"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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.