19 September 2010 6:49:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is my first post on ONO, I signed up after reading the story about young Andrew,and I'm totally gobsmacked by most of what i read!
I'd like to put it to you that a mother doesn't just up and off simply to be spiteful to her husband. This woman left, I imagine, a very nice home and a husband on a very good salary...she would have wanted for nothing. She would've also left some very good friends and of course family. Why? To protect her child is why!

I know about the case Prof Briggs spoke of, and yes it's a fact that the children involved in the case she refers to have suffered permanent brain damage caused by severe PTSD.
Prof Briggs is stating the truth when she commented that lawyers are warning their clients not to mention "abuse." If anyone is familiar with Dr Richard Gardner you'll understand why lawyers are taking this stance.
Although his "Syndrome" has been discredited and banned the psychologists of the flc still use it when there's accusations of abuse by the mother.

Someone mentioned that Andrew had been interviewed and it was found there'd been no abuse. Oh my, what a surprise!! (not)
My grandson was interviewed at age 4 and was very articulate about his abuse but it couldn't be used in court becos 4year olds "lie." Sheeez, they're about the only people on the planet who don't lie...

Finally a word to all the "women haters" Can't you see you're falling right into the hands of the powers that be? They need the gender war to continue,it's all about $$$. Think about it.

Can you imagine what it would be like if we actually joined forces and fronted those 'powers'? They'd be forced to make sure that the best interest of the child was paramount. There was a case not so long ago where the judge automatically gave full custody to the father because mum was 25 minutes late getting to court due to traffic problems. Now get this bit.....It was a female judge!
Posted by changalang, Sunday, 19 September 2010 8:04:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My children live only one hour's drive from where I live and I have not seen them for nearly 7 years. Behavior of professionals during the four year court battle was a major factor that led to this traumatic estrangement. Two examples follow.

Behavior 1 - early on, in a session with a court-appointed counselor, my ex-wife told me that not seeing me was ok for the children, that they had 'moved on' and no longer needed me. The counselor allowed this to be a worthy line of inquiry, for us all 'to consider'. It shattered me, I had no idea how to respond, and therefore 'lost' that round of discussions.

Behavior 2 - a psychiatrist, who I never met nor consented to treating my children, wrote a report that was allowed to be used in the court saying it would be a threat to the children's psychiatric well-being for them to have contact with me. Even though final orders had been made based on court-initiated assessments and reports that found no reason for anything but regular contact, the court agreed to consider this. During the next 12 months (of no contact) and another round of court-initiated reports again supporting our regular and 'normal' contact, the psychiatrist commissioned by my ex-wife wrote another report, also allowed in the court, saying I was still a serious threat to their well-being (ignoring that they had been through another trauma of their mother's divorce to her second husband). The legal process was brought to its knees, by so-called professionals, stifling the Court's capacity to make a fair and reasonable decision.

Lesson 1. Until the professions involved in family disputes are required to honour some basic principles such as the need for both parents to remain meaningfully involved in each child's life, the legal processes will remain too easily misused to suit the emotional and sometimes manipulative interests of one party or another.

Lesson 2. Perhaps the Court could be required to be more selective in the evidence it allows for use in cases such as mine.
Posted by deanm, Sunday, 19 September 2010 9:36:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I feel profoundly for both yourself and your children Dean. The following is no consolation or can ever make up for the enforced estrangement, however, as you would know, when your children are older, they will naturally wish to see you and get to know you, as their father and as an adult. After this occurs, your wife will regret sadly, her actions of the past.

My father I did not see for 7 years after he remarried an insecure woman who put her foot down stating that if he wished to remain married to her, all four of us teenagers were not to be invited over to tea or for any visits.

Not having dealt with this situation previously, my father gave in to her, until he decided to separate 7 years later. By that time, he was deeply sorry for having missed out on our teenage years, when we kind of needed him the most.

I forgave him, and so too have all of my siblings. I believe, that this woman today, now in her early 70's, does not see her own children much, as she had treated one of them in a similar manner.

I do have to state here, that not having either of my parents around me during my teenage years, forced me into standing up on my own two feet in a confident and strong way, both emotionally and financially. I worked part time jobs from the age of 12years to buy my own clothes and school lunches.

There were other positives amidst the sadness of losing a father for 7 years [high school years], that after reading your story, I have now realised. There was the odd negative too as an adult. Who knows? Perhaps all family units experience many of the different traumas for various reasons. That's where my attitude and faith in God have gotten me through all of life's obstacles.

Kindest wishes.
Posted by we are unique, Monday, 20 September 2010 12:07:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm so sick of every parenting after separation debate being reduced to a battle between men and women. Another great opportunity for dialog hijacked by the far left and right wings of the parenting debate;

What kids need is for mum and dad to "get back up" after family breakdown, that's it in a nutshell ladies and gentlemen! Nobody dragged my sister into court to prove her worthiness to parent after her husband passed away with cancer. There was no family report, no DHS involvement and no false allegations. She wasn’t forced to spend a university education for my niece because the other parent just refused to co parent or share the responsibility.

What we should be talking about is how best to protect children from the stupidity of parents at the most obviously emotive point in life. In-stead we give them a pair of boxing gloves each and a number of purpose built arenas in which to punch each others lights out; mediation, PDR, local magistrates, federal magistrates, family court and just about any other boxing ring we can steer them into.

We give them family law, child support, social security (A&B) and now the ever widening crimes family violence act and definitions with which to punch each other senseless.

Give me three good reasons why parents in the midst of all that encompasses the average 2010 family in “breakdown mode” should be able to focus completely on the needs of their children, or see well enough to make effective decisions regarding their long term development for that matter. Chances are at least one of them, particularly the displaced parent can’t and shouldn’t we simply applaud those who can?

What we really need to do is support and encourage parents to use a model that works well for children after separation, rather than continually arguing the far right and left of sexism. Parents who keep the kids settled, surrounded by their normal extended families, school and social support networks for example. We need to create interventions that work and a support system retrained and free from politically polarized cultures.
Posted by Wisdomiskey, Monday, 20 September 2010 12:14:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could some simple changes to the current process make a significant difference to children of divorce?

It seems pointless to me to do anything to change laws effecting separating families if we can’t first agree that lowering their level of conflict would have the most immediate impact on child welfare and kids future life potential. More than just money, plenty of happy well adjusted humans come from poor backgrounds.

The most important fact that comes out of reading a whole range of credible statistics, including those stated by Warwick Marsh here, is that children just love their parents, even the bad ones and react very badly to being estranged from them. The evidence is in folks, the lives of these children are to some degree predictable whether the children of a drug addict or a loving fire chief.

We should only allow this to happen under the most exceptional of circumstances. This should be the responsibility of every one of us. There are few crimes that attract a true life sentence for a reason and I’m sure that the crime of divorce shouldn’t carry one, poor parenting skills shouldn’t either or even the worst crime effecting families, family violence?

The justice system has always advocated the people should have the opportunity for rehabilitation, even those guilty of the most horrific crimes. Why is it that we so often make parenting after separation a one chance only deal, when so much is so obviously at stake for the vary children we are charged with protecting – Protecting children must start with protecting families, not just individual parents, but the whole extended family support structure available to children.

I wonder; if there was a simpler way to prevent much of the unnecessary harm done to children while we wait for intervention through the back-logged mediation process or from the often inconsistent, ineffective child protection safety-net, would we change our approach before spending millions re-reinventing the family law wheel once more?

Would I apply a presumption of equal parenting time? No

Are there some easily implemented steps we could take? Yes
Posted by Wisdomiskey, Monday, 20 September 2010 3:14:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4991

<"She mocked him. She laughed at him. (She said) 'I took all your money, I took your daughter and now I am going to take your career'," Assistant County Attorney Jerome Blanchard said in court yesterday.

That gave her a leg up in the custody case and eventually, he was convicted, on her evidence alone, of a misdemeanor and released on bail pending sentencing.>

The point is who do you beleive?

An extreme degree of scepticism is called for and for claims not to be taken on face value.

Abuse of children does happen, and it is committed by both genders. However in the past certain methods of interrogation have been shown to have led to the prosecution and persecution of innocent parties.

there are cases where the children involved in the past, have now come forward as adults and said that the abuse never happened.

Perhaps all allegations of abuse should be referred to the police, so that such allegations can be investigated to the level of the standard of proof, that is required by criminal law.(however even the police do get prosecutions wrong at times)

Rather than on basis hearsay evidence.

But then there will always be some who want to believe regardless of the evidence that abuse has occurred and for them only a guilty verdict will ever satisfy them.

I had a lawyer tell me about a mother who was digitally raping her daughter, whilst saying to her daugther "Daddy do it."

Yes there are some very very nasty people in the world and they aint always men.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 20 September 2010 6:52:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wisdommiskey,

"I wonder; if there was a simpler way to prevent much of the unnecessary harm done to children while we wait for intervention through the back-logged mediation process or from the often inconsistent, ineffective child protection safety-net, would we change our approach before spending millions re-reinventing the family law wheel once more?"

There is no jury system. The family court is completely corrupt.

The family court is an example of what happens to a legal system when there is no jury.

Also the idea of "lets move on" leads to "lets go no where"

A number of studies have found the majority of people a no happier after the divorce than before. This is something feminists don't often mention.

James H

This is a push by feminists to change the current family law system back to the old system, based on a father who threw a child off the bridge. What none of these feminists have mentioned, is that a mother carrying a child jumped off the very same bridge that year.

The distortion of information is a major factor in the distortion of a society
Posted by vanna, Monday, 20 September 2010 7:25:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must ask all the fathers on this article - how much of the actual day to day care of the child did you do before divorce? You should answer this honestly.

Now how would you feel if you were say 7 years old, you had friends where you lived, and all of a sudden your parents split and you were forced to have two homes. Unless the two parents separating can be cordial, polite and think of the children first and ONLY, shared parenting (50/50 time split) does not work. Try starting at www.thelizlibrary.org and work your way out from there.

This bad situation is increased when you have one partner who believes abuse is happening at the other parent's house. This is increased when you have a partner who was abusive during the marriage and uses abuse as a card (because that happens much more frequently than women falsely using dv as a divorce card). Studies have shown (again these are readily available online) that men are more likely to engage in malicious, false accusations of abuse than women are.

So ask yourself, are you saying the mother is abusing because you do not like how she parents? Or is it because you are angry that she gets child support? How much did you really do when you were still one family unit? Do not count working outside the home - only count doctor visits, school functions, extra curricular activities? Honestly what did you do when you were still one family unit. And then if you can HONESTLY answer that you did the vast majority of child care and child centered activities and you never abusedyour former spouse in any way, then you should have more time sharing. But that should not be at the child's detriment.

Two homes do not make a child twice as happy. That makes him or her twice as miserable.
Posted by AbuseVictims, Monday, 20 September 2010 7:34:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<This is a push by feminists to change the current family law system back to the old system, based on a father who threw a child off the bridge. What none of these feminists have mentioned, is that a mother carrying a child jumped off the very same bridge that year.

The distortion of information is a major factor in the distortion of a society
Posted by vanna, Monday, 20 September 2010 7:25:25 AM>

Firstly, the media pays heaps of attention to what that father did, but the mother is almost invisible in the media.

Secondly, hundreds of thousands of children each year are safely returned to the custodal parent without any risk to their wellbeing or safety.

I should also mention that the lawyer was female.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 20 September 2010 7:36:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You will find this to be the exact opposite. What news stories have been published about Freeman?

Look to the States and see the rampant father killing ex/wife/girlfriend/children stories. Go to http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com and you will find news stories daily and the blogger responsible for the articles posted does not have enough time to keep up with all the "dastardly dads" out there. But let me ask you this. Do you know who Casey Anthony is? How about Caylee Anthony? Yeah I bet you know who those two are. What about Andrea Yates? Or Lorena Bobbitt? Or even better Susan Smith?

Now do you know who Andrew Copland is? Or how about Paul Wyllie? No bells? Going to have to google those names?

Now you see that high profile murder/abuse cases are typically female. The fathers who do these horrendous acts are rarely profiled in this fashion. One way to show this is the Caylee and Hayleigh stories - both out of Florida. Caylee lived with mom, Hayleigh lived with dad. Both are more than likely deceased (Hayleighs remains have yet to be found), but Caylee's mother has received thousands of time the news time that Hayleigh's dad has receieved. Hayleigh's dad has received even less press time than his underage girlfriend/wife/ex-wife.

Another case in point - Bruce Pardo - he shot up a relative's home killing at least 8 while dressed as Santa during the holidays. Have we heard any more about him? Or even Darren Mack out of Nevada. he killed his wife downstairs while his daughter was upstairs and he had shared custody with his soon to be ex-wife. He even attempted to kill the judge in his case.

You can even look more recently to Wyatt in California. The mother begged to have supervised visits for dad - judge refused and now 9 month old Wyatt and his father are dead at father's hands.

Where is the justice for children in this?
Posted by AbuseVictims, Monday, 20 September 2010 7:51:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we shouldn't be blaming anyone but rather demonstrating a better way- People don't want to be judged for their mistakes and weaknesses. Rather in love we should point people to the best way- raising children as a community with the fmaily unit as the foundation.

What would it look like if there were many healthy fathers and mothers who decided to father and mother an entire community?

What would it look like if we dropped all our rights/ wrongs blamegame and devoted ourselves to moving forward in love?

Both men and women were created by God to be powerful people working together in humility to love and support their children. When one is taken away or there are powerplays it doesnt work.
Posted by Fathers DNA, Monday, 20 September 2010 7:59:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done, Mr Thompson. I hope that you and Andrew and his mum can finally get some peace in your relationships. It's a tragedy for all concerned, especially Andrew, who obviously found the whole thing very distressing and is no doubt confused.

AbuseVictims, no one has suggested that some fathers don't go off the rails, but you demonstrate very clearly that some mothers can too. How many blogs dedicated to the vilification of fathers have you set up anyway? according the the blog you so proudly referenced, there are at least 6 others you lay claim to. Thanks for showing just how obsessed some mothers can be.

This is an Australian site, in case you hadn't noticed, which seems likely, given your obsession. what did you do, start trawling the net for forums to spam with your man-hatred as soon as you heard that Mr Thompson had been successful in rescuing his son? My recommendation is to keep taking the meds and try to stay calm.

To the rest of you, shame on you. This father is a true hero to his son and the mother, mentally ill or not, has behaved abominably.

The real tragedy is the failure of the Family Court to prevent this from occurring. If a father falls a bit behind in child support he can be slapped with a Departure Prohibition Order issued by a lowly bureaucrat, no judge even involved, so why can't Courts do this as a matter of routine in contested custody matters?
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 20 September 2010 8:46:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Changalang has a point. While the gender wars continue the lawyers are raking it in.

vanna
You have not really answered the question. I don't know any feminist (if one must use labels) that advocate demonising men. There are as many news items relaying bad acts by mothers/women as men. Pointing out a horrific crime by one individual is not demonising that person's gender. Are we all that sensitive about gender that we cannot truthfully analyse where things went wrong in each case and punish those responsible. We are becoming a wuss society if a gender war has more weight than justice.

I asked you how you thought society should be structured gender-wise that would make you happy about the role of women and men in society.

If your only response is for men not to be demonised - then you would not be alone. Can we add that we also stop demonising single mothers, women who choose careers over children, women CEOs and women who stay at home and the most demonised group at least on OLO, feminists.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 20 September 2010 9:21:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women carry the child and risk their lives to give birth to children and in the vast majority of cases, they do the bulk of child rearing. Men need to SUPPORT women/mothers in this rather than try to demonize or hurt the mother through the children. The original story on here was about a mother who believed her child was being abused. Looking through online archives, I see that she left the marriage because she said she was also being abused. If this is her perception (what is considered abuse by one, another might be able to discount or ignore), then who are we to judge. this father should have done everything to dispel her fears rather than try to fight her in court and take the child from her. Go into supervised visits, do what was needed to prove his innocence of this allegation.

As a mother and a former victim of abuse, if MY child came to me and said the things this child allegedly said, I would withhold her from dad also - even knowing that I would go to jail for that. I would do whatever I had to do in order to protect that which came from MY BODY. All that comes from a man;s body in the creation of a child is sperm. Women/mothers also donate one cell - but they nurture that creation inside carrying it for 9 months (give or take) until she risks her life giving birth. Sorry men and men supporters can cry all they want but until you carry a child and give birth and risk YOUR LIFE, you should have no say over said life. We women gave birth and risked our lives - not you. Don't like the outomes in cases of separation and divorce - keep it in your pants.
Posted by AbuseVictims, Monday, 20 September 2010 9:29:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<I must ask all the fathers on this article - how much of the actual day to day care of the child did you do before divorce? You should answer this honestly.>

What this got to do with the price of eggs? Abusevictim.

"once research stops showing women as victims, the research stops." Warren Farrell.

Manufacturing Research
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222440/http://www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

":However, there is a twist. The GBA experts tell those who aspire to land a lucrative contract with the government to begin their research "with women's experience as they (the women themselves) see it". They then turn around and say that, after all, that is not what they meant. What they really meant is that women research subjects need to be educated to realize that feminist researchers, with their superior intellect and training, are in the best position to interpret what women's experiences are. "

"Though feminist researchers unequivocally, and without providing proof, state that the incidence of false allegations by women is negligible, an analysis of court documents relating to false allegations by a Queen's University (Kingston, Ont.) law professor, Nicholas Bala, a feminist apologist with impeccable credentials, exposes the fallacy in a paper called "Sexual Abuse Allegation When Parents Have Separated:Social Context & Evidentiary Issues”:"

Interestingly if data is not collected, feminists then can say the problem does not exist because the data does not support that.

The truth is, research can be and is easily manipulated, particularly when the raw data does not support or conflicts with feminist dogma.

It is true that zealots, choose to extrapolate their own personal experiences to include all relationships and instances of alleged abuse.

Abuse victim, we can fire potshots at each all day.

However the feminist movement and the R/C and Anglican churches have much in common, by trying to cover up or not taking seriously abuses committed by their members.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 20 September 2010 9:35:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Antiseptic

I do not own the blog dastardlydads.blogspot.com. I only own one blog and that blog is set to private - it is a journal for my feelings and actions in a court case by an abuser. NOBODY can view this blog, except me.

I found dastardly dads while doing a search on killer moms and dads. Then i started researching why women were put on in the spotlight after committing the most unforgivable act ever - the killing of one's own children. It was then that I discovered how many dads versus how many moms were killing and hurting children and how the media treated them.

You can say whatever you would like but I stand by my most recent post just before this one - mother only carry a child inside them risking their lives during that process and then they give birth to that child again engaging in even more risks to their very own life. Women should be the ones responsible if no agreement can be reached as to the care of the child that came from her body.

You supplied one cell, we supplied one cell and our very health and lives to bring that child into existence. When you risk your life to do the same then you should be allowed to have a greater voice in this.
Posted by AbuseVictims, Monday, 20 September 2010 9:36:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AbuseVictim my heart goes out to you for your experience, however I don't agree that mothers always make the best parents or that we have first dibs purely by giving birth.

It is clear that children need the benefit of a good mother and father and the best arrangements would include both parents. There is no one-size fits all.

The most important factor is for the child not to be put in an abusive situation just to serve some PC interests of parent groups. Children are not here to serve the egos of their parents, they are individuals in their own rights who should, when they are at their most vulnerable, depend on the system to get it right.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 20 September 2010 10:00:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that we could easily halve the number of false allegations, if we reduced the amount of child support payable. Securing child support money must be the single biggest motive for lying about abuse.How about putting broader notions of fairness above supporting the interests of women.

Abusevictims

Society has decided that fathers need to play a large role in the raising of children. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to want to stay in our children's lives after seperation.

Where is your evidence that dads make more false allegations than mothers?
Posted by benk, Monday, 20 September 2010 10:18:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In terms of parents and abuse, a child is about 6 times more likely to be abused by mummy's new boyfriend, than by their natural father.

Again, this is something I've never known a feminist group to mention.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 20 September 2010 11:31:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Feminists can and have said similar vanna.

But based on your history a feminist might not make statements like that because they will be accused of man-hating. Mummy's new boyfriend is also a man.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 20 September 2010 12:55:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AbuseVictims, "You supplied one cell, we supplied one cell and our very health and lives to bring that child into existence. When you risk your life to do the same then you should be allowed to have a greater voice in this."

Assumed ownership is where the problems come from. Neither parent owns the child, parenthood implies many responsibilities and obligations but we do so out of love and for our own joy and sense of completeness in having children. The child is always a separate entity with rights. We do our best where we can set them loose. Children should not be burdened with obligation nor loyalty demanded of them in wars waged by selfish parents.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 20 September 2010 1:14:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,

I've never known a feminist group to ever mention it, and leaving out that information is actualy a form of misinformation.

Similar I have never heard of a feminist saying anything positive about marriage.

Both fathers and marriage are normally described in terms such as "abuse" or "power and control" or "patriachial".

Its a standard form of brainwashing, as using such words when describing fathers or marriage makes people associate fathers and marriage with abuse and power & control etc.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 20 September 2010 1:15:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"Can we add that we also stop demonising single mothers, women who choose careers over children, women CEOs and women who stay at home and the most demonised group at least on OLO, feminists."

"Oh, poor me, I'm a victim". What a lot of tosh. Women are protected from any "demonisation" by the Anti-Discrimination Act, men are not.

The reason I am personally dismissive of Feminism has been made very clear here on many occasions - it's a dishonest ideology that spruiks egalitarianism but is really about special pleading. It's intellectually bereft and ethically dubious. As a field of study it's got all the academic rigour of bubble-gum blowing.

It panders to the weak-minded and the weak of spirit and is driven by those with a pathological hatred of men. It creates nothing.

AbuseVictim:"As a mother and a former victim of abuse, if MY child came to me and said the things this child allegedly said, I would withhold her from dad also "

And therein lies the problem. Your neurosis is not a good basis for decision-making.

AbuseVictim:"Then i started researching why women were put on in the spotlight after committing the most unforgivable act ever - the killing of one's own children. It was then that I discovered how many dads versus how many moms were killing and hurting children and how the media treated them."

If you were to look outside the Anonymums bog circle you'd find that the genuine figures indicate that the majority of all abuse of children is perpetrated by mothers and that the majority of filicide is also perpetrated by mothers.

Unfortunately, people like your referenced blogger are very adept at cherrypicking their examples to appeal to the neuroses of people like you. Do try to look around some more if you're genuinely interested. There's lots of good data available, but you'll never see that on one of the "all men are bastards" blogs. Move outside your comfort zone.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 6:34:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In Saying the Unsayable, Melaine Phillips actually points out a conundrum, liberalism in its effort to make life easier for single mums, has made to problem much larger.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=471
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 7:28:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Oh, poor me, I'm a victim". What a lot of tosh"

Well one has to balance the poor-me male victimisation flavour of all these gender threads. It appears only men are victims in your view Antiseptic. Don't distort the other side of the argument to suit your own agenda. If you cannot see a general stimga attached to single mothers in particular, you are walking around with your eyes and ears shut.

Men are victims of the CSA, men who sexually harass are victims of flirts, men who rape are victims of dress sense - blah blah blah.

Men are equally protected under the Discrimination Act but it might be news to you but the most commonly discriminated groups are the disabled and the aged and they can be of either gender.

Get real - you can fight for the rights of men as regards the CSA and child custody without demonising women. Demonising women does not do anything to help your own cause.

Sheesh - trade in your rose tinted glasses for heaven's sake.

vanna
Clearly you are wrong as many women on OLO support your view that egalitarianism can be achieved without demonising men. I don't really give a toss about female or male academics - I lost interest years ago.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 10:26:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,

I would think that if you look at the corruption and uselessness of the Family Court, then look at the Family Law Council and the number of academics that have been on it, including a Prof Parkinson and more recently, a Prof John Wade, and none of those academics have said anything regards the corruption and uselessnes of the Family Law Court, then I would think these people actually approve of it.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 11:37:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to agree with AbuseVictim that the experience of actually giving birth - risking your life - is an experience that stays with you forever. That reality - a woman's kind of war, perhaps - is an indelible aspect of a mother's relationship with her child.
Additionally, she has almost certainly sacrificed other aspects of her life to properly care for her child. The male partner intensifies his connection to work, as part of his response to the birth of a child.

Caring is very rarely genuinely fifty-fifty prior to relationship breakdown, so why should it be after?
Additionally, women now are expected NOT to receive maintenance, under new laws, as they are expected to split custody equally and find some flexible or entry-level job, even after years of specialising as a fulltime carer!

This father has had the mother arrested, and the child put into foster care. Some father! The child is six years old, it may take him the rest of his life to get over the trauma, particularly as the child was undoubtedly already in a stressed situation.
Posted by floatinglili, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 1:34:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Women should be the ones responsible if no agreement can be reached as to the care of the child that came from her body.

When you risk your life to do the same then you should be allowed to have a greater voice in this.'

Oh aren't we a bundle of womanly power over here!

'Additionally, she has almost certainly sacrificed other aspects of her life to properly care for her child. The male partner intensifies his connection to work, as part of his response to the birth of a child.'

ie, the 'absent father'? Somebody has to pay the bills, and how much harder is it to sacrifice time with your children in order to feed them. You women seem to think that because men do this, it's just they don't love their kids as much.

I think many women think like AbuseVictim. They think kids are really the mother's property, always, and the father is just an optional extra, a mere side show. Unless we're talking about money, then the father suddenly has full responsibility. You cant have it both ways.

Fathers work and provide because they love the kids. Then the marriage breaks up, and you women seem shocked he still loves his kids and wants to see them. It's just so convenient when 'the best thing for the kids' ties up so nicely with the wants of the mother.

See, it's not that he didn't mind seeing them only on weekends, it was just that's all he could afford after working to pay for them. When the marriage breaks up maybe he realises he was just a wallet in the family make-up, and is even more keen to see them.

Then I think some men seem so hurt by the whole thing they just fall into a hole of depression and don't want to bother with life anymore. They type that avoid the CSA, piss their money up against a wall and such. Not admirable, but maybe in that case it's you women who don't understand the feeling of losing it all, including the kids.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 2:42:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I fully concur with most of your last post Houlley. Children are nobody's property and need the attention and guidance of two good parents.

It is not about womanly power it is about doing what is right for children - an unpopular position these days - no matter what the outcome is and no matter if it does not fit in with the ego of either parent.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 3:15:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,
What is right for the child in many cases is for the parents to not split up.

But which group has been training society to believe that it is necessary for the parents to split up.

Also, where did all these highly corrupt, parrasitic Family Law judges and solicitors get trained.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 3:48:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, if women don't think it is a massive plus for the kids that their father is now able to spend more time with them than before, is she really thinking of the kids?

Disruption? pft! Kids are adaptable, their whole lives are one new adaptation after another. Better for them to see both parents as much as possible.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 3:52:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
floatinglili

Maybe some men don't put in enough of an effort with their kids before the break-up. Most of us reassess our priorities after break-ups. Most of gain freedom when we break-up. It isn't inconceivable that many men will choose to spend more time with the kids after a seperation.

Pelican

When you dismiss the male concerns so uncaringly, you only make Anti look right. You only talk about fairness when there is something in it for you.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 10:26:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How so benk? How am I dismissing male concerns? What is in it for me when I advocate an equal playing field in child custody and family law matters - but with the vital proviso that the child comes first and that is not a gender argument.

However, I do apologise to Antiseptic if my earlier post sounded angry - it was, and I was projecting some personal experiences which may have clouded the way I worded my response.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 10:37:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"What is right for the child in many cases is for the parents to not split up."

vanna I actually agree with you on that score, and it is a shame that more people don't work to mend their marriages rather than opt for divorce. However, this is not always possible and for some a divorce may be in the best interests of the child if there is undue friction or worse violence.

Unfortunately many people are too one-eyed and can only see how they are wronged rather than look at how they have wronged. Marriages can only be fixed if both parties are willing; or if they can agree to put their woes aside for the sake of the kids.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 10:47:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously as a woman going through this, some might feel my judgment is clouded. Women give birth risking their very lives in order to bring children into this world and unless unfit should be the ones to care for children in cases of divorce. What is completely missing all the people on here is that in this story when Melinda originally left Ken she made allegations of abuse directed at not just Andrew but herself as well.

Now Ken is saying he hopes they can get back together? Why would she want to be with someone who is hurting her? Also contrary to popular belief allegations of abuse are not made lightly.

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/cust_myths.html

has information including massive studies on false allegations during divorce.

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/ap.html

also has information on true child abuse.

http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-look-see-at-nis-3-or-what-do.html

examines the largest study that still shows abuse statistics separated by mother/father/married households and who actually does the abusing.

Of course this is all dismissed. The newest study available that has the scope and number of subjects in it is the NIS-4 and it does not separate households according to male led or female led. One must wonder why that is. Does the huge government funded Fatherhood Initiative have something to hide?
Posted by AbuseVictims, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 11:45:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@benk

"Maybe some men don't put in enough of an effort with their kids before the break-up. Most of us reassess our priorities after break-ups. Most of gain freedom when we break-up. It isn't inconceivable that many men will choose to spend more time with the kids after a seperation."

Maybe the problem lies in the fact that you should have "reassessed" your priorities before divorce. Afterward is kind of too late wouldn't you say?

@Houellebecq

"Actually, if women don't think it is a massive plus for the kids that their father is now able to spend more time with them than before, is she really thinking of the kids?"

Actually she might very well be thinking of the kids and herself. Most mothers I know (including myself) are pretty selfless when it comes to their children. We go without so our children can have, I know I do.

"Oh aren't we a bundle of womanly power over here!"

Oh no we have to resort to sarcasm? Read my previous post and see the truth about child abuse and family violence. I say unless the mother has been abusive or is unfit she should be the one caring for the children because generally she has done most of it before (and like in my case ALL of it). Children need money to be properly care for but they also need someone to care for their emotional needs as well. A father who has left 99% of this to mom before divorce is not going to magically turn over a new leaf. In most cases he just remarries and the care of children fall to new wife. Sorry but this is just wrong on so many levels.

Again the only time a child should be removed from mom is if she is unfit and only if that has been determined to be the case through UNBIASED - not paid for by dad or courts - experts.
Posted by AbuseVictims, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 11:56:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AbuseVictims, I see you're still referencing your favourite scab-picker. So be it, but you may as well get some real information out of it.

The NIS-4 summary for congress can be found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/natl_incid/nis4_report_exec_summ_pdf_jan2010.pdf

Some quotes:
"Classifying these abused and neglected children according to the level of injury or harm they suffered from Harm Standard maltreatment revealed only one change: a significant decrease in the incidence of children for whom injury could be inferred due to the severe nature of their maltreatment. This group declined from 165,300 children in the NIS–3 to 71,500 in the NIS–4 (a 57% decrease in number; a 60% decline in the rate in the population)."
and

"Significant decreases in the incidence of abuse and all specific categories of abuse contrast with a significant increase in the incidence of emotional neglect"

and

"Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect."

all of which bear out exactly what I and others have been saying. Noone is suggesting that abuse doesn't occur, just that it occurs at much lower rates than advocates on behalf of women who want to be single mothers would like us to think. Moreover, most of it occurs when Mum hooks up with a new boyfriend and there's no Dad around.

Those are realities, not spin.

BTW, there is no "huge government funded Fatherhood Initiative". I suspect the main reason the data are not separated by parental gender in NIS-4 is that it would show clearly that Mum is the main perpetrator and there is a strong Feminist lobby in the US exemplified by your favourite man-hater, which would scream discrimination and try to tie the report up in the Courts, using all their lovely Government funding.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 6:03:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<UNBIASED - not paid for by dad or courts - experts>

Now where is someone going to find one of those?

More than a few female author have been highly critical of the standard applied in the socalled centres of higher learning to the subject of gender studies.

So who decides which expert is unbiased and which one is biased.

Perhaps that is code for an unbiased expert agrees with me and supports feminism, and a biased one disagrees with me and feminism.

<are pretty selfless when it comes to their children> I think that called "martyrdom"

Marytyrdom is one of the signs of maternal gatekeeping.

<A maternal gatekeeper limits her husband's involvement with chores and children by placing obstacles in his way. She may question and criticize his actions as a parent and fail to encourage his interaction with his children.>

<"Even fathers who wanted to be involved with their kids often drifted away in the face of persistent maternal criticism">
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 6:13:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"It appears only men are victims in your view Antiseptic. "

What a lot of tosh. All I do is point out the data. What you and some others find confronting is that I point out data that is not normally publicised a great deal because it doesn't support the female-centric view of feminists.

You get offended because you're used to thinking of yourself as involved in a "noble cause", that of "protecting women's rights" and it turns out that women already have a great deal more "rights" than men and are still demanding even more. It is confronting to you that some men ARE victims of the system that feminism has created, which is to your credit. Some posters here (where is Suzeonline anyway?) regard the creation of male victims as a highly desirable outcome.

Pelican:"Men are equally protected under the Discrimination Act"

Actually, no we're not. Only women can claim discrimination on the basis of gender, not men except in very limited circumstances, such as wanting to work part-time and being sacked as a result.

Pelican:"you can fight for the rights of men as regards the CSA and child custody without demonising women."

No demonisation here, just the facts, ma'am. Here's a tip: "feminist" is not synonymous with "woman", despite the best efforts of some feminists to pretend otherwise.

Also, thank you for your apology. I did think you sounded a little more strident than is your wont
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 6:27:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another couple of quotes from the NIS-4:
"In nearly all categories, the incidence of maltreatment and levels of harm increased since the NIS–3 for children living with one parent but decreased for those living with two parents. The largest rate increase for children with one parent was in Endangerment Standard neglect (58% higher in NIS–4 than in NIS–3), especially the specific category of emotional neglect (a 194% increase)."

Having read a little further, I discovered that gender is indeed discussed:
"Perpetrator’s sex. Children were somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: 68% of the maltreated children were maltreated by a female, whereas 48% were maltreated by a male. (Some children were maltreated by both.) Of children maltreated by biological parents, mothers maltreated the majority (75%) whereas fathers maltreated a sizable minority (43%). In contrast, male perpetrators were more common for children maltreated by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners (64%) or by other persons (75%)."

and

"Among all abused children, those abused by their biological parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (51% and 54%, respectively), but those abused by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners, or by other, perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (74% or more by males versus 26% or less by females)."

IOW, it was often Mum's new boyfriend, but rarely Dad.

Thanks for pointing out thet report, Abuse Victims, I hope you've read it and digested it. It backs up the studies done in Australia by reputable bodies and gives the lie to the claims of the very well-funded single mother's groups.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 7:05:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abuse victims

"Afterward is kind of too late wouldn't you say?" Nope. Maybe he didn't spend enough time with the kids before the break-up. He may well decide that there is nothing that he can do about that now except do a better job for his kids from now on. Additionally, there may well be factors that stopped him from spending time at home. James mentioned maternal gatekeeping. Some blokes hide from a crap marriage at work.

Pelican

The tone of your post at 10:26 yesterday was the problem. Everything that we complain about was "blah, blah, blah" and not worth worrying about. Everything that you complain about is worthwhile and we should feel guilty that you are so poorly treated.

BTW Who gets to decide the best interests of the child? It is odd how the best interests of the child often just happen to coincide with the interests of people who define what those best interests are.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 8:04:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cry me a river boys.

I don't think pelican really needed to apologise at all, and I think you could at least get over it by now. Man, so much drama.

Give 'em an inch and they take a mile. They've sniffed a sympathetic ear and are going for the jugular. You guys are lucky she's one of the few chicks who debates reasonably and concedes ground rather than the usual one-eyed all men are bastards lot.

I see all these debates as a bunch of guys pleading for one women, any women, to accept men aren't all sporn of the devil and that men have problems too. A bunch of guys needing validation from women.

But the girls read it all as anti-woman stuff or an appeal for victim status of men (something they guard preciously for women;-), where really all the guys seem to want is to appeal against what they see is the monopoly women have on victim status. They're just looking for some concession that the world cant always be summed up as man= abuser woman=victim, but it comes off as claiming woman=evil man= victim.

I think women seem to respond better to raising mens issues up rather than tearing womens issues down, but then men don't think anyone will listen to their stuff as they feel women always have the stage and will never let go of the mic.

It's a funny world. To the victim go the spoils!
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 10:33:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq,

Interesting perspective. It is not a nice feeling seening ones gender criticised and I can understand why women can get defensive about it, as do some men.

Sadly generalizations are made especially about men ;), but the truth neither gender has the monopoly on being either bad or good.

Ages ago when I heard that marriage oppressed women, I was keen to find out why. To this day I am still searching for anything concrete, mostly it is a matter of perspective. If one sees marriage as being oppressive then that is all one will see.

Relationships can be good or bad for both genders, but as Myrna Blythe wrote, the media is busy selling unhappiness to women.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 11:03:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The women-as-victim brand is like coke, it's so well established, people call cola 'coke'. I go up to the counter at KFC and ask for a coke, even when they only sell Pepsi.

The men-as-victim brand is Pepsi, forever trying to get some attention but everybody really likes coke better;
It's the real thing.

Pepsi tried to be the choice of the new generation, but really, everyone still likes coke. The brand will never be usurped, it was first into the market and no matter how good Pepsi could taste, most people will only ever like coke.

So, antiseptic is trying to at least give the kiddies a chance to try Pepsi. But he keeps mentioning it in comparison to coke you see. Free Kick for Coke.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 11:55:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq, I think you're quite wrong. I don't give a toss whether the women posters here are "on my side" or not. I similarly don't give a toss whether the males are. I'm simply fed up with the discussion always devolving to the kneejerking of would-be victims.

I have never claimed to be a victim, but that's because I won't allow myself to be one. The thing about victimhood is that it's demeaning. It implies that one is incapable of acting to help oneself. As a basic principle, Government should only get involved when citizens are incapable of making their own arrangements, yet the way so much of Australia's social welfare state has been structured, it takes great determination to avoid it. It is a badly broken system because it uses tax dollars to administer the distribution of other tax dollars, when the whole thing could be simplified by simply collecting fewer tax dollars in the first place and abolishing the redistributive dinosaur that has evolved.

From http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/about_us/facts.htm :

Centrelink is in the top 100 of Australian companies in terms of size and turnover, and distributes $86.8 billion in social security payments on behalf of policy departments. Centrelink:

* has 6.84 million customers
* pays 10.43 million individual entitlements and records more than 6 billion electronic customer transactions each year
* administers products and services for more than 20 government agencies
* employs more than 27,000 staff
* has more than 1,000 service delivery points ranging from large Customer Service Centres to small visiting services
* received 33.7 million telephone calls
* grants 2.7 million new claims each year.

As a guide, personal income tax in 2009 amounted to a total of just over $125 billion, so that means that Centrelink is redistributing just under 70% of all of that, a great deal going straight back into the same hands from whence it came and costing the taxpayer some $2.8 billion, or roughly the amount of money that is transferred via child support. A large number of people would be freed up to work in the expanding minerals sector, .
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 12:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH that was one of the best posts I've seen you make - well reasoned and without bias.

The "all men are bastards" and "all women are victims" is only the extreme end of the spectrum, most of what happens sits in the middle with the pendulum swaying slightly one way or the other on the various issues.

All I can say as a woman is I am sick of being put in the position by some, as having responsibility for some men's behaviours by the way I dress, or what I wear, or because I wasn't forceful enough, or because I was too forceful, or friendliness was mistaken for attraction.

Most of the time people can make themselves clearly heard but sometimes, and it is those times that count, reason and commonsense does not prevail and some intervention might be required. Such as in the other thread on sexual harassment or in child custody matters where men have been disadvantaged merely because they are not the mother.

I just want people to step up to the plate and take responsibility and that goes for both men and women.

Egalitarianism by its nature means that each has to give ground and maybe because of traditional expectations occasionally one group may have to give more ground than the other if the pendulum was too far set in favour or at the disadvantage of the other.

It is easy to take offence in these debates as JamesH said, no-one likes their gender being generalised or demonised. Ultimately our behaviour and our legislature should seek to get the best outcomes. It comes not down to gender but to individual responsibiity and choices.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 12:18:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well we have evolved from the story at hand about one man, one woman, and one child into the world's issues. Now the NIS-4 has already been picked apart and again you are only looking at the summary report. As proven by several bloggers the NIS-3 report and summary are quite different. You cannot look at say murders for example in several cities and determine that a city in Arizona with a population of 10,000 which had 10 murders per year is safer to live in than say a city in California with a population of 100,000 with 50 murders. Yes the larger city had more murders, but the per capita rate is less in the large city, meaning that it is probably safer to live in the large city.

The same rings true for abuse. In some reports which do not take into consideration the amount of time spent by women caring for children, versus that of men caring for children it is said that women abuse more. But if you take into consideration the fact that women are with children more, the abuse rates skyrocket for men.

As far as the poster who said what does who cares for the child before divorce have to do with anything - it has EVERYTHING to do with it. This is what the child has known. Expert after expert has stated that when parents go through divorce that a child's life is going to change and as parents we should make this transition as easy and simple as possible. Hence we should allow this child to continue on as much as possible in the life with the caretaker he or she has known.

But the time for regrets is not after everything is said and done. You should have been a part of your child's life from day one. And no it is not gatekeeping when a woman does things a certain way, it is called mothering. This is the problem. Motherhood is being pathologized and that is sad. Motherhood is more natural than fatherhood.
Posted by AbuseVictims, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 1:08:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why thank you! Pelican.

Our biases and prejudices sadly are not only influenced by our own make up, but by life experiences and what we read or hear.

There is an interesting discussion going on about the americanization of mental illness, and the american interpretation of the signs and sypmtoms of mental illness is changing the perspective in other countries.

Hence what before was not seen as a problem, now becomes a problem.(rightly or wrongly)

Take this a step further, what was once seen as normal and acceptable in relationships can over a period of time becomes abnormal.

The bombardment of negative articles about relationships, must have a huge impact, in that for some people it will influence their perspective on their relationship in a negative fashion.

Some people are highly suseptible to these influences.

I think it Nina Funnel who blamed boys for the fact that girls were having brazileans. Just maybe it is actually girls who influencing each other. As far as I know boys still do not have that much access to that area of a womans/girls body.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 1:24:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James H,
I would agree that there is a culture of divorce that now fills our Marxist/feminist society.

The following appear on the first page of the Family Relationships website.”-

"arrangements for children after parents separate."

"New laws for the division of property for people in de facto relationships that break down"

"for separating families to sort out these arrangements."

"assist families affected by relationship or separation issues"

"New Commonwealth law for separating de facto couples"

"Property division when de facto relationships break down fact sheet"

http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/

There is nothing that says anything positive about marriage.

In our Marxist/feminist society, its all about divorce and separation, so when people think of families, they think of divorce and separation.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 1:50:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one wins from these gender wars. It is necessary to understand the context that these debates occur in. Mothers' group constantly frame debates as people who care about kids versus fathers. Therefore, discussing abuse by women is a counter argument, not an attack on women.

Fathers are fighting to keep rights that mothers will never lose.

Abusevictims

Thank-you for illustrating what I meant, when I discussed people choosing to define the best interests of the child in a way that just happens to suit mothers.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 4:18:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<. Therefore, discussing abuse by women is a counter argument, not an attack on women.>

Benk,

Thank you benk
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 6:53:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why can't we all get along and march forward together:

There's power in numbers guys!

We need to give the children a voice
Posted by changalang, Thursday, 23 September 2010 5:29:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst some members of this forum, dislike Glenn Sacks he does however have an interesting article at present.

It has to do with alleged sexual abuse.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=5036

Meredith Maran's "My Lie"

<Psychologists and social workers teamed with writers and publishers to promote the notion urged by feminists that fathers sexually abused their daughters on a regular basis. That much was part and parcel of the feminist decree that the family was the seat of female oppression by males. Feminist extremists>

<Then there was the book entitled "The Courage to Heal" which encouraged the hysteria with claims like "if you believe it happened, then it happened." >

"My Lie" Why I falsely accused my father.
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2010/09/20/meredith_maran_my_lie_interview/index.html

Many feminists in this forum claim that they love and care for men, then I must ask them "Why do they allow for misrepresentations, myths and false hoods to continue and not to challange them."

To use the latest manipulation technique, "If you dont speak out against abuse, then you are helping to perpetuate it."

I fully suspect that many feminist hope that this book, dies a silent quiet death and the women of the media will ignore it so that it slides silently into obscurity.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 23 September 2010 7:11:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James, what a courageous woman and what an extraordinary book. I hope it gets the coverage it deserves, but as you say, it will have to get past the gauntlet of the "protectors of the faith" in the media.

I thought this quote was very instructive:

"Over time, I had been less and less able to believe her stories, which progressed from incest with a slightly older relative to satanic ritual abuse, to the extent where I thought she was becoming defined as an incest survivor. I knew I couldn't say I don't believe her without examining my own beliefs just because her story is crazier."

I suspect that sororal solidarity is a reflexive response for many women. Much that is written by women here is essentially of the form "you go girl, I'm on your side", which can easily become uncritical acceptance of quite egregious positions or claims. In turn, the claimant makes ever-more lurid claims, hoping for ever-more attention.

Much of the criticism of the Family Court by the women here is that it is NOT uncritically accepting of such claims. I think that speaks volumes about the motivations of those women.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 23 September 2010 7:28:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One lie does not a trend make. Although there has been recent study about repressed memories that casts a huge amount of doubt on the whole idea. Basically it is easier to implant a false memory than to repress a memory.

'Much that is written by women here is essentially of the form "you go girl, I'm on your side" '
Hmmm. Well, I'd say that the female posters think all you guys are yelling bros before hos. (For some reason that phrase 'you go girl' really irks me I must admit .Maybe it's the American-ness or jiveiness like 'talk to the hand' and 'what-ev-er!' )

I generally make a point of ignoring anyone who supports my ideas. That could be just because I'm rude and unfriendly, but it's also because I hate the you go girl attituuude.

"If you dont speak out against abuse, then you are helping to perpetuate it."

Yep, and it gets ever worse if you dare to ever question any statistics about it.

But to some degree people just have this reflex that says it's bad taste to ever be critical of certain things. It's just not accepted to ever be able to put empathy to one side, and objectively and rationally discuss touchy issues. Like it's impossible to even go close to mentioning precautions women could take to protect themselves without howls of blaming the victim. Pragmatism and objectivity is outlawed, people want nodding emapthy.

I don't feel the need for disclaimers to prove empathy, or to validate other peoples points that I do agree with. If I ignore someone I either agree with what they said or I don't feel strongly at all about it. I'll rarely say 'I agree with that and I get what you're saying but I don't agree with this'. I like to just march on in there and say that's bloody stupid to the part I don't agree with, and not mention all the stuff I do agree with.

Life's too short to spend your time tallying up where you agree and wasting your word limit validating others.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 23 September 2010 10:24:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All

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