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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?