I am a woman and I agree with much of what you say. The anti-male bias of feminism over the years completely turned me off it.

I am a third-generation tertiary educated woman, my daughter is the fourth-generation. In a tutorial a male participant told me that I was disadvantaged partly because of my gender - an assertion I vigorously refuted.

However if we think in terms of gender rather than male/female we can move on from the fruitless jockeying for power of women and men. Both genders suffer from the restrictions imposed by gender stereotypes but in different ways. As a middle-aged woman I suffer from the automatic assumption that I am therefore technologically illiterate and incapable. Men who choose not to drink alcohol find it difficult to be considered 'one of the boys'.

The education of my daughters has suffered because of the lack of attention to the education of boys. I get the feeling that boys see education as a girls thing and therefore act up to assert their maleness. There is a lack of male role-modelling in the home and at school which can show them how to be male and successful at school.

I am concerned that women are copying the negative aspects of male culture. Women are objectifying male bodies which I believe is leading to increased rates of eating disorders and anxiety in men. Neither men nor women are mere sexual objects - they are much more than that.

I have just completed a history honours thesis that touched on issues of gender. Academic literature is replete with reminders that women are not one homogenous group - men are not either. However, I have not come across any portrayals of men as all belonging to one privileged group in the articles I have read or in the lectures I have heard.

We have got to move beyond the competitive binary of male/female and think more holistically about how the two genders can move forward as a complementary team.

"No-one will ever win the battle of the sexes while there is so much fraternising with the enemy."

While I understand this article and its concepts,I smiled when I read that men are demonised, marginalise, objectified and devalued.

I can only asked what have women had to endure in the past before they took positive steps to right the power balance: fifty years and more to extract some equality from the system..........to be visible, to object to discriminatory practices and language, campaign vehemently for equal pay for equal work, the right to have ones partner at the birth of a baby, the right to omit obey from the marriage service, the right to take out loans, the right to work after one was married..........to name a few!

Women have had to tolerate the stereotype presented in the media and in many mens and womens minds

How do we bring up our boys and girls?
Start by giving them a clear understanding of the wonderful individuality of each human being, respecting these differences and celebrating them, taking responsibility for their relationships and behaviour, understanding that each person contributes to the wellbeing of others, and respecting others choices.

This respect would needs to be modelled in the home. Statistics of shared home responsibilities indicate that working women still bear the great burden of the chores

Some men find it difficult to give up the power and those who cannot compromise and share find, in this century, they are out of step with expectations and reality.

Most of us love our men but certainly wont put up with antiquated models of men generated a century ago. Men who respect us will make significant decisions about what is fair and reasonable and act appropriately.

Must add that I see so many young men with the stroller walking the children around the suburbs. bodes well for future relationships.

Man up............. develop strong positive attitudes to each individual human being.............. the world will be a nicer spot.

Women don’t have babies as a matter of gender, they have them as a matter of sex.

While ever there are two groups of humans, and one of them has babies, and the other one doesn’t, it will be meaningless to talk of equality *in general*. What could it possibly mean? Is a woman who has a baby, and a woman who doesn’t, and a woman who has four children, and a man who has a child and cares for it, and a man who has a child but doesn’t know about it, are they “equal”? What’s that supposed to mean? As a proposition of fact, it’s untrue. As a statement about their interests, it is untrue. And as a proposition of ethics, it’s meaningless.

The sexes can only be equal in specific circumstances involving specific individuals in which equality is possible in fact and reason. For example, if everyone is going to get an apple, and the apples were considered equal, then we could give everyone an apple, and that would be an example of equality of the sexes.

But as a general political program it is at best meaningless, and at worst a cipher for a power play that is no more justified than any other power play.

The natural difference between the sexes gives rise to a difference in their typical interests in reproduction. Once a woman is pregnant, she cannot increase her chance of reproductive success other than by continuing to care for her child for at least several years. A man is different by nature. He can increase his reproductive success by a factor of two, three or more by simultaneously impregnating multiple women, whether or not he devotes any of his resources to raising the resulting offspring, or just leaves the woman to it as best she can. The expectation that we won't is patriarchal. There is no reason why policy should favour women’s typical interest by extorting men to pay for it, any more than it should favour men’s typical interest by extorting women to provide casual sex.

Oh dear Peter Hume..........youve missed the point entirely.
One can "fraternise" while one negotiates a better world view

I have never known a feminist to refuse money from a man, but I have known them to say just about every type of denigrating, demonising remark possible about men.

Kind of makes it difficult to believe feminists when they say that they want equality.

Yawn.

"I have never known a feminist to refuse money from a man" - meaning what, Vanna? That a feminist shouldn't have a male employer, inherit money from a man, accept a gift from a man, a lottery or racetrack win from a man? What has that to do with feminism, or don't you understand the term?

One of the things I find disturbing about some feminist friends is their objectifying of men - not excessively, but their favourite League players are selected on appearance not performance, for example. I think it is an attempt to level the playing field in the wrong way, matching men pin-up for pin-up. Sadly the trend to objectify and sexualise everyone, including children, is the way society has gone.

GAJ "Statistics of shared home responsibilities indicate that working women still bear the great burden of the chores"

You might want to have a look into what's included and excluded in those studies. Whilst I get the impression that there is a degree of truth there appears to be significant distortion of the difference by what's included and excluded.

The ones I've seen the detail on tend to exclude traditional male roles around the home and focus on traditional female roles.

They also struggle trying to deal with necessary vs elective work. I enjoy working in the garden and value the results so spend far more time at it than is strictly necessary, others spend far more time on aspects of housework than is necessary.

Be cautious of studies commissioned by people with a vested interest in perpetuating perceptions of inequality, sometimes it exists, at other times there is much more to the issue than helps vested interests.

R0bert

Robert wrote re. studies, "there appears to be significant distortion" and "The ones I've seen the detail on tend to exclude traditional male roles around the home and focus on traditional female roles".

Robert, would you please post links to these 'distorted' studies, so readers can see for themselves.

Candide,
"meaning what, Vanna"

Wel, when just about every posible negative, denigrating remark has been made by feminists about the male gender, then one would expect that feminists should only take money from women.

But I have never known a feminist to refuse to take money from a man.

So, money from men good...Men bad.

Interestingly, so much of the denigration of the male gender has been lead by university feminists, or members of the press who were trained in universities.

Vanna

"I have never known a feminist to refuse money from a man"

Mate, you are one confused little poppit - you are confusing 'hooker' with 'feminist.' Hookers are in a profession, like strippers or lap-dancers, they perform and men give them money.

Maybe its time you got yourself a real girlfriend - real women can take of themselves, like working as, say, Prime Ministers, Doctors, Architects, Surgeons, Scientists - they may be paid by men or women depending of the gender of their boss.

Hope this helps.

This is a minefield but the author has some excellent points.
I watched 2 neighbours lose their house to a woman based on the 50:50 principle. She kept pumping out kids and swapping men, gathering assets as she went. The law seemed quite happy to reward her for this.
In school I was lucky enough to be in the HSC era where science taught as science, maths as maths. The modern curriculum was designed to "correct" the "male centric" old curriculum which was hard for most girls. Now we have fallen behind most of Asia in maths and science because the muppets who changed the curriculum were focussed on gender, not the subject and it's nature. Guess what: most engineers are still male not because the career is sexist, but because most women have no interest, no passion, and no ability in engineering disciplines.
They introduced the Bogan Bonus to try and get my generation to breed again. Great, wombs for sale! Of the 4 married men I know who I grew up with, 3 have lost their houses due to divorce instigated by the women. (In all cases there was either another man involved, or a shift "back home"...no abuse). I've heard similar stories from others about my age (40ish).
Our society almost encourages women to find fault with their man, screw them financially then repeat.
The gender wars will always be with us, but when financial incentives are put in place to split, it is no surprise a lot of women go for it.
BTW. Happily de facto for 14 years.

Johny Rotten,

No thank you for your abuse. Find a feminist employed in a university who has said anything good about the male gender.

Most of their pay is coming from males, and they know it.

Theoretically, and considering everything they have said about the male gender, they should only be asking for money from women.

Ha ha, poor ol' Ozandy. He "believes" the reason why maths and science is not taught as maths and science anymore (that's "his" contention), is because girls found it too hard back in the good old days. My old grandfather had similar old fashioned "beliefs"; he thought women should never, ever be bank tellers because women couldn't handle the maths involved and would also be too emotional for the job.

Nice to know there's a few old timers left like Ozandy, Vanna, my grandad and RObert.

Perkinsky has summed it up..may as well shut down the thread now.. she has said it all..and said it well.

//We have got to move beyond the competitive binary of male/female and think more holistically about how the two genders can move forward as a complementary team.//

For those who might be interested....

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
(Eph 5)

Samsung,
"old timers"

No thank you for your abuse. Which university did you go to, and where did you learn to denigrate men.

Come on, you can give the name of the university and course.

There is almost no maths and science left in the education system. In schools such as QLD schools, about 5% of teachers time was being spent teaching science.

Universities also cannot fill maths and science places, and in many courses, the majority of students are now foregin students.

If feminism does have any positives, (and there may actually be no positives considering the fact that the majority of women are no happier since the 1960's), then the present education system is definitely not a positive outcome of feminism.

Candide
How could anyone have sex without objectifying another?

GAJ
Do you respect and celebrate the wonderful individuality of each human being by locking them in a cage if they don’t agree with your political opinion, or don’t submit to being treated as your chattel?

On the other hand, if rape was legal, would that make it okay?

What’s happened is that women now have the advantages of patriarchy – plus more – without the obligations, while men have the obligations without the advantages.

Do you assume that men have a “responsibility” to pay women for looking after their biological offspring, for no other reason than that they are their biological offspring?

Try this thought experiment. Let’s suppose that men can’t be caged for refusing involuntary servitude to pay for a woman’s choice to look after her own children. No spouse maintenance, no child maintenance, no compulsory child support, no single mother’s pension, no family tax benefit A or B, no baby bonus, etc.

All this is saying is that relations between the sexes should be based on consent. Is that so radical? Are you so opposed to it?

In our thought experiment a woman can’t use legal force or threats to get a man’s income or capital for her uses. And let’s suppose she wants to negotiate terms, purely by consent, on which a man is to agree to devote his income to the joint use of her and her children for life, which is what traditional marriage entailed for the man. This means he won’t be able to devote any of it to inducing other women to agree to have sex, nor to any other resulting offspring. Of course this arrangement suits women unequally, because they have no other possibility of reproductive success. Men do.

There is no reason why a man should agree to such an arrangement, except on unequal terms. Why not? Because it’s not equal in the first place. It unequally favours women, and to add to it even more aggressive violence favouring women makes it more unequal and unfair, not less.

Ha ha, now we have another old timer, Al, asking wives to "submit" to their husbands. Notice that he expects no such submission from men towards their wives. Says it all.

Yep, we can add another old timer to the list, Al.

Peter, lovely "spin" you have there. Have you thought of ever becoming a politician? You'd do well (at least until the Royal Commission).

By the way Pete, if anyone becomes a parent, ANYONE, be they male or female, that person has an obligation towards financially supporting the child or children. Regardless of right or wrong, regardless of parental gender, regardless of personal circumstances, regardless of personal 'opinions', regardless of sexual/personal politics.

If you can't understand that basic fact of life, and judging by your above post I doubt you do, then I guess I'll just have to add you to the old timers list.

Here's the current list of old timers:
Al
Ozandy
My grandad
Vanna
RObert
Peter

samsung,

Here's a link to an article where the heads of physics at Sydney University and UNSW talk about the then new physics curriculum in NSW. They say it is an interesting course but just not physics:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/04/1067708212432.html?from=storyrhs

This article was in 2003. Since then the curriculum has probably been dumbed down even more for the benefit of girls.

I guess professors of physics at some of Australia's most prestigious universities must be 'old timers' and couldn't possibly compare themselves to yourself - being a woman and all. Hey, you're probably even a graduate of a 'wymen's course' so you must know everything.

samsung you really do get threatened by any moves to cut back on the gender wars or criticism of the tools of the gender warriors don't you?

I've offered an opinion based on my reading on the topic. Now how about you provide some links to credible research which clearly spells out sufficient detail about the questions asked and the demographics of those questioned which backs up the idea that's being promoted by gender warriors of significant gender inequality in household work when all others factors are similar.

I've seen material that suggests that the claim is true in some situations - eg if the male is unemployed he is unlikely to do extra housework, the claim may have some truth in some ethnic groups and age groups but that does not make it as wide spread as some want us to believe.

If you think that links are needed then feel free to provide some which show the detail necessary to form an opinion about how valid the data collection was.

R0bert

samsung, you ask "Robert, would you please post links to these 'distorted' studies, so readers can see for themselves."

A typical such study is Lyn Craig's "The Hidden Cost of Parenthood: The impact of children on adult time" (http://menshealthaustralia.net/files/TheHiddenCostofParenthoodTheImpactofChildrenonAdultTime.pdf).

This study uses erroneous calculation methods to arrive at the conclusion that mothers average 2.5 more hours of total work per day than fathers. This figure is arrived at by adding up both primary activities (the main activity that a person was doing) and secondary activities (other activities that a person was doing at the same time - simultaneously with - their primary activities). E.g. a parent might be washing the dishes as their primary activity, while simultaneously doing childcare as their secondary activity.

If a parent spent an entire 24 hour day simultaneously doing housework and looking after their children, by this methodology they would be counted as having done 48 hours of work in that day, where clearly they actually only worked for 24 hours. Even if a person is “doing 2 things at once” for an hour, they are actually only doing one active thing at a time - their mind is just switching between the two activities. They are only working for one hour, not two.

This erroneous maths is also entirely biased towards the parent who does more child care. If a parent looks after their children from 9am to 5pm, every other activity they do during that time is inevitably “double-counted”. This means that mothers, who are currently more likely to spend more time on child care than fathers, end up appearing to work more hours per day than fathers.

Feminism, like many other good ideas, has been perverted and twisted by vested interests and the mass media. While started as a valid movement to reduce the oppression of women that was undoubtedly occurring in days gone by. It is now just women becoming the same as the men the feminists used to (rightly) despise. Women have been encouraged to be just as shallow, emotionless and stupid as the men that used to smack their grandmothers around.
Sad really

Robert
Some of my knowledge is anecdotal and experiential
so it is not entirely connected to statistics
Yes gardening is a wonderful activity and rewarding and I love it but when I was working I needed help with some of the inside chores as well.....I too was tired on returning from a days work..after preparing and serving a meal it would have been fair to have the dishes done and put away......for the man to take over that responsibilty , organising the children to assist and let me get on with the washing
In a relationship it is important to make the inevitable hard core chores not differentiated on gender.
Our decision was to get a housekeeper and this gave me ten more years of working

"By the way Pete, if anyone becomes a parent, ANYONE, be they male or female, that person has an obligation towards financially supporting the child or children."

Well women would say that, wouldn't they? That's because they have an UNEQUAL interest in proclaiming this so-called obligation so as to con, or force, men into paying for them - while indignantly denying they have any such interest!

There is no such moral obligation. Those who want to support the child, can go right ahead and support it. But they have no more right to use threats or violence to treat anyone else, regardless of gender, as a money object to pay for their choices, than others have to use threats or violence to treat them as a sex object. If a woman wants more money to raise her child at a higher standard, that is entirely her business. There is no reason why anyone else should be forced to subsidise her. Women can always get child support the way they did before the dreaded patriarchy came along. They have everything they need to get child support and it's right between their legs. No need for the cornucopia of hypocrisy and violence that we see from samsung - pretending to deplore inequality while leading the cheersquad for it - against men.

Mikk
Women of my acquaintance dont equate to the women you decribe
They continue to be thoughtful, fair, reflective and caring.

Peter
I find I really cant empahise with your views......fine it hard to understand your stance about parental responsibility for the children we produce
Women often have the responsibilty of the day to day management in a marriage break up.........why isnt the sperm component of the activity responsible for some effort on the child's behalf
Find your philosophy odd at the least and irresponsible on the other end.

GAJ, "I too was tired on returning from a days work..after preparing and serving a meal it would have been fair to have the dishes done and put away......for the man to take over that responsibilty , organising the children to assist and let me get on with the washing"

Agreed. There are still too many around of both genders who bludge on their partners or assume that one portion of the work belongs to the other gender. The point of contention was in the way those stereotypes and twisted stats are used by the gender warriors to reinforce tension between the genders.

I had a wife who strongly believed that outside work was men's work and inside work should be shared according to her preferences which usually left me doing the bigger portion of the basics.

I've also seen how unused to having support with household stuff a couple of women I've dated have been as well, almost shocked when the dishes or some other basic task is done even after some time.

It's not every case but I've also seen how one persons insistence that tasks be done their way can demotivate the other from doing those tasks. The person who criticizes their partner for not doing a job the way they would do it is not someone who really wants the other to keep doing it.

R0bert

http://www.alternet.org/sex/148291/why_do_we_demonize_men_who_are_honest_about_their_sexual_needs/?page=3

<"The only way for a guy to guarantee that he won’t be called 'creepy' is to suppress entirely his sexuality>

Clarisse Thorn seems to think that if there were more male feminists, things would change, she does use labels such as privileged without defining exactly how being born male gives males a privilege, and she also sees being male as being part of the oppresser class.

She does however acknowledges some important points.

"shallow, emotionless and stupid as the men" combined with men aren't taking enough responsibility, and men aren't looking after the children well enough, and men are abusive.

What is missing from the feminist dialect so far.

Oh, men arn't sexually satisfying, or men don't listen, or men won't commit, or men only think about themselves, or men don't care blah, blah, blah.

Seems that feminism has been very active in poisoning the minds of so many.

There still seems to be a common thread in the conversation, that being equal must mean essentially being the 'same'.
One orange can be equal to, better than or worse than one apple, according to personal preference; it doesn't have to 'be' an apple, to be equal.
After attending the births of both my children, I think all mothers deserve a medal for 'uncommon valour'. Never have I felt so useless, or outclassed in the courage department; and that's without the discomfort, pain and disadvantage of the preceding 9 months.
Almost all ancient tribes recognised this 'inequality'; before a boy could be considered eligible to have a mate and be a father, he had to go through quite difficult and dangerous Manhood Rites; effectively proving he was as willing and capable of enduring as much pain and sacrifice as his mate would.
Later, more 'civilised' societies probably decided it was easier to treat women as different, or inferior, rather than have to compete with them.
If we really want equality between the sexes, perhaps we should reintroduce Manhood Rites, and remind men what they are, and what they really are for, instead of sublimating these drives into football or war.

Peter West <"One unfortunate by-product of feminism has been the proliferation of negative attitudes towards men. People talk of "the opposite sex" as if one sex was somehow opposed to, or completely different from, the other."

Well Peter, it certainly made a change from the predominantly negative attitudes towards women from the beginning of time!
I believe this anti-female attitude is still the dominant feeling in our world today, although we have certainly improved on those attitudes since the 1960's.

On the whole though, I found this article to be a fairly positive one re the gender wars of today. The author is correct in realising that usually Mothers love their sons, brothers and fathers, and Fathers love their daughters, sisters and mothers.

Thus how can the different genders feel negative towards all people of the opposite sex?
We all want what is best for all our family members and friends, no matter what their gender.

I, for one, feel positive about gender differences and similarities and believe it is what makes us attracted to each other!

I see RObert chose not to back up his claims of "distorted" figures, after being asked to do so. At least percusso 'tried', but the best he could come up with is an 'opinion' in a thesis (of all things) by a student.

Mikk, you wrote "women have now been encouraged to be just as shallow, emotionless and stupid as the men that used to smack their grandmothers around". NOT SO. The majority of men are not like that. The majority of men see feminism for what it is, a campaign for equal rights. Most men are not neanderthal anti female gender warriors.

Peter, in reply to a post I wrote you replied, "well women would say that wouldn't they". This is a BIG problem that gender warriors like you have, with gender attitudes that are based on beliefs and perceptions and not reality. I'm a MAN. You believe there is "no moral obligation" (your words) for a man to financially support his kids when he doesn't have custody. I consider a man with those attitudes to be a weak and self centered individual. I'm a man, but you're less than a man if that's what you really believe. You've let your genderisation of the issues blind you to the reality of real life.

Vanna wrote, "seems that feminism has been very active in poisoning the minds of so many". No vanna, what you're describing is "your" personal version of what feminism is. From reading your posts you seem to possess all the slogans and rhetoric of a gender warrior at war with those hated, evil and nasty feminists.

Grim you're right, being equal does not mean being the same. Having the "same" rights, does not mean "being" the same. The gender warriors don't understand that, they "believe" (like a religious belief) that all women who want equal rights want to be just like men. It's one way they genderise the equal rights issue.

Here's the current list of old timers "gender warriors":
Al
Ozandy
My grandad
Vanna
Percusso
RObert
Peter

Oh come on samsung.

What university did you attend to learn how to catagorise people under "old timers", or any other catagory you care to make up.

You can give the name of the university.

Still waiting on a positive word from you about men, or have you been trained not to think of any.

FEMINIST

Frustrated
Envious
Male-hating
Insipid
Non-sensical
Ignorant
Silly
Tart
:-)

HA ha ha. LOL.

Hmm, poor ol' Vanna, you're nose is out of joint because you "believe" I haven't written a positive word about men. You don't bother to actually read my posts do you! Just in the post directly above where you complain that I never write a positive thing about men I have written "The majority of men are NOT like that" in reply to a characterisation by someone else of men being shallow, stupid and wife beaters. i also wrote in the same post "most men are NOT neanderthal anti female gender warriors". In other words they are not like you.... they are normal, everyday men who love and admire women.

But let's now look at "your" posts. On page 1, page 2 and page 3 we have received from you constant anti female rhetoric and slogans.

Methinks you should look at your own pro male/anti fenmale "genderised" posts, before whinging about other people's posts. I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

I've just found a new addition to my old timers list. Welcome newcomer.

Here's the current list of old timers/gender warriors:
Al
Ozandy
My grandad
Vanna
Percusso
RObert
Peter
Individual

samsung,
"neanderthal anti female gender warriors"

No thank you for your abuse. I see you have been well educated to give abuse.

I myself have not made one negative comment about women, (and you can check all of my posts).

Feminists do not represent women. They are self-appointed and have not been voted to represent women.

While feminism hides behind the smokescreen of "equality" (double cough), the record of feminism has been one of making continuous accusation about men, in the hope that some mud sticks.

It has been everything from men are "abusers of women and their children" to "men don't pay enough child support".

I don't think one stone has been left unturned in the denigration of the male gender by the feminist movement, and interestingly, most of the feminist movement has been lead by feminists harbored by universities.

The other main area of male denigration would be the press, and most members of the press have also been trained in universities.

MISOGYNIST:

M- moaning
I- insufferable
S- sexist
O- offensive
G- groveling
Y- yawn
N- neanderthal
I- ignorant
S- selfish
T- tosser!

Suzenonline,
I for one couldn't think of a hot-blooded male who'd hate a woman. But sure as hell many are fed up with these academic pseudo-intellectual females who don't know why they're here nor what their function is & let their frustrations out on men who love nothing more than a real woman.

Oh my god it just gets better and better. LOL. Vanna does not believe that a feminist is a woman. Also, I notice he/she/it keeps referring to "universities" again and again and again. Apparently "universities" are at the root of his/her/it's problems with women.

So there ya have it folks. According to Vanna, feminists are not women and universities are just propaganda machines. Just gotta LOVE the slogans and rhetoric of the gender warriors like Vanna.

Vanna wrote that feminists are self appointed and have not been voted in. Well Vanna, who appointed YOU to your current position of gender warrior spokesperson (or are you "self appointed"?). And Vanna, at which election were you voted for in relation to being a gender warrior spokesperson (or were you NOT voted in?). Nice try Vanna, better luck next time.

Vanna inaccurately (gender warriors do that a lot) wrote "the record of feminism has been one of making continuous accusations about men, in the hope that some mud sticks". Wrong again gender warrior, the record of feminism, since the suffragettes, has been the struggle for equal rights for women. But that clearly doesn't interest you, because that doesn't give you the chance to use your slogans and rhetoric.

Fight on gender warrior, you're a minority amongst males. Most men believe in equal rights, as do most women.

Oh here here Samsung! Well said :)

How dare the feminists amongst us fight on for equality of the sexes when 'real men', like Vanna, can tell us how the females of this world should act.

Vanna has long ranted about his problem with Universities on this forum, more particularly with the dreaded 'Female university lecturers'.
Apparently they have never said anything 'nice' about him or his misogynist friends.

Vanna, you need some sort of counseling I think.

Individual, did you attend the same terrible feminist university that Vanna did, by any chance :)

samsung and suzanonline,
You dears are very abusive, and I can see why you are so attracted to feminism.

Someone may like Cambodians, but not like the Khmer rouge, who said they were representatives of Cambodians.

Someone may like women, but not like the deceit, misinformation, lies, bigotry, prejudice, misandry, half-truths, abuse, advocacy research, and demonisation of a feminist.

samsung,
Now come on. You can give the name of the university where you received your indoctrination into the wonderful world of feminism.

Suzeonline,
I'd be too disillusioned to study in an australian University plus I'd miss the company of women too much.

Hey Individual, interesting line:

"...these academic pseudo-intellectual females who don't know why they're here nor what their function is..."

Perhaps you would be so good as to explain why us men are here, and what our function is?

Grim,
If you need to have this explained in the first place then all the explanation in the world won't do. You'd better renew your membership with Germaine's whacko crowd.
:-)
Just about all mammalian life has evolved with 1 part male & 1 part female. To go against that is just plain pointless. The basic thinkers have no problem with that but the pseudo intellectuals do. Why do some whackoes go against that when we really can't do without each other. Go figure.

I agree with the article on most points.

Men and Women are different - and for good reason. Why cant we just accept that and work on each others strengths, rather than weaknesses.

As far as Advertisments on television are concerned, I am sick of seeing men portrayed as bumbling idiots. Dont women make mistakes? A women is offended when her man looks at another women and is chastized on the adds. I say it doesnt matter where he gets his appetite, as long as he comes home for dinner. If you accept this and talk about it with your partner, you will be much happier - start pointing out the good looking girls and see what he does!

Men have become afraid of being men. Men who become childcare workers and teachers are viewed with suspicious eyes. Men who say they help out around the house are somehow branded as "sissys". They are branded by both sides of the coin.

Why not celebrate the differences - work on the strengths of both sexes instead of trying to tear each other apart.

As a women, I appreciate my partners view of life - it gives me something to ponder on. I may not change my view, but at least I have another view to compare with.

Long live Men and Women. After all, it would be a small world with only one gender.

Suzieonline wrote; "it certainly made a change from the predominantly negative attitudes towards women from the beginning of time!
I believe this anti-female attitude is still the dominant feeling in our world today"

How does she know what the attitudes at the beginning of time were towards women were?

Maybe she has a time machine or is the oldest living human. Otherwise her attitude, is formed by reading other peoples opinions.

It was once thought that in the Victorian era of the stern non expressive male, it would appear that this perception is incorrect.

Generally the past is judged by todays values, this leads to what is known as a values conflict.

Hollywood, and authors of fiction, produce what sells, and of course this does bias our opinions and ideas, even though most people would not be aware of the subtle effects such fiction have on their ideas and beliefs.

Yes, the 'woman-as-competent-and-slightly-narked and man-as-buffoon-and-slightly-unhinged' ads every five minutes 24/7 for years on end does get irritating.

Obviously it's nonsense to talk about equality of the sexes if you need a whole lot of clamps and wires to restrain men from out-competing women, and to extort men to pay for women to have the best of both worlds.

And if in the absence of this whole raft of laws biased unequally against men's interests and freedoms, men and women would not have equal relations, then they're obviously not equal in the first place and there's no reason why policy should give women the benefit of a double standard.

The rest is self-serving hypocrisy by which anything favouring women's particular interest is dubbed "fairness" and "right" and men's interests are reviled

jefferson,

I couldn't agree more. If women are equal with men then why do they need endless women's officers, Offices for the Status of Women, women's policies and so on? Surely, the very existence of all these bodies constantly propping up women (and keeping men in their place), supporting their egos and policing anyone who dares question the current fashionista proves that men and women are not equal.

I have posted before: even a prominent feminist has said if it were up to women we'd all still be living in caves. And of course it was men who put men on the moon. If it were up to women we'd still be empathising with one another around our campfires.

The fact that examples like these need to be even raised is frightening. I'll consider women as equal to men when women put women on the moon. Or better yet, men beat women to the mooon so why don't women put women on mars?

Hey Individual,
I'm curious; how does discussing issues on OLO fit into your philosophy of "male + female, get down and boogy, nuttin more to it"?
Dane, I wonder how many of those males in the NASA program were born, raised and encouraged by women?

Isn't it it interesting how smugly complacent Suzeonline and samsung sound?

Grim

Are you seriously trying to say that men put men on the moon because they were 'encouraged' by women?

From the Copernican revolution to Newtonian physics; the scientific revolution to the industrial and technological revolutions: the intellectual groundwork layed by the Reformation and the Enlightenment. We have NASA scientists standing on the shoulders of hundreds of years of western intellectual development and all you have to say is that women 'encouraged' their men.

This is where our civilisation has come.

No Dane, all I have to say (and have said) is being equal does not mean being the same.
Indeed, the only 'equality' every human being shares is in the fact that not one of us had any choice in being who we are.
At least, I know I didn't choose my natural parents. Did you?
If Einstein had a right to be proud of his achievements, couldn't his parents have been just as proud?
After all it would have been impossible to achieve anything without them.
I'm quite certain if you traced Einstein's ancestry back 500 generations, you would be just as likely to find the same average number of murderers, rapists, conmen and wastrels as in any other. Yet they were all just as necessary to Einstein's birth -and his resultant observations- as his mother was.
You appear to be proud of the fact that the NASA scientists are (predominantly) men. Why? Are you one of them? If not, it is very likely you are no closer to them genetically than any woman near you.
And even if you are close to those scientists genetically, so what? It wasn't your choice, or theirs.

Women have not achieved the same as men thus far - they have only been afforded equal status and opportunity since the 80s. But in that time women have also made contributions in science, medicine and in business entrepreneurship. It is not a competition. That is the problem with some of you blokes, you see an achievement by a woman as a score against men. Where does that come from? We are not in a competition we are complementary and the same - human first everything else second.

I don't see the point in diminishing the traditional role of women in the home ie. supporting their families/husbands. It seems incongruous with what you seem to want - a return to the 'utopia' of the past.

Perhaps if the role of women had not been so diminished the nature of feminism would have been different and we would not be striving to be the same as men by adopting some of their more aggressive characteristics; instead promoting some of the more feminine characteristics as worthy.

I don't think men (or women) really know what they want half the time.

Being equal doesn't mean being the same. Okay.

So what does it mean?

Jefferson,
5+5 = 10
7+3 =10
1 person is killed = dead
1 person commits suicide = dead
1 bloke robs another & gets $100 = $100
1 bloke works for $100 = $100
a feminist is not a real woman but still female
a real woman is also a female
so you see they're all equal but they're not the same. :-)

Individual wrote, "a feminist is not a real woman". Notice he didn't say in his "opinion". Therefore he wrote it as if it's "fact".

Ok individual, now tell us what makes a woman a "real" woman. Feel free to write a nice long post that covers all the things that constitute a "real" woman.

Samsung,
A real woman just like a real man are human beings who's biological difference does not come into the equation of daily life. They're not at all thrown off balance by remarks of gender because of PC. A real woman has sensuality, something the feminists can't fathom. A real woman does not go stupid because a man treats her like a lady. Another phenomenon the feminists don't grasp. A real woman can laugh at sexist jokes because she knows what fun is. Feminists don't understand fun unless it's whacko sarcasm.
Ah, & you'll find that the majority of real women haven't been screwed up at some Uni, they learn from life itself instead of relying on some dreamland academic to indoctrinate them.
Real women are in all walks of life but in noticeable short supply in academic circles.

Of course in mathematics, when we say that 2 + 2 = 4, what we're saying is that they *are* the same.

To say that equality doesn't mean the sexes are the same is to tell us what it does *not* mean. But it looks like none of those who "believe in" the equality of the sexes are willing or able to venture a definition of what it is supposed to mean to say the sexes are "equal"?

The fact that examples like these need to be even raised is frightening. I'll consider women as equal to men when women put women on the moon. Or better yet, men beat women to the mooon so why don't women put women on mars?

As stated previously to you Dane: 'behind every man is a great woman'; whether it be a mother, partner, sister, aunty, grandmother....for many blokes, there has been some female, somewhere, encouraging or supporting them at some stage during their lives.

As for the moon...I would not use that analogy regarding genders in this era Dane. Any day soon.

With the support of both men and women, over the past 50 years, times have changed to allow both genders to study, qualify and be employed, whilst conceiving, carrying babies, giving birth, and raising children. No small feat for most women, mothers and partners.

Studies also demonstrate that most women with partners take on all of their partners needs and problems in addition to their childrens needs and problems here in Australia. All of these things while studying and working.

Allow me to find the study link Dane.

Dane

There is no competition gender or otherwise,however to single out one gender degrading and generalising women and their intelligence is wrong and living in denial of the people and events around you.

Have you not known one highly intelligent female role model during your life at all whether it be a grandmother, aunt or teacher? No female that has bowled you over with her innovative concepts and actions

The fact that examples like these need to be even raised is frightening.
we are unique,
my sentiments exactly but somehow I feel compelled to attempt exposing such mindlessness although it is a losing battle.

Ha ha, gotta just LOVE individual's description of a "real" woman. It's pure, 100% political correctness from him.

Let's examine his "real" woman and the old timers PC dogma he clearly believes in regarding "real" women.

1) A "real" woman accepts all remarks against her gender, and is not put off by it (unlike men like individual who are deeply offended by remarks against the male gender as evidenced by his hissy fits on this topic..... I guess this makes him not a "real" man)

2) She's sensual (in other words he likes 'em barefoot, pregnant and ever so willing to please the male)

3) She "doesn't go stupid because a man treats her like a lady" (yes, she should gratefully accept any and all courtesies and just be thankful, she's "stupid" if she doesn't, and then just get on with getting laid and getting paid)

4) She laughs at sexist jokes against her gender because she knows it's really "fun" (notice that the old timers here like individual get very defensive and upset if sexist jokes and sarcasm is directed towards the male gender)

5)"Real women" are not university educated. Women don't need education, as life itself is enough for them. (Gee, what enlightenment from individual..... maybe he's a fundamentalist Muslim. Is that right Muhammad, oops I mean individual?)

Here's the latest update for the old timers/gender warrior list.

Al
Ozandy
My grandad
Vanna
Percusso
RObert
Peter
Individual
Antiseptic

All still firmly stuck in the 1950s, except for individual who's firmly stuck in Saudi Arabia. Ha ha.

Heyyyy SAMSUNG... how come you list me with the old timers huh ?

(Pinch!)

I just agreed with Perky

Hey Al, how ya goin' old timer, go back and read my post at the bottom of page 3.

David I think that it's nice that Samsung is compiling a list of people that he things are speaking with maturity and wisdom on this subject.

Treat it as a sign of respect.

R0bert

I think the situation is actually solvable.

If you are a male in our highly feminist society, and you can’t leave the country, then there are certain steps one should take.

1/ Don’t watch the media, which is highly feminist and anti-male and portrays males as buffoons. Instead of watching TV, read a book of your own selection or develop a hobby.

2/ Don’t spend your money on women, most of whom have now been feminist trained to think of men as only good for their money. Why be paying child support for children you will rarely see, and why be paying for a house you don’t live in.

Best overall to develop a life long interest such as fishing or boating, and if need be take bromide tablets.

I think many men will be much happier if they did this, and if our governments complain that there aren’t enough children, then it is up to governments to be properly supporting families, and to be properly reforming the Family Law system, and to be carring out purging of feminists from our education systems.

vanna that would be the same media which sacks women when they are not considered young enough?

The same media running Beauty and the Geek with it's massive play on stereotypes?

The same media running an endless succession of crime shows featuring highly competent men and women?

The same media running home makeover shows showing talented people (both men and women)?

The messages are very mixed, some good, some bad. There is a trend in some advertising campaigns to portray men as idiot's, sometimes to show women hitting men as a normal thing but I don't see that the overall message is as one-sided as you see it.

There are definitely a lot better things to do than sitting on the lounge in front of the telly but I don't think that just because the media is feminised.

R0bert

Robert,

Most of the mass media has no substance or meaning and is of no real benifite to anyone.

In a feminist society, most relationships with women are now the same, and are unliklely to be of any real benifite to men.

Best to think of something else.

Hey Jefferson, I thought I was fairly thorough in my view of 'equality'.
2 (apples) + 2 (oranges) = 4 (pieces of fruit).
I would suggest equality of the sexes (or any other human yardstick, for that matter) is about:
1.equal rights before the Law,
2. equal opportunity for everyone to achieve as much as they want or are capable of achieving,
3. the right to be treated with the same respect, regardless of race, creed, colour, sex and physical or mental ability
4. an equal right to freedom from exploitation, abuse and curtailment of civil liberties...
Need I really go on?

Individual, there are no doubt all kinds of "real" women, including quite a lot who might identify as feminists. The thing that sets them apart from the feminasties is that they understand that men and women have complementary strengths and weaknesses and that most men are not bastards.

The vast majority of them have no desire to sit on a board, or even to go to work if they can avoid it, just like the vast majority of men.

They know that the best chance for their kids is to have a good father close by and they quite like having a man around for the social and practical advantages that accrue, even if there's no Mills and Boon-style grand romance.

It's a shame that the ambitions of a minority of women have been allowed to set the social agenda for so long, to the detriment of nearly everyone else.

R0bert, the media loves stereotypes and if repeated frequently enough, they become reality. Feminism's great success has come from making negative stereotypes (and even negative portrayals of any kind) of women unacceptable while using negative stereotypes of men to imply an overall negative view of the male role in society and hence, justify a female entree into traditional male power structures. The media has played a key role in enabling this.

I think your point about the sock-puppet was a good one. She does seem to need someone to look up to. I wonder if the poor thing had a Mum who walked out on Dad. Who could blame her for turning out twisted? The saddest thing is the way she pretends to be a man.

Grim, your definitions aren't bad ones and if feminism were about those things, as is often claimed, I'd not be bothered too much by it.

Of course, as it is done in the West these days, feminism isn't about equality, but about discrimination in favour of some women in some roles and about artificially creating opportubities to do things that most people wouldn't want to do if left to their own devices.

It's about reinventing traditional family-based roles and making them commercial activities, then subsidising them when it turns out that they're too expensive to provide commercially.

It's about pretending that a woamn's reproductive activity can be made as unobtrusive to normal activities as a man's, when it obviously can't, unless normal activity is home-based.

It's about removing the well-founded trade-offs that existed and replacing them with mandated rules that eliminate any need for female compromise, while demanding ever-greater levels of compromise from men.

It's entirely one-sided and it is unsustainable for that reason.

Feminists like to talk of a "backlash" and try to discredit any criticism of the aims of Fabian feminism as being no more than reaction. Look at the sock-puppet's "old timer's" for a rather puerile example of the form.

The "backlash" is nothing more than the views of normal people who see the abnormality being promoted as feminism and don't like it.

> Need I really go on?

Yes.

I didn't ask what you think sexual equality is *about*, I asked you what you think it *is*.

It's not the sexes being the same for obvious reasons.

That being so, you still haven't explained
a) what it means
b) how they could have equal rights before the law in respect of their factual differences, or
c) given their factual differences, why they should.

Does a man have an equal "right" to give birth to a child? Should government provide him with an "equal opportunity" to do so? It's obviously nonsense isn't it? And why is it nonsense? Because of the factual difference between them.

By the same token, should a woman have an equal "right" to greater reproductive success by having sex with multiple members of the opposite sex?

These factual differences give rise to issues of right that cannot be solved by bashing men over the head with an insistence on paying for a double standard by which women have the advantages of patriarchy, and the advantages of abolishing it, while men have the downside both ways - and calling it "equality".

What about the equal right of men not to be exploited by policy to pay for women's choices?

So let's not waste time debating the downstream issues. Let's strike to the root. Could you just start by letting us know your *definition* of sexual equality?

I did.

accepts all remarks against her gender, Real women" are not university educated ..
Samsung,
where did anyone make such statements ?
Have your sex toy batteries gone flat & sent you all irrational?

So how do you have equal rights in respect of factual differences?

[Deleted for flaming.]

Jefferson your ask a good question although I am not sure if you really mean gender equality or sexual.

"So let's not waste time debating the downstream issues. Let's strike to the root. Could you just start by letting us know your *definition* of sexual equality?"

We have pretty much achieved equality in terms of equal access and opportunity. Equality is about having choices - men as well as women. Women and men both enjoy differnet benefits/losses as regards gender and social norms. In some aspects men and women enjoy different access to certain jobs or roles like CEO or homemaker. Some men now stay at home while their wives work, in other families there is some transition between one and the other when there are children to be raised. Other are more traditional.

The point is also about freedom. Many women were forced to stay in marriages that were abusive (men too when marriage was considered sacred) and did not possess the economic freedom to leave. Despite all the talk about men protecting women from other men, what if that man was your husband? Even women's refuges were met with outrage at their first appearance in the 60s/70s.

It is much more than about equality. It is about freedom of choice as much as anyone can have freedom especially once you have commitment to children, work or debt. I hesitate sometimes to use the term 'freedom' because it is not just about freedom but about responsibility as well. You can have both but they are not always compatible. The weighting to freedom and responsibility probably comes down to indvidiaul resilience.

Men and women are different but we are more alike than we think. Ultimately I think we all need to be loved and respected, one comes from the other. If we work from that simple premise rather than focus on self pity and misery we might stand a chance of getting past the gender war phase.

For me,as a woman, equality has a sense of equal opportunity to achieve to my potential when, and if, that suits my wants and needs.
My femalesness/gender should not be a consideration in the equation....the law and society should see me as an individual with skill, education and competency so that these features are what is considered in whatever endeavour I paritipate.
That hasnt always been the experience of many women in many professions hence the need for some rules and regulations which give some balance and justice
To get back to the originl post we need to be developing a culture which enables each of us to participate according to our skills education and competence ensuring that there are ways available to meet the needs of managing family or aging parents ie "family" friendly work environments

Grim - 'If Einstein had a right to be proud of his achievements, couldn't his parents have been just as proud?'

I'm sure they were; just as I'm sure your parents are proud of you too.

we are unique - 'behind every man is a great woman'

True. Women have been standing behind their men, and standing behind their men and standing behind their men. They have been standing behind their men for millenia. And I'm sure their parents were proud of them too.

we are unique - 'As for the moon...I would not use that analogy regarding genders in this era Dane. Any day soon.'

Most people feel the reason women make such lousy comics is because they only ever get up on stage and talk about being a woman. So your claim that women will put women on the moon 'any day now' might be a nice change on the stand up circuit.

I suggest you team up with Grim and try for yourselves. Hey, if you fail at least your parents will be proud.

dane you might have a look at http://sciencewomen.blogspot.com/2009/08/women-of-apollo-program.html and if it strikes your interest search for similar material.

There were women involved in putting men on the moon and a range of massive barriers against any woman being chosen for the trip.

R0bert

>…I am not sure if you really mean gender equality or sexual.

I mean sexual equality to begin with.

The interests of male and female are partly in complement, and partly in conflict, owing to their natural differences - notwithstanding the social construction of gender.

No-one has explained how you can have equal rights in respect of factual differences. Clearly, you can’t. Given that fact, the only question is whether the law is to be used to favour one sex over the other; or the other way around; or whether the law is to favour neither.

I maintain it should favour neither.

But feminism has resulted in a whole raft of laws that compel and restrain men unequally so as to favour women unequally. It is not to the point to talk about “self-pity” because the law is neither equal nor fair, so not even the feminists can defend it in their own terms, and there’s no reason for men to accept it.

It is not enough to show that the current laws favour women. The question is whether they favour *equality*, or not; or whether they themselves involve a double standard or exploitation.

However none of the advocates of equality in this thread has actually defined equality. (Grim described it as a state of values – the law should treat them equally.) So there is no way of knowing, by the feminists’ own definitions, whether the pre-feminist state was unequal or unfair.

The argument is that:
a) if you need a whole lot of laws in place to compel and restrain men unequally to favour women unequally, then it’s nonsense to describe that as a more “equal” situation
b) if the law did not unequally favour one gender, and if relations between the sexes were based only on consent, the result would not be equal.

To understand why I say that, we must go back to the factual differences. Do men have an equal right to give birth to a child, and if not, why not? (I’ll show why I’m asking, after you answer it.)

"But feminism has resulted in a whole raft of laws that compel and restrain men unequally so as to favour women unequally"

In the early days this was probably true as part of positive discrimination where there were laws and social norms that did not allow choices for women such as having to retire once you were married, and lower pay rates for the same work. Men are burdened by the lack of choice to stay at home and to be the provider by and large, but this is also changing. Men were discriminated in terms of child custody arrangements until recently with probably still more room for improvement. The equality for men (in choosing to stay at home) is probably not going to eventuate due to simple changes to economic pressures for dual income families which affect men and women alike. Women tend to stay at home in the early stages of family due to breastfeeding.

At one point, men who raped their wives were not considered as having committed a crime despite the lack of mutual consent. I don't think changing the law on that front was to make the situation more unequal for men - it is a personal liberty thing.

As for sexuality well that is a tricky one. Sexual harassment laws for example, are only as good or bad as they are applied and one has to trust the system to some extent to temper the ridiculous with the legitimate. Admittedly there are situations where I can see PC getting in the way of commonsense.

Cont/...

"Do men have an equal right to give birth to a child, and if not, why not? (I’ll show why I’m asking, after you answer it.)"

Rights are human constructs - there are no natural rights per se, only those that we bestow as important to the maintenance of a fair and just society that take into consideration factors such as personal liberty and potential ill-effects or harm.

Naturally the answer is No. Men do not have an equal right to give birth to a child because they cannot so it is a moot point.

Women might lose in a wrestling match against a man. Do they have an equal right to win? No, only if they can, if they can't they can't. It comes down to physical strength and ability.

The trouble with terms like natural factors is who decides what is natural other than the obvious (such as reproduction or physical strength). Different societies have different social structures suggesting that much of what happens is not due to only the presence of natural factors.

If we went by natural factors alone women might be permanent slaves to men as we do not have the physical strength to compete for the most part. Naturally human good will, altruism and commonsense to know that better societies are not formed through force override physical superiority.

Hope that makes sense at this time of night.

[Extract]
Female Embry-Riddle Grad Ready for 2nd Ride Into Space (Source: Daytona Beach News Journal)
In the 1980s, Nicole P. Stott was a student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach. Last year, however, she got to see Florida from a very different perspective -- from orbit. Now 47, the astronaut spent 3 1/2 months at the International Space Station as a member of ISS Expeditions 20 and 21 crews. This was Stott's first trip into space, but not her last. While still at the space station, she was tapped for the STS 133 mission, now scheduled for Nov. 1. It's the final flight planned for space shuttle Discovery and perhaps the penultimate flight planned for the space shuttle program. (10/24) [End of Extract]

Perhaps not the moon Dane, however, last year I read about a team of Astronauts [including two women] preparing for their trip to visit Mars and other planets again. In the real world gender competition should not exist at all.

You did not answer my question Dane.

Have you had a female role model during your life or present in your life at some stage?

Pelican, you constantly return to the past in these discussions, which I assume is because you can't find any modern examples of discriminatory treatment of women and girls. We all know there were some historical imbalances, but creating a regime that is discriminatory against men and boys is not the way to resolve that.

I've made the point time and again that what is conspicuously lacking in the feminist paradigm is a way to stop the process when it goes too far in promoting the interests of women over those of men. That is what is causing the "backlash", which is growing daily.

Even here on OLO, which has a well-educated, well-paid audience demographic, I suspect, there is a growing number of men adding their own observations of the ways in which they see feminism failing them and their peers. At the same time, the feminist factories in our universities that are called "Women's Studies" departments are still churning out young and not-so-young women steeped in the ideology of resentment and special privilege based on one's (female) gender and our boys are still being expected to try to act like girls at school.

As Jefferson says, there sre significant biological differences between the human genders, just as for nearly all other species. Those differences are far more extensive than just reproduction and physical strength. Socialisation, capacity for multi-tasking, emotional responses, responses to stressors, the very type of environment we tend to choose for ourselves are all very different between the genders. Yes, I know that there is much variety within genders as well, but the shapes of population plots for each of these characteristics is very different between the genders.

Any attempt at "social constructionalism" that ignores those differences requires massive subsidisation, as we see with the feminist-inspired version today. When the subsidy can no longer be afforded, feminism will whither and logical pragmatism will lead to a more balanced schema.

<If we went by natural factors alone women might be permanent slaves to men as we do not have the physical>

Pelican, man Oh man. There is really a fixation or obsession on this slavery business.

Sure there are past examples of slavery that affected women, and men the English had a wonderful term of indentured servant.

To extrapolate these examples to having applied to all human relationships is emotive and inflammatory. Distorts perception and prejudices opinions and creates erroneous beliefs.

In the past the vast majority of people were busy trying to survive, trying to find enough to eat. Serfs, the poor did what ever they could to survive. Sure there were divisions of labour into women's and mens work.

Sure serfs and the poor were abused at times by the wealthy.

Extreme examples of human behaviour are being used to manipulate our perceptions of the past, in part there is perhaps a certain aspect of voyeurism and eroticism in this and perhaps a sense of moral superiority.

Otherwise why would some people be so fixated on past examples of slavery.

"Otherwise why would some people be so fixated on past examples of slavery."
Perhaps because people who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Several posters here have made a big deal about men having been more successful in science and engineering, while blithely ignoring the fact that for hundreds of years women were actively discouraged, if not actually disallowed from tertiary studies.
They and other posters feel the pendulum has now swung too far the other way.
Well, suck it up, lads.
I would have hoped having to wear another's shoes would increase empathy; you have a taste of what billions of women have had to endure for centuries, and you don't like it. But no, apparently you are too obsessed with yourselves; precisely what feminists accuse you of.
Might I say now I do not (now or ever) consider myself a feminist, largely for the reason stated in the article (C+).
I am an egalitarian. I find it unbelievable that in 21st century Australia there are still people in favour of not addressing discrimination, or whining about the cost.
I would suggest that there are still millions, if not billions of women who are still oppressed, still exploited and still treated like chattel, for religious or social reasons ("that's how it was in my parents' day, and it worked alright for them (me)").
Perhaps the pendulum has (in some areas) swung too far. Tough.
It's a sad fact of life that the edges drag the centre. The dialectic is rarely symmetrical.

There is perhaps another reason or benefit by feminists obsession with the past misendeavors real or imagined by men. Firstly it is judging past societal norms, by todays standards and values.

This can then be used to esculate emotional indignation and justify abusive behaviour as righteous indignation. It then creates the enviroment for what is known as Catharsis release.

I wonder if it is possible for catharsis release to become addictive, like people who become hooked of horror films because of the emotional high caused by being scared.

Grim

Most of us have respect for a group of people with a genuine interest in making the world a fairer place. We just aren't gullible enough not to notice self-interest dressed up to look more noble than it really is. We also cannot stand being asked to help those who will-not help themselves.

"Perhaps the pendulum has (in some areas) swung too far. Tough."

Grim you may not be feminist but that attitude is shown by enough feminists to contribute to an anti-feminist backlash.

Those who want equal opportunity will be very wary of anything that creates yet another set of discriminatory norms.

R0bert

Grim, currently American drug companies are exporting medications for the treatment of mental illness around the globe, part of the marketing stragedy is to change a cultures perception of mental illness or what comprises mental illness.

You wrote, <I would suggest that there are still millions, if not billions of women who are still oppressed, still exploited and still treated like chattel,>

So if for example women in many of these countries don't see themselves as being oppressed or exploited, then what you are saying in the typical western superiority way, that they must be 'educated' and convinced that they are being exploited and oppressed.

In a book I read along time ago there was an example given about a family that was functional, content and reasonably happy, but behaved in ways that were judged as being dysfunctional of which they were not aware. What right did social workers, have to disrupt this family by pointing out the dysfunctional ways that the family operated.(this was not referring to violence or abuse)

There is documented evidence that when Missionaries went to save and educate the non believers, that they create more problems in that the mortality rate rose in many of those cultures and the standard of living fell by trying to enforce their (missionary) standards on the native population.

Conquers in the past have tried to impose their religion, values and standards on the conquered, with very little value for the conquered except for the destruction of the conquereds culture and way of life. Thus causing disharmony that may last for generations.

Antiseptic
Boys have been disadvantaged in some aspects ie. education and the focus shifted to girls. Feminism was not about dominance, it was about levelling the playing field. Maybe it did go too far in some respects. That sometimes happens even with political revolutions.

The pendulum should stabilise and that is why discussions like those on OLO are good to sort the reality from the perceptions.

I bought up the feminist past in the context of Jefferson's post about natural factors. There are still disadvantages experienced by women today - you won't agree as you are too busy being a masculinist.

There are many double standards that affect women as regards sexualisation and social norms, although even this has improved over time. Women who are raped are still to some extent considered not as victims but somehow as aiding and abetting the crime unlike any other crime in society. Children (mainy girls - but boys as well) are now sexualised in advertising and in the media to serve some corporate bottom line. Men still outnumber women on Boards and as CEOs and not all of it is due to women taking time out of the workforce to raise kids.

However, no doubt you will disagree on all counts. You seem to think that women have achieved some sort of utopian existence and that there is no discrimination (formal or informal) remaining, but you are wrong and on that we will have to agree to disagree. One thing we do agree is that we should not replace the Boys Club with the Girls Club - both are equally discriminatory.

JamesH
My comment about slavery was not to paint the picture of women as enslaved - it is more telling that you immediately jumped to that conclusion.

Read the comment in context of Jefferson's natural factors argument. My point is that it is a testament to human fairness that women are not enslaved by men due to their physical superiority - it was in fact a compliment. If you look for insults you will miss what is actually written.

1.
"The trouble with terms like natural factors is who decides what is natural other than the obvious (such as reproduction or physical strength)."

Okay well let's just stick with the obvious for now.

Once a woman gets pregnant, there is nothing more she can do to ensure her reproductive success than to keep looking after that child. But a man is different by nature. He can beget more children by more women.

Remember, we're not talking about the social construction of gender differences yet. We're talking about the natural construction of sexual differences.

So now my next question is, does a woman have an equal right to the same capacity for reproductive success from multiple partners simultaneously as a man? It is no more possible than for a man to give birth, so the answer must be no, right?

2.
There is formal equality and there is substantive equality. If the law treats people equally - formal equality - in practice people will arrange themselves unequally. But if the law tries to make everyone equal in practice - substantive equality - it will require the law to treat everyone unequally. Formal and substantive equality are opposites.

Under the current dispensation, women get both the benefit of policies for formal, and policies for substantive equality, and *both* in the name of "equality". For example formal equality in policies against sexual discrimination in hiring, and substantive equality in policies such as special allowance for breastfeeding employees. The result is a double standard.

3.
If there are no natural rights, and if rights are whatever those in power say they are, then there is no basis for saying anything is fair. To say that something is fair there must be a reason for it.

For reasons in favour of natural rights, see:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/one.asp

4. Grim, your argument doesn't comply with your own standard of fairness.

Pelican as you point out, what means one thing to one person, maybe entirely different to another.

When I read slavery, it seems to imply to me more the hollywood stereotype. ;)

But then some feminist material also portrays women as slaves to mens desires etc. Slavery and servitude.

The slavery of housework.

Insult? I really wasn't looking for one.

grim -
'Well, suck it up, lads.'

'Perhaps the pendulum has (in some areas) swung too far. Tough.'

Thanks for being honest with us. We only have to scratch the surface before we find out what people like you, people who claim to be for equality, really think.

Now you only need to be honest with yourself.

The point I’m trying to make is this.

Feminism took as its point of departure the situation that women had had the advantages and disadvantages of patriarchy for x thousand years.

The disadvantages of patriarchy are such as feminists have told us all about.

The main advantages of patriarchy for women were:
1. the moral idea that a man is jointly responsible for the material upkeep of his biological child
2. legal obligation on a man to contribute to the upkeep of his biological child
3. a sexual morality biased against a man’s interest in casual sex with many and various women, and biased in favour of a man’s interest in monogamy.

These advantages to women had been part of the scenery for so long that it never occurred to feminists that there was a time when they didn’t exist.

But now women having insisted on the abolition of the disadvantages of patriarchy for women, there is no reason why men should continue to be bound and burdened by the disadvantages of patriarchy for men.

True equality requires that men and women are equally released from the obligations of patriarchy, not just women.

We have already seen that a man’s capacity to increase his reproductive success by begetting multiple other children by multiple other partners simultaneously, is a natural sexual difference, not a social construct. Therefore it is an area in which talk of equality is literally meaningless and there is no reason why there should be equal rights.

Therefore men’s liberation from the obligations of patriarchy requires the abolition of any compulsion on any man to pay involuntarily for a woman to look after her own child, whether or not he is the biological father.

All relations between the sexes should be based on consent, not just the ones that suit women.

Jefferson

The reasons why most men look after their own children go well beyond laws and arbitrarily defined conventions. It is hard to imagine a time when people of both genders don't want to protect kids, especially their own.

Some of us just dispute the exact quantity of cash that is extracted by the CSA, as we've all discussed once or twice on OLO. I would also like to see progress on a male contraceptive pill, to give men more say in the circumstances under which we become fathers. Giving women the responsibility of taking the pill also gives them the ability to "forget" to take it.

"The reasons why most men look after their own children go well beyond laws and arbitrarily defined conventions. It is hard to imagine a time when people of both genders don't want to protect kids, especially their own."

I don't doubt it and I'm not against it.

I'm just saying that there is no reason why it should not be based on consent. This more than anything would promote equality between the sexes, both as to equality before the law, and equality in substance. The main reason why men in the western world are burdened with an unfair double standard, is because they have unthinkingly carried forward this key assumption of patriarchy, while all the rest of it has been demolished around them.

Jefferson
You talk about children as if they belong to the mother alone and assume men want no part in raising children. If this were so, why is there so much fuss by many men over inequities in child custody arrangements. Clearly most men have a natural desire to be involved with and to protect their children.

Monogamy has advantages for men too and speaking to men they all seem to want a faithful and fulfilling relationship with one person even if it is not perfect. Stable relationships provide security and companionship as well as sex. Look at the emotions stirred up by some men even on OLO when they have obviously been through a divorce they did not instigate.

Clearly monogamy suits many men and women. People already have the freedom not to get married and they can have as many sexual partners as they choose. The natural consequences of too many sexual partners is of course STDs and the loss of a more fulfilling relationship - but that is a personal choice.

If two people enter a partnership and agree to an open relationship then there is no betrayal but most people enter a committed relationship with an assumption of monogamy and fidelity. If there are children they are a joint responsibility no matter the outcome of the relationship.

Asking men to support their own children is nothing to do with patriarchy but shared responsibility and equality.

Robert, I accept your rebuke; my remark was over the top. I wrote in irritation.
JamesH, you raise an interesting point in how we judge others; and other periods. I'm not sure I would describe myself as 'righteously indignant' about 5 year old children being shoved up chimneys 200 years ago, but I'm certainly glad we -in this country- don't do it any more. Would you suggest it would be morally wrong to speak out against children working in sweat shops?
How will we look to people 200 years hence?
I for one hope they look on us as being just as socially primitive as we see the Victorians. It would be wonderful to think each generation has it a little better than the last; unfortunately, the last few decades don't give me much cause for hope.
I think I had it better than my children will; but at least my girls will (I hope) get the same pay doing the same job as a man.
Jefferson, you remind me strangely of another Misean who hangs around these parts.
“Once a woman gets pregnant, there is nothing more she can do to ensure her reproductive success than to keep looking after that child. But a man is different by nature. He can beget more children by more women.”
Are we talking about humans, or cattle? And can you detect a qualitive difference between the two?
I'm reminded of another Libertarian who pointed out that we shouldn't worry about being cruel to chooks; after all they treat each other just as badly.

“If the law treats people equally - formal equality - in practice people will arrange themselves unequally.”
Why? Says who? Perhaps you would be so kind as to give examples (but not from Mises; that would be a circular argument, and we don't like those, do we?)
Dane, sadly Egalitarianism isn't a guarantee that everyone will be (equally) blissfully happy; it is merely the observation that no one should have the right to push himself out of the shite by standing on someone else's head.
If you or any other individual feels exploited or discriminated against, then of course they have a right to complain.
But you weren't talking about individuals, were you? You were trying to fit about half the human population into one size pair of shoes.
But maybe, just maybe if you force one group of people into a particular mould, for generation after generation, maybe they'll think they belong in that mould, and conform to the boundaries of that mould.
I wonder how much the feminist movement owes to world wars one and two? When women were forced out of the mould and into the factories.
Pelican, I agree. It appears Peter Ah Jefferson agrees with Vanna:
“Why be paying child support for children you will rarely see...”
As if children are inanimate toys. If you can't play with them, why pay for them?
Personally I'm much happier being the father of 2 beautiful children, than merely being the husband of a women who had my kids.
Oh and I did love this 'killer' line by Jefferson;
“Do men have an equal right to give birth to a child, and if not, why not?”
As far as I'm aware, there's no law against it...

“You … assume men want no part in raising children.”

No I don’t, you do. You are the one arguing that men need to be forced into it.

I am not saying anything against raising or caring for children. I’m only saying relations between the sexes should be based on consent.

“Asking men to support their own children…

We’re not talking about asking, we’re talking about forcing.

“…responsibility and equality.”

There you see, you’re doing it again? When we talk about using force against men to benefit women, you talk of “responsibility” and “equality”. But when we talk about using force against women to benefit men, you talk of “exploitation” and “inequality”.

“…is nothing to do with patriarchy”

It’s got everything to do with patriarchy. Up til now I have confined myself to talking about the natural construction of sex, not the social construction of gender. But the twin socially constructed gender roles that are the key to patriarchy are, for the man’s part, an obligation to contribute his surplus to the support of the woman and child and, for the woman’s part, to obey the man. Each would not make sense without the other, because unless he could know the child was his, he had no reason to be obliged to pay for it, and he could not know the child was his, without controlling her sexual, and therefore her economic independence.

I’m not arguing for the continuance of patriarchal obligations – you are. But only against men!

We’ve established that the sexes are naturally different in their reproductive interest in a given child. Their interests are not factually the same, not equal, not joint, partly complementary, and partly conflicting.

*Of course* women argue for a joint responsibility – they would, wouldn’t they? But they’re merely arguing for their own interest to prevail by force where the sexes’ interests conflict. It’s no more “fair” or “equal” than for the man’s interest to prevail by arbitrary force.

It’s got nothing to do with the care of the child, since that can always be done by consent.

"We’ve established that the sexes are naturally different in their reproductive interest in a given child. Their interests (once the child is weaned) ARE factually the same, equal,joint, complementary, and not conflicting.
Parents (both, one would reasonably hope) want what's best for their children. I agree it is very sad that some men have to be forced to take responsibility and treat as a chore and an intolerable imposition a task which should be a joy and undeniable duty.
Peter Ah Jefferson still seems to be stumbling over the difficult concept of 'equal not same'.
An apple can never be an orange. That doesn't mean it can't have equal value.
In precisely the same way no 'men are created equal', in any conceivable way, shape, form, height, intelligence, looks, charisma...
But that doesn't mean all people can't be treated as having equal value, no matter how pitiful their circumstances.
Indeed, as I tried to point out with Einstein, the the murderer/rapist/wastrel who was his great great great... grandfather was equally responsible for the birth of Einstein as any of his 'better' ancestors.
Taken from a generational point of view, it is impossible to place a value on any human life. Therefore logically, all humans are equally valuable, regardless of their station.

grim "my remark was over the top. I wrote in irritation."

Thanks, it seemed out of character for you.

Unfortunately there are those who do mean it, who are trying to get even for what they see as past imbalances (some were but they all to often miss big parts of the picture).

To often the debate does seem to be driven by extremists on both sides and it's all to easy to react to them rather than where most are at.

R0bert

Grim, as to the issue of raising children.

firstly the largest influence tends to be your own experiences as a child, so parental patterns can get repeated.

Secondly there is the issue of "Maternal Gatekeeping" and there is a very interesting study on this. Generally people (men and women) do not being confronted about the effects of their own behaviour.

there are two kinds of confrontations, one where it is factual, and the other is used to shift the focus on to another person a kind of defense mechanism. Such as employed in projection and transference.

Thirdly there is a passive and active sexism that is used to discourage men from being active parents. Mostly I suspect that it flies below the radar.

Again there can be conflict between male and female parenting styles, ideally there should be support, but either parent can intentionally or unintentionally undermine the other.

Again there maybe what is known as values conflict.

There are things that kids do that will send mothers into a having a hizzy fit and fathers go 'yeah ok'.

Grim:"Therefore logically, all humans are equally valuable, regardless of their station."

Quite so, but they don't all have the same opportunities. Women in Australia (except some indigenous ones) have far more opportunities to choose their own life-outcomes than men in Afghanistan or Sudan or any other part of the third world. Those same women in Australia have far more opportunity to choose their life outcomes than Aboriginal men living in the town camps around Darwin or Alice or those in the various indigenous communities. Those same women still demand ever more handouts, despite the fact that there is already a massive imbalance in the relative levels of public expenditure on men and women in Australia.

Feminism has become an exercise in justifying a gravy-train ride for a few, not a genuine effort to address imbalance, which was achieved at least 10 years ago, when the Feminist-inspired social construction should have been scaled back to allow a "soft" landing from the period of rapid social change leading up to that achievement. Instead, we have a large industry of people who see their role as the promotion of Feminism and so there has been no such scaling back, indeed there has been an acceleration as women who benefitted from such change attain power and do their bit for sororal solidarity.

This whole mess is a product of a very wealthy nation that can afford to redistribute lots and lots of tax dollars into subsidising artifical social constructs. The scale of the subsidy is truly enormous - Centrelink handles nearly $87 billion every year out of a total personal tax take of about $125 billion.

The issue of paternal support for children is a vexed one. The CSA arose out of a perception that a father must pay for his children. This was driven by both a pro-feminist ideological bias within the Labor Party under Hawke and a sense that the high cost of supporting single mothers who choose not to work needed to be offset. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was the excuse.

Now I'm not going to argue against the idea that fathers have an ethical obligation to support their children, because I think it's right. It's how that is best achieved that is at issue and in my view the current sceme doesn't come close to the best. It creates incentives to defraud and provides a means for vindictive people to cause trouble. It has been appallingly mismanaged by a series of Ministers and senior bureaucrats, all of whom would proudly identify as Feminists. the Ombudsman has been almost intemperate in his criticisms of the abuses of process and the structural problems that allow them to continue.

I've previously proposed a "Child Support levy" to be collected and administered by the ATO, set at a flat rate of $5 per week per taxpayer, which would collect the same amount as the CSA claims to administer. The goal of ensuring children are properly funded would be achieved, the CSA could be abolished, saving another $500million PA, the Centrelink demand that "collection action" must be taken by mothers on benefits would disappear, the incentive for fathers being pursued by the cSA to go ion the dole or work for cash would disappear and the incentive for mothers with an axe to grind to create trouble for fathers would disappear. The persocal incentive for "good" fathers to provide for their children would remain unchanged.

So far, the only objection I've heard comes down to "I don't want to pay another tax", which is a bit silly - the tax is already being paid, I'm simply saying it should be overt.

"The CSA arose out of a perception that a father must pay for his children."

That was the ostensible reason. The real reason was because the gumment had set up the single mother's pension and then found, surprise surprise, that the costs blew out unsustainably. So then they discovered the value of paternity - involuntary.

So you think other people should be 'forced' to pay towards the cost of raising of someonelse's children. We already contribute as most single parents who receive CS also receive a pro-rata SPP as well or a full pension depending on the amount of CS afforded by the non-custodial parent.

No-one forces men or women to start and raise a family. It takes two. Yes, I will beat you to it, there are some pregnancies that occur without the consent of men (or the woman for that matter) as humans being human there are unplanned babies.

The Government demands that a parent contribute to the raising of their own child where they can. This applies to women as well who might not be the cusodial parent. Women also pay CS - the rules are exactly the same. What is patriarchial about that? With the changes to Family Law more men are in shared parenting arrangements and with more single mothers also returning to work.

Lets talk brass tacks.

What sort of changes would you make that would suit your sense of gender fairplay that are not already in existence?

I am genuinely interested to see in which ways you think the societies could be improved that are both fair and practical.

Antiseptic has already come up with the idea of a tax levy on all Australians to support the rising cost of single parentdom. Any other ideas and any reasons why that idea might not be readily acceptable to other people who already contribute to the care of their own children. Or is it the case of a Nanny State only when it suits.

Pelican I've made the point previously that if we have to have something like CSA we should break the directness of the financial link between parents.

By current rules the choices of one parent directly impact on the other who has no real say in those choices. If your ex manages to reduce their taxable income in a manner which CSA accepts (or has managed to avoid having one for a long time) the other person either pay's more or receives less. That in itself leads to a lot of tension between parents and grumbles within children's earshot about the other partner.

Any guess's about how many children with parents caught up in CSA's web have heard that it's daddy/mummy's fault that I can't afford to get you something special?

I've suggested that where CSA needs to be involved all money's are paid into and out of a pool based on whatever formula is deemed to meet the actual responsibilities and costs involved not on the choices of the other parent. The size of the pool will be impacted by the choices of all the parents involved but at least the link is not direct.

I suspect that like the current system the cost of administering it probably outweighs any real benefit to the taxpayer but kid's should gain by not having parents in constant conflict. What Antiseptic suggests would probably be the best outcome for all involved (including taxpayers) as it avoids an expensive bureaucracy and takes away the resistance to bullying aspect but I doubt that it would fly politically.

In my case I just don't want the pain of trying to get my ex to financially support our son, too much history for me to bite off that piece of pain so I don't get any CS (my choice and it's a much happier place than the alternative).

R0bert

Antiseptic makes a bizarre claim about politicians who have set up the CSA <"It has been appallingly mismanaged by a series of Ministers and senior bureaucrats, all of whom would proudly identify as Feminists."

Where did you get that rubbish from Antiseptic? What are these politician's names, and where is the proof they are 'feminists'?
Even if a few were female, and also happened to be feminists, what has that got to do with ensuring divorced parents provide financially for their children?

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

I don't believe any political party will accept the setting up of a taxpayer-funded 'fund' to pay for the children of warring, separated parents who could do so themselves if only they were reasonable to each other for the sake of the kids!

I am willing to pay taxes for the elderly, families and disabled on centrelink payments for whatever reason, but I would not be happy to 'fund' payments for families who refuse to accept financial responsibility for their children purely because they hate their previous spouse/partner and can't come to an equitable arrangement!

Pelican:"So you think other people should be 'forced' to pay"

Let me rephrase that for you: "So you think that some tax money could be used to replace the current flawed system that fails to achieve its stated goal of ensuring that children affected by poverty are properly supported?". Yes, I do. By making the contribution broad-based and specific-purpose like the medicare levy, it makes child-support a community project rather than a state-enforced extraction of an individual pound of flesh.

Tax is a fact of life. The ATO collects nearly $300 billion of it annually and $87 billion of it is handled by Centrelink in the form of "benefits" and "allowances" already. What's your particular objection to this particular proposal based on? I reckon with careful rearrangement of priorities it could be made almost revenue-neutral.

There is no SPP any more. Parents with child care obligations receive Newstart or whatever it's called now and have exemptions from the activity test until their children hit school. You're quite right that we already pay these parents - what I'm talking about is paying directly for the children, perhaps with some form of specific-purpose card, so that Mum or Dad can't use it to buy smokes or grog or dope or go gambling.

Suzeonline:"What are these politician's names, "

Oh dear...

Suzeonline:"who could do so themselves if only they were reasonable to each other for the sake of the kids!"

And if only the moon were made of cheese, then world hunger could be abolished!

Gosh! I think you're on to something here, Suzie!

Nice of you to add your voice to the "I don't want to pay another tax" lobby. I thought the "I'll pay for anyone at all except men" was a nice touch, but a bit wide of the mark, seeing that this proposal is about paying for children. I was sure you were all for the welfare of children, but I've been wrong before.

Peter Hume, the perception that I referred to above is obviously still prevalent.

I've got to say I'd have no qualms about septic's proposal. All I can think of is the ridiculous churn we have going in Australia. The reduction in hostility between warring parents is a side issue and icing on the cake.

It's a simple economic efficiency argument as far as I'm concerned.

'The ATO collects nearly $300 billion of it annually and $87 billion of it is handled by Centrelink in the form of "benefits" and "allowances" already.'

I cant believe nobody else thinks this is farcical. It's bloody scary. Think of all the money spent on administration on top of that that could be saved. No wonder unemployment is at low levels when we have so many people employed shuffling money around purely for the purpose of election bribes to different groups.

Tax us less and stop giving tax back to people who aren't genuinely poor. You could reduce childcare costs and high effective marginal tax rates for women in the process.

Pelican
People don’t necessarily agree to raise a family. If they do, there is no issue.

The issue is if they don’t. You don’t have some kind of monopoly on deciding what is “fair”, especially since you are the one advocating violence, not me.

We can endlessly talk past each other about the existence or non-existence of a responsibility. But even according to your own view, there is no natural law, and morality is only whatever people think it is. Therefore others have an equal right not to be physically violated into a relationship they don’t want to be in.

I’ve shown reason why no responsibility exists without consent but you haven’t shown any reason why an involuntary obligation is justified, you’ve just assumed that moral values follow automatically from the fact of biology. But you deny that yourself!

Let’s talk brass tacks. Let’s suppose there was no compulsory child support of any kind. Let’s suppose that the women who want to raise children were to make the money themselves. Worse case scenario, they got the money by – shock horror - providing sexual services.

So? As Grim would say “there’s no law against it”.

If you are against it, that only proves that the purpose of child support laws is not to provide for children at all, since women can always get the money by consent. The purpose is to protect women from having to provide services – especially sexual services – in order to pay for their own choices in life by exploiting men for a double standard to pay for a privileged class of victims the unequal benefit of living at others' expense.

It’s unequal, based on violence, unnecessary, and unfair.

Antiseptic
Not even the CSA’s advocates can argue that it achieves fairness, equality, or ‘no child living in poverty’.

Subsidising people’s reproductive choices will only lead to them externalizing the responsibility for it. The more we do it, the worse the resulting social disorder, disadvantage and moral hypocrisy it will spread: from the single mother’s pension, to the CSA, to Australia’s social landscape of bitter destructive family law battles, to the bogan bonus, and so on.

What is wrong with the women who choose to have and raise children paying for it themselves, or obtaining the consent of any man from whom they seek payment?

The entire hoo-haa about compulsory child support is a complete furphy. Not even its own advocates can consistently support it. And government cannot raise families!

The CSA should be abolished, along with the sole parents pension and the baby bonus.

That is the only equal, fair, and practical solution. No disaster awaits us if we do. It only means people have the responsibility for their own choices.

Grim
An apple and an orange aren’t of equal value *as an apple*, are they you dill?

Brad Pitt and the Elephant Man aren’t of equal value as movie stars, are they?

If it was true that people are of equal value, then no-one would ever marry, or form a family? Think about it. We would treat everyone as being of equal value.

“that all men are created equal”
It was never true as a fact. And it was never true as a value – as you yourself are the first to argue. Did the resulting political entity ever manage to:
1. treat people equally?
2. make people equal?
No. Anywhere near it? No.

We’re not talking about an abstract value, knowable only in Grim’s confused hypocrisy, that has nothing to do with the conditions of human existence and natural scarcity. We’re talking about *real* values of *real* people motivating *real* actions.

>>“If the law treats people equally - formal equality - in practice people will arrange themselves unequally.”
>Why? Says who?

Says you, otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing in favour of any law intended to promote equality by treating people in the population unequally, like the law we are discussing now, would you? (BTW, notice how my argument is not circular? Yours is, - again! - because you assume the existence of a responsibility that is in issue!)

You don’t even agree with your own argument! If you did, you wouldn’t have divided mankind into two unequal classes: those permitted their freedom on condition they obey you, and those to be imprisoned because they don’t agree with your arbitrary opinion.

It’s not me, it’s you arguing in favour of treating people like cattle - remember?

You’re in favour of exploitation and inequality, therefore you lose the argument even in your own terms. Suck it up.

Economists can model anything to predict the effect of any change. I'd like to know the effect of a reduction in child support. I suspect that many men are minimising their taxable income to reduce the amount that they pay and that the economy wide benefit of a reduction in rates could be huge.

Parents with most custody might or might-not be compensated in other ways. Many only want the kids with them to save money. I would rather they were with the parent who wanted them more.

R0bert:"I doubt that it would fly politically"

I can see there would be much lobbying from single-mother groups who don't want to lose the ability to make somebody else make the ex's life miserable and there'd be a bit of "no new taxes, we'll all be rooned" and there'd be a certain amount of the generalised misandrist stuff like that put forward by Suzeonline, but if we have a genuinely rational democracy none of those things make it too hard.

It won't happen as long as there is lots of mining revenue, I suspect, mostly because politicians can simply throw more resources at papering over the cracks in the current system and pandering to the "opinion leadwers" who seem to inform so much of the female view.

Houellebecq, the economic argument is the one I first looked at. Any scheme that requires 4000 staff to administer and still accepts a high failure rate as unavoidable is fatally flawed, regardless of what one's view is of the rights and wrongs of individual responsibility for children.

Jefferson, children are the product of two people's endeavours, not just one. It is therefore not reasonable, nor is it desirable, for just one of those parties to be held to account willy-nilly for the costs of raising them.

I'm sick of hearing polemics on this subject. I want to see practical, politically possible suggestions to make the problems created by forcing a financial relationship on people whose interpersonal relationship is already in trouble disappear forever.

Benk, the modelling could be easily done, but there is no Government will to know the answer, just as there is no government will to know the real state of gender equality. If such things were clearly and unambiguously understood by the electorate, then the convenient political wedge they represent would be gone.

If we had a properly rational democracy, instead of one founded on "squeaky-wheel" crisis management, there'd be no problem.

“An apple and an orange aren’t of equal value *as an apple*, are they you dill?”
No, but they can still have equal value as pieces of fruit, can't they “you dill”.
“Brad Pitt and the Elephant Man aren’t of equal value as movie stars, are they?”
No, but they can still be treated as having equal rights as human beings can't they, “you dill”.
I strongly suggest you poke your tongue out of the side of your mouth, frown heavily and concentrate to the best of your ability “you dill”.
2 things do not have to be the same, to have equal value “you dill”.
“People don’t necessarily agree to raise a family. If they do, there is no issue. The issue is if they don’t.”
If men -or women- aren't prepared to wear the equal responsibility of raising their children, they can either not have sex, or wear a condom -or diaphragm (“you dill”).
“If the law treats people equally - formal equality - in practice people will arrange themselves unequally.”
No, you you didn't make a circular argument, but you didn't provide any concrete examples, either.
You just made a completely unsubstantiated statement which you then tried to have accepted as axiomatic (“you dill”).
Please show where in any of my posts I “have divided mankind into two unequal classes...” As far as I am aware, I have argued consistently that all humans have a right to be treated as equals, regardless of their differences.

grim:"as far as I am aware, I have argued consistently that all humans have a right to be treated as equals, regardless of their differences."

That's a motherhood statement. What does "treated as equals" mean? That's the question that has caused so much trouble.

"Motherhood statement"?
It was and is an Egalitarian statement; the fundamental belief of all egalitarians. Since when did become necessary to be a mother, to believe in equal rights for all?

"1.equal rights before the Law,
2. equal opportunity for everyone to achieve as much as they want or are capable of achieving,"(saving only where such achieving impinges on the rights and liberties of others)
"3. the right to be treated with the same respect, regardless of race, creed, colour, sex and physical or mental ability
4. an equal right to freedom from exploitation, abuse and curtailment of civil liberties...
Need I really go on?"

grim:"Since when did become necessary to be a mother, to believe in equal rights for all?"

from wiktionary: :a "feel good" platitude, usually by a politician, about a worthy concept that few people would disagree with, without any specified plans for realisation. For example, "Our country must contribute to world peace.""

grim:"Need I really go on?"

Yes, you really should. A series of axioms is all well and good, but they're just axioms, they don't actually give any indication about how best to achieve the noble goals or even what that might mean in practise, given the inherent inequalities that exist.

Until men share governance equitably with women with provision for women's legislatures enacting laws in agreement with long established men's legislatures men are solely and singularly responsible for the problems of governance including environmental degradation, warfare, poverty, greed and economic collapse because men control power at its source.

If men want to celebrate their achievements let them celebrate achieving equality in governance with women before anything else.

It's simply laughable and brings all men into disrepute that some men should complain about women in power and not include women equitably in governance men conceived and created in the first place.

Whistler I know that this is not the barrow you are pushinbg however I think we are past the point where any talk of lack of political power is relevant.

The levels of government for my address

Local Councillor - female
Mayor - female
State member - male
State premier - female
State governor - female
Federal member - male
Federal senator's - 3 female 9 male
Prime Minister - female
Governor General - female
Monarch - female

Antiseptic "if we have a genuinely rational democracy none of those things make it too hard." that would be great but I think we have a way to go yet.

R0bert

Antiseptic

What is politically possible depends on public opinion. Changing it can’t be done without expressing political opinion intended to persuade, in other words, polemics.

We must first identify what is wrong to change it.

The men of Australia have themselves to blame for voting on the underlying false beliefs that:
• women have a special right to consideration of their different reproductive interests – ‘motherhood statement’ – which deserves the full weight of policy. They have a right to equal treatment *and* equal outcomes (Grim’s fallacy). Despite equal treatment in law, any worse outcome for women proves unfair treatment.

• men’s different sexual and reproductive interests are illegitimate, despicable, ridiculous – especially their unequal interest in casual sex! The full weight of policy is justified to try to force men to sacrifice their different interests and values in women’s favour.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine if the double standard was the other way around. Men’s interest in casual sex was supported by policy and taxes as self-evidently legitimate and deserving, while women were forced to provide or pay for it, as well as their own interest in motherhood. That would be the male equivalent of the current bias towards women.

The result is two unequal classes:
1. those who raise their own children
paid for by others
*and* get subsidized child care
*and* extra benefits.
This group overwhelmingly comprises women.
2. those who raise their own children
*and* pay for it themselves
*and* have to work harder to pay for the first class
*and* then after work have to do the shopping, cooking, vacuuming, laundry and so on in their spare time.

What’s fair or equal about that?

We should support abolishing the privileges of the first class, and reducing taxes on both. It takes only enough people to demand it, to become politically possible.

Then the people now living at everyone else’s expense can earn their money – just like everyone else has to do! - by providing shopping, cooking, cleaning and sexual services for the people who are now doing double their fair share.

What’s exploitative or unequal about that? Why should there be any general expectation that women as a class have an unequal right to force men to sacrifice their interests and values? That women’s interests automatically justify treating men as property?

No wonder we have such a culture of sneering hostility to men.

Men need to affirm that they have a legitimate interest in consensual sex with women and no obligation to any resulting children *unless they explicitly undertake it*.

Only policy that treats the sexes equally regardless of differences can be fair.

Legitimacy of children is necessary for protection of *the man's* human rights.

Grim

You still have not explained how factual differences *can* be treated equally.

Men and women have different factual reproductive interests in any given child and in casual sex. Only the man’s information code contribution is equal. Woman’s biomass contribution – her material contribution - is trillions times that of the man. This difference is natural, not socially-constructed. There is not agreement that an alleged equal responsibility exists, or should exist. If there were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Faced with this difference, you don’t respect them and treat people equally. You don’t respect an apple and an orange as pieces of fruit, or man and woman as human beings. You try to bash an apple into the shape of an orange; you try to force men to sacrifice their different interests and values in favour of women.

In supporting so-called child support laws, you’re treating unequally you on the one hand, and those who are to be imprisoned for disagreeing with your opinion on the other. You’re treating unequally men who have had children, and men who have not had children. You’re treating unequally women who have had children, and women who have not had children. You’re also treating Australians differently from others nationalities.

The old-style conservatives thought it was morally good to coerce women into relationships they didn’t want to be in, on the basis of alleged “responsibilities” made up and imposed by the bullies. You are doing just the same to men.

I have shown how equality is factually false and theoretically meaningless. You’re just going round in circles.

hi RObert,

Commonwealth:
2 men's legislatures to which women are admitted under supervision
o women's legislatures

States [except QLD and the Territories]:
2 men's legislatures to which women are admitted under supervision
o women's legislatures

QLD and the Territories:
1 men's legislature to which women are admitted under supervision
o women's legislatures

Total legislatures:
0 women
10 men

Jurisdictions at law:
0 women
1 men

Corporate committees
Boards of Directors ASX top 200 companies:
0 women
200 men

With complementary state legislation a majority of Australia's parliament can rescind the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 with the effect of removing all women members, including a woman Prime Minister, and prohibiting all women the vote. The same cannot be said for men. Men rule Australia, that's the law, it's as simple as that. It beggars belief there are men in Australia who genuinely consider women disadvantage men.

Jefferson
Please explain how you inferred I am the one advocating violence. Nothing like a few emotive statements to distort the facts to suit your own agenda.

It does take a man and woman to produce a child regardless of the intent of the sexual act, but one solution might be to develop a male contraceptive pill to even up the reproductive 'rights'. Or as discussed on another thread some time back a casual sex contract which comes with no obligations.

I am not sure how casual sex is discriminated against. Both men and women can and do participate in casual sex afterall who are the men having sex with? Casual sex is not against the law and in fact men are commended for it, women castigated so you are good to go on that one.

Jefferson you still have not described exactly what you would do differently if you were King. How would you rearrange things to make society more 'equal' for men in terms of legislation, child custody etc. You have explained a little but much of it is emotive using words like 'imprisoned' and 'violence' which distorts much of what it is you are trying to impart.

<Men can never be feminists - millions have tried and nobody did better than C+.>

A good point to ponder, and although nobody ever dares to go there, perhaps one big factor is how women will change their minds.

It was pointed out to me once, that if you asked a women what flavoured ice cream she wanted and she said chocolate, are you sure about that?

Yes!

So you get her a chocolate ice-cream, she will then say she wanted vanilla.

JamesH,

I was going to comment here - but I've just changed my mind, Lol.

James H
Thats the silly sort of generalisation thats either tongue in cheek of if real causes so many of the difficulties.
What a ridiculous thing to put all women in that category
Personality types have a bearing on decision-making in all human interactions
If I want a vanilla icecream that what I want and I rarely change my mind unless i see the rum and raisin
J

Pelican:"How would you rearrange things to make society more 'equal'"

That's the question that's so hard, isn't it? Equality of opportunity for an individual to choose an outcome has been with us for years. It seems to me that what the feminist movement has done is shift gears to start demanding equality of outcome, no matter how much others have to pay to ensure it occurs. thus we have demands for equal numbers of both genders in Parliament, on boards, in senior academic roles, at the top of bureaucraies etc, all to be enforced with the power of the State. There is no discussion or even consideration about whether this might reduce the equality of opportunity for young men or even whether there are sufficient women interested in thsoe roles who are actually able to do them properly.

That's at the top of the cosio-economic tree. In the middle we have several disparate groups, from stay-at-home mums with a hubby working to support them both, career-minded women, well-off single mothers who own the former family home and receive a large amount of handout money as well as untaxed money from the ex and who work either part-time or full-time (the group that is never mentioned by feminists). These groups do not have congruent interests except insofar as they are all women and they've all come to expect lots of special treatment because of it.

At the bottom end there are low-skilled working women, with or without a partner and kids and some long-term unemployed women, usually single-mothers, since a low-skilled man doesn't bring in enough income to support a non-working wife for long. These groups are primarily concerned with having adequate money to properly support their families.

Now, which of those groups do you think might make the loudest noise politically? Which of them has the largest number with sufficient free time and enough funds, not to mention the network of connections to make it effective?

Which of them is genuinely in need of support to obtain access to opportunities? Are they the same group?

Of course, they're not the same gtoup at all, but the fact that the poor exist has been somehow morphed into a demand that the well-off should be even better off and that the State had best be doing its best to make that happen.

It's weak, it's dishonest and it's far from egalitarian.

“How would you rearrange things to make society more 'equal' for men in terms of legislation, child custody etc.”

I think all government can do is ensure that any law applies formally equally to men and women. Any attempt to ‘make society more equal’ for one sex by unequal treatment of the other, any attempt to ‘even things up a bit’ by special privileges for one, can only be unjust and exploitative.

The first principle is that all relations must be based on consent.

A man (or a woman for that matter) can be forced to pay only if he explicitly contracted to pay for a child or children in writing signed, with witnesses.

(Legally a marriage was considered a blank warrant to force the man to pay, even if she cheated and the child was not in fact his. This would no longer be the case. The couple would need to turn their minds to ensuring he consents in fact; and on what terms they agree to marry or relate.)

This is the same idea as your casual sex contract, only the need for consent is the rule, not the exception.

Child maintenance in family law would continue on the above condition.

One year’s notice of the abolition of:
• the Child Support Agency
• the sole parents pension
• the baby bonus
• the de facto relationships acts
Taxes reduced accordingly.

The reason for abolishing the de facto relationships acts is that they impose marriage conditions on people without their consent. Marriage must be voluntary.

The men of Australia should be demanding this immediately. It would automatically tend to resolve a lot of family law disputes over custody and contact, and a lot of other social problems besides.

It’s simple, it’s doable, and many women would also vote for it.

Why do we think reform is only politically possible by *adding* more rules and regulations to the existing dog’s breakfast? The feminists repealed laws that didn’t suit them. We should do the same.

This would promote greater equality, fairness, balance and harmony between the sexes.

Antiseptic
I agree that there is much that is not egalitarian and the influence on government tend to come from the squeakiest wheel. Many are aware of the inequities.

"There is no discussion or even consideration about whether this might reduce the equality of opportunity for young men or even whether ...sufficient women interested in those roles who are actually able to do them properly."

Anti - you see this all in terms of how it affects young men. What about the men who cannot do a job properly and all the men who were in positions purely by the fact they were male or part of the boys club. Incompetency is not as you infer, limited to one gender.

You assume there is a 50/50 split on boards and the like, men still dominate the most senior roles even in the public service although it is much closer to 50/50 than other sectors. In parliament 64.5% of Senators are male, 73.5% in the House of Reps.

You seem concerned about the future of young men when clearly the balance is still very much in their favour or at least not in disfavour. There are very few places that use quotas or positively discriminate.

IMO we don't need quotas now, there is a perception that women are just as able as men in many areas, and it is no longer a subject for debate except among the few troglodytes that remain.

Deecisions are for the most part based on the merits of the individual rather than gender. There are probably more decisions based upon nepotism than there are to do with gender.

We do not need an OSW (IMO) whose work is already covered by HREOC and in other social policy areas within the various departments. There is too much duplication but that is going off altogether on another tangent.

Jefferson
There is some merit in a consensual process (in terms of obligation) - the lawyers would hate the loss of revenue - that is already a good aspect. However, I do have some difficulty with the idea that people absolve themselves of responsibility after a marriage breakdown for example, while expecting others to pick up the tab.

Shared parenting as a premise in child custody would also assist in sharing the load and the expense being mindful that shared parenting won't be the optimal outcome for some families. Governments already do assist single parents in some way or another, and I guess if we extended this it might reduce some of the conflict but again it comes down to what it is we expect governments to do as opposed to what individuals can do for themselves.

Social security is important when there is real hardship or to give someone a helping hand, but I am not sure how far this should extend to family responsibility. I will think about it a bit more

ooops ... that should have been:

Total legislatures:
0 women
15 men

[not 10, apologies, to which women are admitted under supervision, inclusive of leadership]

Power resides with the parliament in a constitutional democracy. A monarch and any office of a monarch is ceremonial while local councils and state parliaments, as with the federal parliament in accordance with the doctrine of original intent, remain exclusive sources of male power. Obviously the pathetic bunch of male wimps constantly whining and whinging that women have too much power, Dr Peter West's clarion call, are themselves unacquainted with the source and distribution of power in modern democracies to the extent of remaining abjectly powerless within their own communities, a seasonably apt parade of zombies. Fortunately these miserable attempts at men represent a minuscule proportion of all Australian men while their contribution remains a source of uproarious hilarity and side-splitting laughter. Australia doesn't even have a women's caucus to advise its exclusively men's legislatures as does the majority of modern democracies. There's hardly a man who isn't in a state of zombie-like stupor left in Australia who wouldn't support the achievement of authentic equal rights and equitable power sharing with women if an amendment to the Constitution to provide for governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees was put to a referendum this weekend.

Another thread that has disappeared down the usual worn-out and predictable path up a dry gulley.

Surely it should be possible to craft an article about men, boys and masculinity without anchoring it in feminism. Is everything 'informed' by feminism, I think not.

Any lateral thinkers out there?

I agree Cornflower.

These sorts of threads always end up as a gender war, with the female part of the argument always at fault in all things.

See you all on another thread.

Well feminism always seems to be at the root of all problems according to some posters of whom some cannot distinguish between anti-woman and anti-feminist.

Why don't you start a thread about masculine issues Cornflower. Ten to one it will be a bloke that will throw up the feminist conspiracy theories.

Feminism is a philosophy which has been responsible for a change to injustices perpetrated for hundreds of years. Its ideas have improved life for men and women
Like the curates egg it is good in many places; some aspects have been overstated but this is always necessary to encourage people to think about injustices.
What I find odd about this set of posts is the inablity to debate the issues in the original post.
Somehow we seem to get onto individuals pet issues and often I was unable to follow the argument..........perhaps I am unfamiliar with individual writers personal gripes.
Nonetheless I have been interested in the issue of supporting a child when the parents separate and some alternative ways of managing that dilemma

The reforms I suggest would have the following advantages.

1. Responsibility
Pelican, as I said, child maintenance would continue in family law. My reforms would not enable people to absolve their responsibility on marriage break-up – unless they had not created such a responsibility in the first place.

2. Marriage
Abolishing compulsory child support would reduce the major social problem we have now, of people blundering into reproductive relationships with no forethought or commitment. Often people have causal sex after meeting at the pub while drunk, and then are “in a relationship”. They have children first and then they think about marriage if at all. Fooled by current laws, they think “marriage is only a piece of paper”. They fail to recognize the importance of commitment. These are the ones who expect others to take responsibility for their own reproductive behaviour. They appear disproportionately in figures of separation, step-parenting, child abuse, welfare dependency, mental health and domestic violence.

3. Sex and Company
Many women would choose not to marry, and that is entirely their business and their right.

Whether in prostitution, marriage or anything in between, a virtually universal pattern of heterosexual behaviour is the female expectation of valuable consideration in exchange for agreeing to sex. This is a classic locus of male-female co-operation.

With the abolition of compulsory child support, many women would probably make money by selling female company to men in various ways, including by housekeeping, non-sexual company, girlfriendship, shows, and personal and sexual services.

Men have a legitimate interest in this development, and there is no reason why policy should put a thumb in the balance on women’s side, to force men, in effect, to pay for female services they’re not getting, which is what’s happening now.

The consent of the parties is a complete answer to any question of morality involved. The majority should no more be able to dictate the sexuality of heterosexuals any more than of homosexuals.

I’m not advocating the use of policy to force one sex to satisfy the other’s interests in the other, as the feminists are.

But my wife’s recent immortal quote is true: “There’s nothing like money to lubricate a woman’s vagina.”

There’s no reason why male and female should not negotiate and harmonise their complementary and conflicting interests in this way, rather than through government’s current meat-axe approach.

4. Work-life balance
Abolishing the sole parents pension would promote work-life balance. How much better would your work-life balance be if, when you came home from work, the shopping was done and put away, the house was cleaned, the dinner cooked and the lawn mown?
It would also be better for the work-life balance of the current pensioners themselves. They could earn the amount of the pension in less than a week. Work is good for your health, well-being and connectedness.

But this would require a little less governmental strangulation of small business.

Thus the primary function of the child support laws is not child support at all. It is to promote a dysfunctional ‘romance victim’ *sexuality* that:
• is anti-marriage
• neglects commitment
• promotes careless reproduction
• promotes welfare dependency and poverty
• is indifferent and hostile to men’s legitimate interests in female company, consensual sex and fatherhood
• promotes an exploitative unfair unequal double standard
• promotes “child as asset” unreasonableness in child custody or contact
• privileges women to treat both men and children as chattels

Pelican

You cannot crap on on any OLO thread about how men who sleep around are studs/ she is a slut without Benk adding his two cents. It has been a long time since sleazy men have been called studs and we have all seen alot of men given both barrels for "breaking her heart" in that time. These days, women who sleep around are "liberated" and men who do the same "need to treat women with more respect".

Jefferson

He may not have wanted a baby, but it is here anyway. He owes it to the baby to help, including financially. The only question is; how much money is reasonable? As well, as Pelican mentioned, bring on the male pill.

Whistler

Give up on the female legislature!

I would like to thank the member for his hook.
Wimps give up Benk, not to mention those who counsel the strategy.
Male genius has transformed the governance of family groups to that of the entire world,
but there's unfinished business.
A women's legislature is a vote next Saturday away.

Cornflower:"Surely it should be possible to craft an article about men, boys and masculinity without anchoring it in feminism. "

Yes, it should be, but feminism has become such a dominant ideology that to do so requires the invention of a new paradigm, as all previous examples of masculinity will be immediately attacked as misogynist, rightly or wrongly.

This is hardly surprising - there are a lot of people who gain an advantage by proclaiming a commitment to feminism and so they do so at every opportunity. It's the new State religion and it has no place for men and boys, although some of the "good" ones are allowed to serve as apologists in exchange for a small slice of the pie. It's funny that one of the more vocal of those apologists,Michael Flood, has been very quiet on the subject since the birth of his son a couple of years ago...

Pelican:"Ten to one it will be a bloke that will throw up the feminist conspiracy theories."

And why do you think that might be? Could it just be that men really are noticing the anti-male agenda that is being pursued in our social policies? Nah, it must just be a misogynist thing, no need for any thinking about the subject at all. It's just like those hairy'legged, bra-burning women in the 60s: nothing but whingers, always blaming men. Lesbians the lot of 'em...

There's been a lot of self-satisfied smugness lately from some of the women. Foxy, Suzie and even Pelican have all made some comment like "the law's on our side, so you'd better get used to it", as though the existence of a law makes the discussion unnecessary.

I'd like to remind those people that the reason for feminism evolving was that there existed laws and social structures which were discriminatory. I'm sure many of them heard "it's the law dear, best get used to it".

Funny how the pigs always end up in charge of the trough...

Have you considered that the world switches off when feminism is mentioned and your message is lost? If what you want cannot be described other than in terms of someone else's product (which you say is defective and probably is in some respects), you waste most of your time 'selling' your opposition's product. This article needed redirecting towards a vision for men and boys and the first contributor Perkinsky gave a lead.

Where is the vision for men and boys? Is there one or are we wasting our time reading articles such as this one? Do the Floods et al re-engineer themselves a bit to manage a paradigm shift through a few grudging degrees or is there a fresh paradigm expressing a new future, new hopes and aspirations, for men and boys?

Wimp philosophy 101: a condition of equality with women is that men must be praised, lauded, placed on a pedestal and worshipped ... LOL!

Thanks Pelican, Cornflower, Whistler, benk, GAJ, Perkinsy, we could not have wanted a better demonstration of your sheer hypocrisy.

Your first and last tactic are mere sneering.

The best of it is to suggest that there is a complementarity between male and female – so generous and insightful of you.

But none of the women or feminist contributors have even joined issue, namely:
• whether it is meaningless, in view of the differences between the sexes, to say they are or can be equal
• whether an equal application of laws to male and female will inevitably result in ongoing differences on the ground, and there is no reason why this should not be so
• whether these differences are persistently taken to justify action *against* male interests both coming and going
• e.g. fewer women on company boards? – we need action biased against men;
• e.g. men’s lesser interest in the support of a given child? – we need action biased against men.
• there is a double standard operating t in which feminists claim both equal rights and equal outcomes, and all differences are applied against men’s interests.

Whatever happened to respecting differences, not exploiting people, nor curtailing liberties, and equal opportunity?

So until you can begin to join issue, I accuse you of evasiveness, facile dishonesty, and blatant hypocrisy.

No doubt you’ll have some amazingly clever personal sneering to rejoin with – so logical, but a minimum of honesty would be better.

Men of Australia – look what you have voted for. We are partly to blame, for the false underlying idea – that if women were hard done by under patriarchy, a fair go requires them to have all the benefits of patriarchy *and* all the benefits of feminism, while men should be liable to the detriments of both.

The single step that would do most to abolish the double standard biased toward women is to abolish compulsory child support laws: the keystone of the arch.

Jefferson, "Pelican, Cornflower, Whistler, benk, GAJ, Perkinsy"

That's an interesting list. I don't know GAJ and Perkinsky's posting history well enough to have an informed view but any list that had Pelican, Cornflower and benk on it with a charge of "sheer hypocrisy" would leave me very suspicious that the compiler of the list was missing the point.

All three seem to try very hard to be fair in their dealings, not always perfect but better than most.

R0bert

Thank you RObert - I am not perfect but do try and look outside the square even it if it is difficult to overcome one's own mindset which like all of us come from personal experiences and generational norms.

There are some posters who make quite derogatory remarks about women on OLO that go beyond criticims of feminism. That is your right on an open forum but just don't expect everyone to agree or to stand by and see their gender being denigrated.

There is a difference between highlighting the different hardships that each gender might face and denigrating a whole gender based on someone's own personal experience. It takes two to break a marriage and perhaps instead of looking for fault on the other side some people need to do some self examination.

benk
Your language could be moderated however that said, maybe you are younger than I but that mindset stud/slut was very much entrenched in my upbringing and some of it remains although admittedley I have never bought into the male stud propaganda. Basically I wouldn't want to be with someone who sleeps around or whom could not be faithful - but that is me I don't expect all people to think the same.

Some remnants of that mindset remain. Look at some of the comments made on OLO over the past year that are openly hostile to women especially those who leave a marriage who are painted as selfish. If a man leaves a marriage those same posters imply the fault is still with the woman ie. failed to satisfy her man - woman are in a no-win situation and are always written about in a negative light. I for one have had enough of the hypocrisy.

Jefferson
Some of your ideas are worthy of more thought, and much of what you suggest has already happened or opened the way for more change. The equality that came with feminism has also helped men but yes there are still areas that need some work. And just for your information women are not all money hungry and sex/love/marriage is more than about money and greed. Women can earn their own money these days just the same as a man so there is not the same economic dependence thanks to feminism.

Marriage is not compulsory. If a man or woman want to live a single life with numerous partners they can. If one wants marriage and/or family they can but with that comes commitment (unless an open marriage suits both). Many men and women want their cake and eat it too but humans are more complicated than that no matter how you want to reduce it to business partnerships. Just because you and your wife think women's sexual responses are motivated by money does not make it true. If that is the basis of some relationships then I suggest both parties probably deserve each other.

This gender debate has evolved into the usual so I will leave you to hash it out between you, I cannot offer anything more without the risk of repetition.

men = people
women = people
people = people

therefore:
men = women

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Riz
Mouse = mammal
Whale = mammal
Mammal = mammal
Therefore mouse = whale.

Tu asinus es.

And that’s pretty much the intellectual level of the entire feminist argument that we are facing here. And their ethical argument is no better – a completely self-serving hotch-potch.

And they know it. Notice how none of the feminist posts actually address the issues – at any stage in the whole thread? Just as I predicted, the most recent replies consist of nothing but personal sniveling.

So you’ve got to ask, is it that these people genuinely can’t understand the issues? Or is it that they can see perfectly well that they can’t maintain their own argument, so they deliberately obfuscate?

Either way they have completely lost the argument. This is not just a matter of opinion, because the feminists themselves cannot maintain the self-contradictory claims they are making.

There can be no more pretence that the laws they favour can be supported in principle. Obviously they can’t, or they would have done it by now. Their continued shifting and lying prove that they support a straight abuse of power, and they know it.

But if that’s not the case, then how about anyone answer the questions in issue?

It would appear that feminism might just get a C- with women from third world countries.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/feminism-curbing-third-world-women-20101029-177ju.html

<However, on occasion, this feminist discussion slips into racist rhetoric that is oppressive to these women, just like the patriarchies they flee.>

<Imperial feminism is a term used by Pratibha Parmar, a black British filmmaker, to describe the struggles of black women in Britain in the 1970s, when the wave of feminism which emerged rarely captured the experiences of those women. If it did, it was often from a racist perspective. It claims to stand in solidarity with Third World women but in fact perpetuates stereotypes of these cultures as backward through the use of marginalising language and sweeping assumptions.>

Gee whiz, sweeping assumption, and perpetuating stereotypes, what would you know, that is the same tactic used us blokes.

Wonder what is driving it? Narcissism, personality disorder? Neurosis

hi Jefferson, the reason some men have trouble with the family court is that its not in a child's interest to be placed in the custody of a male who constantly whines and whinges about women. You wouldn't seriously consider yourself for custodianship of a child if you were on the bench would you?

hi JamesH, why do you think there is men?

Jefferson, while I agree with you that he feminist position is ethically dubious and I've done plenty along the way to stir them up, I don't agree with some of your views either.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of feminist activists is that they have successfully made the bearing of children a matter of feminist doctrine, instead of a cooperative act between both genders to the benefit and cost of both.

Your own comments seem to suggest that you agree, which I find disturbing.

Cornflower, I think you've missed the point. This article is about the present time, which the Age of Feminism and is trying to say a little about how men might find a way to be accommodated within that dominant ideology. Trying to discuss the topic without mentioning feminism is like trying to discuss cold war America without talking about Communism.

In a nutshell, what most people want is to be valued as productive, useful members of society. Feminism denigrates men and undermines that sense of being a valued contributor to the common weal, while placing unreasonable expectations on women who just want the white picket fence lifestyle.

James, I saw that article - what an excellent piece. She goes straight to the heart of the dishonesty and elitism that is Fabian Feminism (or "Imperial Feminism" as she puts it).

No matter who's in charge of the trough, they still act like pigs.

Thank you Robert rather belatedly
My brush with feminism began in the early sixties.
Not at an intellectual level necessarily but at the level of developing a more just society
Beginning a teaching career where women were paid about 80% of the salary of men doing equal work
In Qld. women had to resign at the end of the year and apply for their positions at the beginning of the next next.......no holiday pay
Marrying at a time when one was expected to stay at home and eventually care for the children while the man went to work
Things needed to change and we gradually fought for a more realistic view of women in society
Later there was the fight for women priests in the Anglican church
I know little of "Fabian" feminism or other brands for that matter but I do know that we fought hard and long for very basic issues to be addressed.
Daughters in the next generation who divorced and raised children on their own with little financial or other support gave me an insight into the difficulties of family break up and consequent responsibilities towards children
Now with grandaughters whose life expectations are more equitable because things have changed I feel it was worth the fight
Perhaps each generation has to address its own needs and solve the problems of its time

whistler
more sneering and personal argument, ho hum.

GAJ
Yes interesting. When my wife joined the workforce as recently as the 1980s she applied to Forestry and was told simply "We don't employ women".

But you're still not addressing the issues I have raised. You simply talk of any advantage to women in terms of "right" and any disadvantage to women in terms of the man's "responsibility".

Antiseptic
Similarly, the idea that raising children is the responsibility of both parents is the epicentre of patriarchy. It's what made it possible. Before that, women had to freelance sexual services to obtain supplementary subsistence.

You're still not addressing the fact of the difference between the sexes, as sexes, not as genders. The effect of presuming that the responsibility should be equal is that
a) it assumes an equality in fact that does not exist
b) it imposes on men the cost of the difference
c) it override's men's "right", as the feminists would say, to their own differenct values and interests.

And no-one has yet shown why such a responsibility should exist. All anyone has done is talk about a "responsibility" as if they have already proved it. In the circumstances, this amounts to arguing "Men should pay unequally for women's differences, because men should pay unequally for women's differences." It's invalid.

The whole point of using the law is that it enables people to initiative violence that would otherwise be illegal: to send people armed with weapons, physically seize someone, and lock him up.

It is fine to assert that men's biological causation of children gives rise to a *moral* obligation. But what the feminists need to show to justify a *legal* obligation is an ethical justification of the use of aggressive violence. So far they haven't done that.

Their argument is that men biologically cause children. So? Women biologically cause sexual desire in men. Does that establish an ethical justification to use violence to obtain satisfaction of that interest? That is the ethics standard of the feminist argument.

I wonder why nobody has taken on the simple basis of Jefferson's argument. It's a simple and worthwhile thought experiment.

To attempt to summarise...

Patriarchy was a social construct whereby men earned money to support woman and children, and women looked after their man in return (sex and cooking). Not sexy but that's the cold analytical deal that is assumed. That is also the characterisation feminists have long used in their critique of patriarchy. This is important, Jefferson's representation of patriarchy concurs with feminist critique. So, pelican, if it's derogatory to women, so is feminism.

Personally I think many men were loving fathers who loved their wives and women saw their husbands as more than a meal ticket. But feminists have long argued women were chattel, and men were more often than not abusive wide-beaters, and this arrangement only suited men, and no women were happy. That's the predominant picture that is painted. It doesn't gel with my reality, but maybe my family and friends are just really nice.

Now patriarchy was broken down, and we now have women don't have to have sex with their husbands without consent. But, now we have laws where men have their money taken and given to their ex-wives without consent. So men still hold the responsibility of patriarchy, but women don't. Why is this so? Nobody has taken this on.

Well, for one, the law still applies to women, and women who earn more can pay child support. Women also aren't allowed to rape their husbands, even though I suspect most men would really love for this to happen. So, even though it isn't used much, the law is there.

But, we have laws that marry people off if they are lovers for 2 years in the same abode. This is something feminists have pushed for, in order for women to gain the patriarchal benefits of marriage. So feminists pushing for the protections of patriarchy even for women who aren't married. Who would've thought.

Men really need to fight against this modern version of men as mere chattel. Patriarchy is a job lot.

GAJ, no one has is seriously disputing that women have had it tough in the past. It is often forgotten that men have also had it tough in the past - often a great deal tougher than the women did. Not a lot of women have ever gone off to fight in the wars, for example.

I've made suggestions about how to address the issue of child support and avoid the problems associated with forcing parents into conflict over money. Do you think that may have assisted your daughters? Do you have any suggestions of your own?

I coined the term Fabian Feminism and I think I've described it reasonably well. It isn't the same as the feminism you profess due to your own experioences and observations, I suspect. It doesn't have much to do with the problems you spoke of, anyway, except as a means of establishing a political support base to enable the creation of an easier ride to the top for ambitious career-minded women.

Jefferson, the responsibility is not to the mother, but to the children. I say that the benefit to the children of having a guaranteed basic level of support if they need it is sufficient reason to call its provision a responsibility. It then becomes a discussion about who should bear that responsibility and in what proportions

GAJ,

'Marrying at a time when one was expected to stay at home and eventually care for the children while the man went to work
Things needed to change and we gradually fought for a more realistic view of women in society'

This really bugs me. The constant message from feminist women is that it was 'unfair' for the women to get paid less than a man. Never is it mentioned it was 'unfair' that men were expected to pay for drinks, dinners, flowers, jewellery, cars, houses, groceries and the expenses of children.

This was the 'realistic' view of society, and men and women both supported and participated in this model in free will. If it was 'unfair' or 'unrealistic' it was both to women AND MEN.

So, some middle to upper class women wanted more out of life, and they were prevented from expanding their gender roles. They fought for change and good for them. But why do we need to have the demonisation of men as 'chattel' owners and abusers and somehow dominating the organisation of society in 'favour' of men.

I wonder if before some women became bored with their gender role, per chance some men decided to fight to be stay at home carer, we'd now have the demonising of women for ordering society for their own benefit, 'unfairly' keeping men as financial slaves and preventing them from participating in the home.

I'm sure if at that time a lot of men decided they were going to refuse to work but rather bring up the kids, burn their briefcases and suits, and rely on their wives to earn the money there would have been very solid resistance from many women.

Even now, if men decided they should have some affirmative action policies for men to be allowed equal representation in child rearing at home, regardless of the wishes of women, I'm sure there would be a lot of resistance.

Imagine legislating that if any man wanted to stay home, his wife should be forced to support him in an effort to create equality in the homeplace!

Anti and Hollie have both mentioned that old conventions about marriage were unfair on both genders. I would like to add that I do-not accept that women were ever as powerless as some people claim. ISTM that there is too much emphasis on the formal power that men generally have more of and not enough emphasis on the less formal power that goes along way to equalising things. Previous generations of women may have been denied alot of rights, but anyone who knows older women will tell you that they were no pushovers.

[Deleted for abuse.]

I wondered where you had got on this debate Houlley. My position is simply we should all be absolutely equal under the law in all spheres including child custody/support etc and take equal responsibility.

My beef is with men who want their cake and eat it too (Jefferson's transfer of responsibility to women in all things sex and children) and women who want all the perks of equality and none of the responsibility.

It really comes down to couples working out what works for them. What suits one of us won't suit all, humans are many and varied and the legislature and social norms should reflect that to make a number of work/life/family choices available instead of being a slave some economic or social engineering agenda. Adults are still responsible for children regardless of how 'equal' we become and children have a right to be raised without conflict and with some measure of security.

I can't disagree that men still have the biggest burden and responsibility for providing for their family especially where the wife stays at home to care for children. But that is usually a mutual decision and caring of children is still an important role despite being demeaned to some extent in the pursuit of wealth and 'equality'.

Much of what men and women want in terms of equality has been achieved. Don't marry someone that wants a career if you prefer she stay at home for a time, or don't marry someone who just loves being a mum and housewife if you want her to contribute financially all the time. It is about finding the right partner that meets your needs and hers where there is some sharing of values and goals.

whistler

If I was a judge and saw your nutty ravings, I would take your kids off you too.

'But that is usually a mutual decision '

Hahaha. I wonder why all the feminists of the world don't agree also then that women who haven't entered the workforce and aren't CEO's have done so by 'mutual decision' with their partners.

My point is pelican, that feminists paint this picture of an 'unfair' 'inequitable' arrangement that men 'imposed' on women re patriarchy. Never is it ever entertained that women made 'mutual decisions' with their partners on who would earn the money and who would raise the children.

Come on pelican, you're a massive fan of the 'chattel' diaries.

'caring of children is still an important role despite being demeaned to some extent in the pursuit of wealth and 'equality'.'

I think it was demeaned by those first feminists, the language they used and the projected image they put on women who were happy with the status quo. See those early feminists thinking housework and raising children were 'beneath them', thus painting men as the oppressors taking the spoils of the 'rewarding' wage slave gear. It's all about marketing. Setting up the 'glamorous' hard cash earning occupations against the 'drudgery' of house wifery.

Preaching the message that 'if you don't feel oppressed, you are being duped. You just don't understand that you're being conned' to any women who liked her nurturer role. See, what they could and should have done was raise the status of the job that 80-90% of women love to do, and campaign for financial independence while doing that job.

But, it was a campaign designed and motivated by doctors wives and university students who hadn't experienced motherhood. Silly really, they needed better advice and input from 'real women';-)

I'm just so against this black armband view of history for the suburban housewife in domestic bliss. I'm sure being a home maker was about as attractive to a 20yo university intellectual as working 2 jobs with kids in childcare all week is to most women now.

'Don't marry someone that wants a career if you prefer she stay at home for a time, or don't marry someone who just loves being a mum and housewife if you want her to contribute financially all the time.'

That my friend pelican is my standard reply to the gender pay gap.

Women marry up, even in this day and age. But then feminists complain women end up sacrificing their careers. Go figure, the person who ears more will more likely end up going to work full time. It makes financial sense.

Women's choice of partner is the main driver of the gender pay gap. If women wanted to have high flying careers, they would be looking en mass for men who didn't earn very much and those men would be the alpha males. Rooty Hill RSL would be more popular than The Establishment.

But once a baby arrives, I have more often seen women feeling duped that they earn more than their partner than the other way around. In my experience the guy is more open to a reversing of gender roles than the girl when faced with the harsh economic reality of the primary income being the womans.

Anyway, the feminists want women as CEOs who work 9-3 with time off for school holidays, and an equal representation of men and women in boardrooms even if say, as is likely, only 15% of the female population wants to do the job, and 30% of the male population wants to. And while ever that is feminist doctrine I will laugh my ass off at feminism.

As I will continue to relate the love filled marriages of my grand parents where grandma wore the pants, and the many families growing up where mother dealt out the fathers pocket money out of his pay, and gave him a list of outdoors jobs to do on the weekend every time a feminist paints their domineering patriarchal oppressor model of marriage pre-feminism.

Pelican
Without explaining what justifies equal right in respect of unequal facts you’re still using a double standard, conjuring “responsibilities” when it comes to men’s different interests, and “rights’ when it comes to women’s.

Antiseptic
“the responsibility is not to the mother, but to the children”

This of course is what women have been saying since physical paternity was first discovered.

Notice that it assumes that the interest of the sexes in a given child is equal, which is
a) factually false, and
b) precisely what is in issue.

It is indeed likely that women themselves initiated the reproductive pattern of patriarchy, to escape their pre-patriarchal problem of needing to freelance sexual services to *multiple* men with *no* guarantee of security, in order to get supplementary income for child support.

Once physical paternity was discovered, it enabled a woman to offer to provide sexual and domestic services for good to *one* man on demand, in return for his commitment to provide her with a joint share in his income and equity for life.

Feminism argues that half of this arrangement is a dreadful exploitation, that the man’s contribution is self-evidently valuable, but assumes it must go unquestioned and unchanged.

It is premature to appeal to a supposed male responsibility, because no-one has yet arrived at the stage of establishing that such a responsibility exists – that’s what’s in issue.

The argument of equal responsibility is this: “because biological causation, therefore justification of aggressive violence”. It’s a complete non sequitur. It’s moral nonsense.

Besides, only the man’s contribution of genetic code information is equal. His biomass contribution is one-trillionth of the woman’s. Therefore it’s reasonable his responsibility should be one-trillionth at birth, and declining thereafter, right? What happened to Pelican’s sexual equality “in all spheres” based on respecting differences and fairness and not being violent?

The assumption that the sexes have an equal obligation in respect of their unequal interests in a given child is biased in favour of women from the start.

“ the benefit to the children of having a guaranteed basic level of support”

Since the level of support varies with the man’s income, and since the mother can spend the money on whatever she wants, therefore it’s not about a basic level of support for the child, it’s about the woman getting a certain proportion of the man’s income.

In any event, the issue is not a certain level of support per se. It is why it should not be provided *by consent*. (No-one has even begun or tried to answer this central issue yet.)

Therefore the purpose of the payment is *not* child support, it’s to protect the mother from the pre-patriarchal need to use her vagina to get supplementary subsistence. These laws aren’t for child protection, they’re for vagina protection.

It’s nothing to do with child support, and everything to do with protecting women from doing work they *don’t want to do*.

Well guess what? Men don’t want to do work either! Whatever happened to equal rights?

Also a woman claiming child support is not required to prove that the man named is the father. Her mere allegation is enough. He must disprove it at his own expense. At least under patriarchy a man was only obliged for children that weren’t his, in a marriage he voluntarily undertook!

It’s not even a double standard, it’s a doubly double standard!

I have shown that compulsory child support is unfair, exploitative, unequal and cannot be justified according to either the biased feminist standard, or one that equally respects sexual differences.

My opponents have not even got to square one in fairly representing the issues, let alone in proving what they assert: - that only women, but not men, should be released from the obligations of patriarchy.

hi Jefferson, are you comfortable men control Australia through fifteen federal and state legislatures, a jurisdiction in the courts and a proliferation of local councils and corporate committees, all of which admit women under male supervision inclusive of leadership?

hi Houellebecq, patriarchy has broken down? That's not the case with the parliament, the law and the management of the economy. What is broken down?

hi Benk, if there's too much emphasis on the formal power men generally have more of why not resolve the issue with have a referendum on a women's legislature. Avoidance is the gateway to illusion.

"re you comfortable men control Australia through fifteen federal and state legislatures, a jurisdiction in the courts and a proliferation of local councils and corporate committees, all of which admit women under male supervision inclusive of leadership? "

whistler I know I'm probably just wasting a post but you have not managed to convince me and I suspect a lot of others that the idea of women admitted only under male supervision is a practical reality (any more than men are supervised by others).

Perhaps a wording that needs to be tidied up somewhere but in practical terms it seems to be a nonsense that you are obsessed with.

Who are the men who supervise the PM and are their practical powers and supervision any different to that applied to the previous PM?

R0bert

hi R0bert, at risk of repeating myself, with complementary state legislation a majority of Australia's parliament can rescind the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 with the effect of removing all women members, including a woman Prime Minister, and prohibiting all women the vote. The same cannot be said for men. Men rule Australia, that's the law, it's as simple as that. It beggars belief there are men in Australia who genuinely consider women disadvantage men.

whistler if true that's something that should be tidied up. At the same time I can't picture any situation where that power would be used. Eg if it's as you say it's a relic that should be gone from our laws but unlikely to have a direct impact on anybodies life unlike the kind of issues being discussed here.

Your obsession with that one point and your advocacy for idea of separate legislatures seem's to make you oblivious to a lot of other issues with very real impacts.

It beggars belief that their are people in Australia unable to recognise that both genders are at times disadvantaged.

I don't much buy into the idea that either gender is disadvantaged specifically by the other gender, rather by societal attitudes (and the laws derived from those attitudes). Men and women have shared in advantage and disadvantage, both have at times worked to support and reinforce those societal attitudes and norms even when others of their own gender might consider the doing so oppressive and restrictive to their gender.

R0bert

Jefferson
Women are also obligated to pay child custody if they are not the primary carer. It is rarer granted but the law still applies. Women who have primary care also pay, as it would be impossible to live only on what the non-custoidal parent pays. It is not a bonus but an assistance in providing a secure home for children. In real life nothing is ever absolutely perfect and there could probably be some review of how child custody is worked out that does not force hardship and disadvantage for men, particularly on lower incomes. Some sort of taxation benefit could apply.

I tend to agree with RObert that we are all only as disadvantaged and as advantaged as we choose to be given there are areas we could find disdvantage for either gender if we go and seek it but given the options available to all of us - it is really up to us. In RL you take the good with the bad.

Houlley
You assume feminism is about forcing women to be CEOs against their will and that feminism means giving up any sort of home based role. It does not to most women regardless of what a small minority of militant feminists might argue (I suspect few and far between).

Some feminists might think women are letting the sisterhood down by choosing to be SAHMs but who gives a toss - most ordinary people, feminist or otherwise, still believe it to be an individual choice.

Cont/....

When I went to playgroup there were more men after my 2nd child than with my first, especially where their wives earned more. My children and their friends talk about sharing the transitions between work and childcare between the two over the course of a lifetime. People's mindsets are changing and this gives men more opportunities to work part-time and share in the care of the kids if that suits.

Whenever someone asks me if I am a feminist the best response is always to ask the questioner how they define 'feminist'. If the answer is female domination of the species I answer No. If the answer is equal rights (as much as they can be) for men and women then I answer yes.

Jefferson talks about casual sex as though this is the litmus test for equality. He assumes on behalf of other men that what he wants is what all men want. Do men really want a world where both men and women, single or married, can wander about having sex freely with anyone at anytime without any ill-effects. Personally I don't think men and women can cope with this and fidelity is still valued. Maybe that is conditioning but we are not the only species that (attempts) to mate for life and sexually transmitted disease suggests that it is not something we should aspire to as a general rule.

OMG I get a bit lost in the arguments
I laughed out loud when it was suggeted the men/a man provided me with jewelry and other stereotypical stuff as an adjunct to my remaining at home.........so far from the truth I just about pissed myself
We were "poor" and both brought to the union equal amounts of money
............we worked together to achieve financial security.......doing what was best at the time for our mutual benefit
Over time we adjusted our input and by mutual agreement did what was in our best interest to achieve our aims
My husband was able to find a position which he enjoyed because we werent caught in role playing...we managed together to earn enough to support ourselves.
I find it difficult to remember the posts and reply succinctly to each issue
Re my duaghters ....they were good money earners and the legal system assisted their spouses in avoiding some sort of equity in financing their progeny
Because the women were good money earners they received minimal support and as soon as the children reached a certain age the support ended.....no effort to assist in education these children through university or high school
In the end we as a family pulled together and accoomodated the financial and emotional needs of these children.....it was a pleasure for each of us and we now reap the benefit of our love.
Mean-spiritedness has its rewards and these are obvious when a parent is unable to contribute love and support for children
What a magnificent set of posts on this issue and I am enjoying a red while I read and read

GAJ, it can be very entertaining at times.

Child support is an extremely contentious issue, where nobody really wins except for the government.

It is in the Governments best interest, ask your self why does the family tax benefit reduce by 50cents for every dollar paid in child support.

Why if child support is so important, why is it not a tax deduction?

One only need to look at how much our ex Prime Ministers and Governer Generals are costing, to see why the government is so interesting in shaving as much money off of the taxpayer.

I think the tax free politican pension is exempt from being included in the income deemed to be included in the child support calculation.

If an intact family has an income of roughly $50-60k and have children they are eligible for the maximum amount of the family tax benefit, but the minute they separate, the income earner becomes liable and as a result the amount of family tax benefit paid decreases.

So the payer ends up paying twice.

pelican,

'Do men really want a world...'

No. Well, not me. But Jefferson's argument is based on the occurences when men and women no longer want to remain in a relationship. He doesn't comment on consenting relationships, except that the governmnet shouldn't enforce a commitment via De-facto which I agree with. I don't think he likes kids much, or sees them as the property of the woman since she gives birth to them.

'You assume feminism is about forcing women to be CEOs against their will and that feminism means giving up any sort of home based role.

... few and far between.'

Come off it pelican, ask any feminist whether women should be equally represented in the boardroom. It's on the list of standard feminist grievences and always gets a run in the explination of why women are universally disadvantaged. If you don't believe in this you're not a feminist.

Of course ask them about choice and they'll pay lip service to that too. Actualy choice in feminst terms is having your cake and eating it too. Mutually exclusive demands you would think, but basically from what I can gather they believe women should be 'encouraged' to enter the boardroom by having a 'flexible' workplace. They believe if they just create the perfect conditions women would want to, and believe unless the perfect conditions are created it's discrimination.

In other words, if there aren't enough women CEOs we must change the work environment to a state where women can bring up 3 kids under 5 and hold down the most powerful positions in industry. They're also all for universal free childcare. It's a human rights issue! But make no mistake, even with all these conditions met, if women still chose their kids over being a wage slave, it'd still be on the list of grievences.

GAJ,

Do you have an engagement ring? What did you buy your husband for your engagement?

'we worked together to achieve financial security.......doing what was best at the time for our mutual benefit'

So women weren't 'chattel'? That's what I'd always suspected! Lying feminists!

hi R0bert, if you think the provision of a women's legislature to tidy up a relic which should be gone from our laws then who am i to disagree. Bring on the referendum, next Saturday would do just fine. The men who established Australia's legislatures never intended they would be anything other than men's legislatures to which women are admitted under supervision, inclusive of leadership. Women would have to wait until they gained sufficient experience before they could have legislatures of their own. Sufficient is the present, the tipping point has been reached, the roles Governor-General, Judge of the High Court and Prime Minister achieved. Equal rights governance should be packaged with a republic to save a further trip to the ballot box, what d'ya reckon?

Three decades after sex discrimination laws were enacted the level of sexual violence against women has remained exactly the same, corresponding with the level of sexual violence men experience in prison. Why, because Australia's principal instrument of governance confers male privilege which when abused can't be overcome by legislation enacted under its authority. Women have graduated from universities and developed management skills equivalent to those of males in greater numbers than men over a range of disciplines for three decades yet are still denied equivalence in senior management precisely because men control who becomes an executive. Ensconced on boards of directors, men are unfamiliar with, have little experience of and thus little confidence in women with power. That's why the Australian Stock Exchange has put corporations under its governance on notice quotas will be introduced if inequity is not remedied in the immediate future and why the USA has legislated the fair inclusion of women in the finance industry in response to the global financial collapse. Women earn less pay because men control the value of work and as mum's require an industry of child support workers and agencies to protect them from men who fear and loath women, so there's a substantial impact equal rights governance would have on anybody's life exactly like the kind of issues being discussed here.

Whistler, working yourself up into a bit a lather.

<Three decades after sex discrimination laws were enacted the level of sexual violence against women has remained>

Sexual discrimination and sexual violence are not the same thing.


<Women earn less pay because men control the value of work and as mum's require an industry of child support workers and agencies to protect them from men who fear and loath women, so there's a substantial impact equal rights governance would have on anybody's life exactly like the kind of issues being discussed here.>

Where have you been? The above is not true, but then then tying pay and protection and fear and loathing of women together is totally inflammatory and beyond being rational.

The main aim of such arguement is to flame.

R0bert:"Men and women have shared in advantage and disadvantage, both have at times worked to support and reinforce those societal attitudes and norms even when others of their own gender might consider the doing so oppressive and restrictive to their gender.

I agree with this. It is clear that some men here are offended by any discussion about the failings of feminism, either because they subscribe to the "woman as object of veneration" meme or for some other reason, such as perceived self-interest or a misguided sense of fair play. Some of the most vituperative nastiness about men has been published by such male authors as Michael Flood, who has done OK out of riding that gravy train. I suspect if he was female though, he'd already have a nice comfortable tenured chair somewhere.

Pelican:"ou assume feminism is about forcing women to be CEOs against their will"

Seriously? You really think that's what Houellebecq was suggesting? Dear me.

Fabian feminism is about forcing our institutions to give the women who choose to take advantage of it a free ride to the top. The women who choose not to participate in that are paid off for their support with handouts. As the article I linked to earlier pointed out, many of those young women will decide in their thirties that what they really want after all is kids...

GAJ, if your daughters were high-income earners they probably didn't need much help to support their children. Were the fathers also high-income earners? If so, then there should not have been a problem. If they weren't or they simply weren't prepared to put their hands in their pockets, then my proposal would have provided some support to the kids regardless. don't you think that's a better outcome than the one that you describe?

Whistler, going by your previous post, if you are a feminist, then you have just given a classic example as to why I do not like feminism.

Everything you wrote is negative about men, you tied sexual discrimination with sexual violence, when the two are totally separate issues.

<Women have graduated from universities and developed management skills equivalent to those of males in greater numbers than men over a range of disciplines for three decades yet are still denied equivalence in senior management precisely because men control who becomes an executive>

It will eventually happen that more women will if they decide to be on boards and CEO's, this takes time.

Secondly the men in executive positions, tend to hire clones. That is they will not hire men who are different to themselves.

This rectoric about men who loath and fear women is a getting a bit tiresome, but then I suppose when women do not get their own way, that must be the reason.

Feminism does concentrate on all the negative and bad things that men do to women. Often it is a negative perspective and interpreted in the negative. It also exaggerates those negatives.

One important point on the socalled glass ceiling is that, how many times has a woman made a choice not to go further up the corporate ladder, because to do so would mean having to make a choice about the work life balance.

One ex-excutive I know told me he did not like the person he was becoming and made a carreer change into one of the socalled caring feilds of employment.

hi benk, as i indicated in my post which was removed to which you replied with the view that if you were a judge you would "take [my] kids off [me]", about which it is only fair i'm permitted to respond since your post has remained, men have laws to protect children from males who express fear and loathing of women, expression not dissimilar to some of the more extreme comments posted on this thread. Child protection officers cop threats from men who deprecate women all the time, it's part of the job, same with police, child support agency workers and judicial officers, water off a duck's back really, quack! It's not always easy enforcing laws enacted by men's legislatures which protect children but there are rewards. I've seen many children placed under protective orders because of men who disparage women, who have thrived as adults.

Houlley and Anti
Feminists are not arguing that CEOs work 9-3 to fit in with school hours. This is ludicrous. Most rational thinking people (yes women are rational too) understand some jobs cannot support flexible working arrangements, or at least most of the time.

I hate to break it to you but for men and women to have more choices in regard to work/life/family balance there has to be a different culture in regard to workplace flexibility that match the needs of business. Otherwise it won't work for either gender.

There are many jobs that could be job shared, done part time, done out of normal working hours, done partly at home. There may not be a one-style fit all approach but many and varied style approaches.

I once had an arrangement with one employer to work Saturday on occasion to replace one of my weekdays to fit in with family needs. No problem and I did not ask nor expect penalty rates as it was instigated by me. In fact I got a lot more done because there were no constant phone interruptions.

You talk about a gravy train as though men have never benefitted or been advantaged by the boys club gravy train, and in some industries still are. If you cannot see that then you are only seeing what you wish to see.

We don't need positive discrimination for CEOs or boards, women can get there on their own merits but that was not always the case. Sometimes positive discrimination is necessary for a time to encourage employers to break free from the cultural mindset and take a 'chance' whether it be hiring a disabled person, a woman or any other disadvantaged group that lives under a generalised stigma. For women this is no longer the case - on that we are agreed. I cannot see the point in women arguing for more CEOs when there are less men able to stay at home with their kids for the same reasons.

Whistler

If every recently divorced person who had a negative view of the other gender lost custody, these kids would all be in foster care.

Most of the rest of us are trying to have a mature discussion about society. It is the sort of discussion that we rarely enjoy in the real world. If you want to allege that people are being sexist, quote them and explain why their comments are unfair. Vague unsubstantiated allegations against un-named people achieve nothing.

pelican,

'Feminists are not arguing that CEOs work 9-3 to fit in with school hours. This is ludicrous. Most rational thinking people (yes women are rational too) understand some jobs cannot support flexible working arrangements, or at least most of the time.'

So by that rationale, since women are more often the primary carer, we will never have equal numbers of women in the top jobs. I challenge you to find a prominent feminist that finds this acceptable.

We're a hell of a long way from men and women sharing the primary carer role equally, so until that time we have to put up with the bleating of feminists about statistics about CEOs and the gender wage gap? That's a long time, I don't think I can handle it. There should be some government department where I can arrange to take out my frustration on a feminist. Are we to endure another generation of women being taught they are oppressed even if their life long dream is a white picket fence and 3 kids running round the kitchen?

Can you really imagine a feminist saying, 'oh well, more women are interested in the primary carer role than men, so we have to just accept that more men will be CEOs' ?

Talk to any feminist and they will blindly state that 'societal expectations' 'burden' women with the responsibility of the primary carer role (Of course men aren't 'burdened' with the primary earner role the lucky things), which implies women's choices aren't real choices. Mens choices are real of course. In fact, I've never heard of a feminist even accept a lot of women just don't want to do paid work at all if their husband earned more, and would rather the traditional gender roles.

BTW: Never would have picked you as a fan of work choices. The unions would piss all over your arrangements.

'I cannot see the point in women arguing for more CEOs'

Thank god for that. This is my point. Try telling that to Elizabeth Broderick. Are you sure you're really a feminist. Cue broad church.

houellebecq,
Is it necessary to be so brittle when we are discussing our various perspectives in these posts
Lying isnt a something I usually do and I expressed a view which was mine and mine only..no attempt to deceive
Yes I do have very simple engagement ring and I paid for a beautiful bedroom suite for us...........my gift
I also have a wedding ring and he received the most magnificent fishing rod for our honeymoon......his choice of gift
My personal journey was not one of being chattel but I have and had witnessed other womens journeys which were not as easy as my own
I had to fight many conventions which were rampant in society at the time, in the church and in our parents generation about women's place in the scheme of things.

Antiseptic
The saddest part from the childrens point of view was their fathers attitudes about supporting them
The fathers lost their respect
As they grew older they became very aware of what was happening financially and understood the inequity and meanness
Perhpas your idea would be good but children become very aware very quickly of the lack of support from their fathers.

hi JamesH, i'm not flaming, i'm merely pointing out to an audience of damaged men who know me well the notion feminism has gone too far is a furphy, that, to quote from Dr West's thoroughly unconvincing article ("a wholesale gender war" indeed and i'm accused of flaming), "[o]ne unfortunate by-product of feminism has been the proliferation of negative attitudes towards men" is just plain preposterous. In the first place feminism is women's business, that's a no brainer, nothing at all to do with men and there are psychiatric wards full of men who tried to make it their business. Men support the empowerment of women because an imbalance of male power has brought life on Earth as we know it to the brink of extinction and it's perfectly obvious to anyone who can rub two sticks together the imbalance is self-correcting. Second up, men are responsible for attitudes women hold about men, has anyone here heard of personal responsibility? Attitudes towards men are not a by product of women's business. If some men need to be constantly reminded all men collectively brought the world to the brink of extinction with such obvious stuff as that anti-discrimination laws have completely failed to impact the power and control which drives sexual assault, along with the pearlers, irreparable harm to the environment, roller coaster economics and incessant warfare, then they should get off their backsides and do something about it, the re-balance that is. I've already explained on this thread how power is derived in Australia and how a referendum next Saturday can re-balance governance so none of you men who read this will ever again have an excuse to denigrate women. I could go on but sometimes i even bore myself.

GAJ, you haven't said why their fathers didn't pay.

The whole point of my suggeston is that CS very often creates major financial difficulties for men with low incomes. It can be so crippling, especially if they get behind, that men take their own lives because the CSA has taken all the money they have from their bank on a friday afternoon. How do you reckon that might feel, to have worked all week, go to the supermarket and be told "sorry, this account seems to be closed"?

Child support was intended as a means of "clawing back" the cost of state support of single mothers. I share care with my ex and I know that my kids, in their early teens, cost about $100 a week each in direct costs as a maximum. Most weeks I would not spend that much, but of course, some weeks it's much more. I don't include in that figure the cost of transport from school, since I pick them up each day and they could easily catch the bus. I just do it that way because I like to: it's a personal choice and therefore my problem. I suspect that many of the costs that people claim as essential fall into that category of personal choices. I've never claimed Family Tax Benefit, leaving that for my ex to claim. I've never claimed any kind of public support at all, in fact, not even a medicare rebate over the past 7 years. I'm not a high income earner, I have a business that I have created from scratch and in all probability I'd be financially better off if I was employed for wages, but it's another of those personal choices.

[cont]

Yet the CSA has chased and chased me to pay my ex-wife, to whom I have a "debt" because she chose not to work for 6 years whilst she went back to uni for her 3rd undergrad degree (in social work). She lives in housing commission accommodation, received every possible benefit payment, did cash work and as much p/t work as she could without affecting her handouts, took me to court on several occasions to try to get increased custody and hence more child support from me (all funded by legal aid). In her best year she had a taxable income of just $14,000 (mostly Newstart allowance) and a gross income of over $31,000, plus the cheap rent.

At present, her income is nearly $80,000, but she still lives in that Housing Commission house, rent capped at $250 a week, nice new security screens paid for by the taxpayer, a new bathroom ditto and I understand she's just successfully applied to have a new high fence put up because she's worried about the chooks getting attacked (and the people next door got one, so she feels entitled).

I reckon that she's received at least $250,000 in government benefits and handouts while my kids have been growing up. That's the real reason for child support.

Through all of this, my children have never missed out on a thing, except for the joy of being able to live in an intact family, which both of them have missed very much. The constant conflict hasn't helped.

I'm very sorry that your grandkids weren't as lucky. Perhaps if their parents had not had to fight over money the situation would have been better for all?

Pelican:"You talk about a gravy train as though men have never benefitted or been advantaged by the boys club gravy train, "

Of course they did. I went to a top private school because my parents were hopeful that I'd benefit from the networking opportunities that were presented.

If that was wrong, which I'm not entirely sure it is, being a matter of private choices, why is the OSW's massive fundimng of women's groups to promote networking not also wrong? The answer of course, is that it IS wrong. It is not the State's role in a democracy to promote the creation of elites or to pay for their self-promotion. It can't be justified on any ethical grounds that I can think of - anyone else care to have a go?

I'm very glad to see you've come around to the view that such Fabian Feminist policies are not justified. I wondered how long you could continue to ignore the blindingly obvious.

It's interesting that even a fair-minded person such as yourself ahs a great deal of difficulty breaking the sororal solidarity that has become such a feature of gender discourse. I'm not denigrating you when I say the conditioning has been tremendously effective.

I've said before that before my marriage broke down, I'd have said I support feminist principles. I'd have said that as an egalitarian I was all for it. having been brought up against the hard edge of the feminist bandwagon, I'm now far less accommodating. Even so, it took at least 5 years before I was prepared to say "something's rotten". The conditioning is very strong.

antiseptic,
Sorry I couldnt have expressed myself well
The dads did pay..one about $25 a week and the other organised a trust through the family business so that he paid the minimum possible
There was never any argument about paying only a resentment by the children of their fathers lack of support and lack of participation in their lives.....and they were very cognisant of the fact that at 16 the money stopped
You seeem to have managed a nice balance and attended to your kids needs............ you reap rewards from those actions.
As grandparent we reaped the rewards because we did the things that met the kids needs physically, emotionally and financially

whistler
Enjoyed your piece....expressed eloquently and certainly not boring
Added some realism to the blog..needs to be said ad nausem

'men are responsible for attitudes women hold about men'

Really? So women are responsible for attitudes men hold towards women. Interesting. Where is MTR!

GAJ,

I think you misread me I didn't accuse you of lying. I think you're taking me too seriously regardless. I always here this 'women's place' and women being put 'in their place', but men were just as much constricted to a place.

Why do women have this defensive reflex as if gender roles were derogatory to women. Men were put 'in their place' at the birth of their own children, and it continued from that point on. Why this over emotive sob story about restrictions for women into men's 'place' when men had similar restrictions into women's 'place'. The grass is just always greener isn't it. You women act as if mens traditional place was a lush green 100 hectare paddock and womens was a 3 x 3 metre mud pit.

Thank god women are in the workforce now and are getting a taste of how wonderful liberating the stress of providing for a family and having no autonomy and being nice to people you hate and missing out on time with their kids all day is.

The gender roles pre feminism are always put up as this terrible deal where women got shafted and men had secret meetings and designed the organisation of society to suit themselves, selfishly taking all the fun jobs and spending the spoils on themselves. Its just such a one-sided view of history. It denies women had any input and hence responsibility for shaping the 'societal expectations', and conflates the privileged position of a few powerful men with the rest of the men in society.

It's even got to the point that not only do men in the time of patriarchy have to apologise for their gender and conforming to the social order of the time, men brought up in a totally different world constantly get an ear bashing about 'not so long ago' as if they had something to do with a culture that is totally foreign to them.

Holly "Really? So women are responsible for attitudes men hold towards women. Interesting. Where is MTR!"

You just don't get it. Women are week and feeble, unable to hold any real role in life without special support and certainly not responsible for anything. If they had no impact on societal values despite the clear role they had in raising children then clearly they can't be held responsible for anything else. Men and men alone have shaped society and bear responsibility for everything bad.

On the other hand those who actually think well of women might have some trouble with some of that thinking if they stop and consider the implications of it. It's far more paternalistic and denigrating of women than than what most of the anti-feminists can muster.

R0bert

Thanks GAJ, ad nauseam is my specialty.

Houlley
I am not speaking for or on behalf of prominent feminists. Who gives themselves these self appointed labels anyway. I only speak for me on an opinion site, I don't claim to speak for others. Yes there are some bleatings out there about women CEOs but don't get disillusioned by the comments of the few to taint your view of women or feminism.

A movement is only as good or as bad as those who make up that movement, and one or two radical feminists don't speak for me or for many other women. I have yet to see the OSW do anything to improve the status of women who choose to stay at home for a time to raise their children. Not that I expect this role should be a function of government - but only to point out the contrast.

(PS: I am not a fan of WorkChoices and the arrangement was a secret one between the two of us...shhhhh. The weekday was marked on my timesheet instead of the Saturday. I can see how such a situation might set a bad precedent for some employers as opportunity to pay less for weekend work)

Anti
We are all outcomes of our conditioning. It is only experience that makes us question some of those foundations. In my case it was the opposite of what you assume - the man being very much the head of the household in our family but my mother having far more influence due to a loving and respectful relationship. We are also sexist sometimes even towards our own gender. I still shudder when I hear a group of young girls swearing like troopers but less so when it is men. Not fair but that is how it is. Women in some ways have adopted the worst of male behaviour in the feminist cause, and we don't have to become men to realise a more egalitarian society.

200

Pelican:"In my case it was the opposite of what you assume - the man being very much the head of the household in our family but my mother having far more influence due to a loving and respectful relationship."

That's just what my own upbringing was like, so I'm not aure what you mean by "opposite of what you assume".

What it IS the opposite of is the feminist historical revisionism that we're sold as being the story of that time.

It was thanks to that upbringimg that I would have said "I support feminism". It was thanks to feminism that I said "this stinks".

Which of the two situations is more conducive to achieving an egalitarian outcome that suits evryone OK, even if it doesn't suit career feminists perfectly?

been thinking of Whistlers, comments, it was not that long ago when feminists claimed that marriage was a patriarchial construct,designed to keep women oppressed.

As such Whistlers comments follow the same typical script.

Now society that is ordinary people will change when they want too, not when socalled leaders, academics or experts, decide they must change.

If we harp back to a bygone era, when women were viewed a to bein weaker than men, many of the laws written and unwritten were designed to provide protection for the weaker sex, and for many women, that worked in their favour.

To take a small section of society and then use that section to exptrapolate to the rest of society juust leads to a distorted view of how society really functions.

I wish I could find a story it is called Tom's Story about how a bloke gets destroyed, he basically gets set up and because he reacts, he subsquently looses any chance of having contact with his children.

Society changed half a century ago JamesH, although apparently unnoticed by men still revelling in the benevolence of their predecessors in England in the 1880s who enacted laws to make it an offence for men to bash their wives and children after 10.00pm so their peers could get a good night's sleep and save their strength for the morning. Men are entirely victims of themselves, not women. All that's required now is to update antiquated instruments of governance like the Constitution of Australia to reflect what's been going on in the real world for some time now and that's something the retrogrades have absolutely no prospect of influencing beyond what will be a minuscule and most curious negative vote.

As always, whistler is unable to do anything but express his hatred for his own gender. I'm thinking the gender reassignment surgery is way overdue...

Whistler, in the past husbands could have and have been gaoled for debts incurred by their wives. Where is the patriachial power and privilege in this.

If I recall correctly the life insurance business was created by some baptist ministers, as a way and means to provide financial support for the widows and children of ministers who passed away.

Making slanderous accusations.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion-old/time-for-the-age-to-apologise/story-e6frfifx-1225948011596

Erin Pizzey wrote that 60 out of the first hundred women who came to her shelter, that these women were as violent, if not more violent than the husbands that they had left.

Whistler has merely gone from bitter prejudiced personal argument to bitter prejudiced general argument. Her argument is essentially that no man may presume to question her authority, and that any man who does is mentally ill.

The ludicrous idea that women are a subject political class under the ‘supervision’ of men, on the ground that men form the majority of politicians, would apply to any minority. Presumably we should have a separate legislature for Somalis, Sufis, and short people with red hair?

Furthermore according to that dopey theory, since male suffrage was itself the outcome of the reform acts of the nineteenth century, the minority of men who satisfy the criteria for voting before the reform acts, (adjusted for inflation, naturally) have the political “supervision” of the rest of the men who are mere disadvantaged dependents. And since that minority derived their advantage from Parliament, and Parliament in turn derived its authority from the curia regis, the King’s council, and it in turn from the King, therefore all men in Australia are dependent on the “supervision” of the current sovereign – who, in case you haven’t noticed, is a woman.

Underneath the constant stream of insult and abuse that comprises the substance of whistler’s argument, is the same old double standard: women should have equal rights *and* equal outcomes. But when we try to find out the reason that would justify this, we find only the same hypocrisy and double standards I have pointed out.

None of the feminists in this thread have been able to refute that:
1. equality of the sexes is literally meaningless except in a given abstract purely formal sense
2. there is no way they could ever be made equal
3. even if there was, there is no reason why equality, rather than individual liberation, should be the criterion of policy
4. any attempt to make the sexes equal must be a mere cipher for a particular arbitrary exercise of power biased in favour of the particular interests of one sex – there is no possible alternative
5. therefore feminist policy is self-contradictory and hypocritical.

It is also blatant dishonesty to keep attempting to run all issues into gender, the assumption being that the differences between the sexes are mere “gender roles”, which can be changed at will. We haven’t begun to enter onto gender issues yet, because the feminists have been unable to show that policy could ever deal with the *sexual* differences on terms of equality.

The feminists have failed to address themselves to the central issue. If all relations between the sexes were required to be consensual (they are opposed to it), and if the only laws permitted were those which applied equally to both (they are opposed to it), then given the natural differences between the sexes, the outcomes would not be equal. Why not? Because the sexes aren’t equal in the first place and no-one can prove that they are.

(Grim’s attempt to prove that they are equal was instead to assert that they should be equal, but a) that is to admit that they aren’t, and b) it still shows no reason why they should be.)

That is why the only response of whistler and pelican are various species of personal argument – because they are utterly unable to hold up their own end of the argument or refute mine.

Jefferson
What arguments? You haven't given any for instances or examples and have only made broad generalised 'motherhood' type statements.

What points you have made have been refuted or in some cases there has been an admission of inequality on both sides.

I for one am a bit sick of gender politics and would much rather talk in terms of individual responsibility but responsibility means just that - not some design to transfer responsibility to anyone other but ourselves which is about all I can glean from your big picture statements.

A judge would be rightfully reluctant to give custody of a child to an applicant who expressed the view telling the truth is an expression of hatred or that a person should not be responsible for indebtedness incurred by property they own (English law once applied this responsibility equally to women, horses, sheep and cattle), which is precisely why some men have problems with women and the Family Court. Men have enacted laws to protect citizens from scoundrels, reprobates and those who shirk their duty of care. Equitable governance between women and men delivers equitable governance to all demographics comprised of women and men including "Somalis, Sufis, and short people with red hair" while the monarch performs a ceremonial role in a constitutional democracy for those who don't already know. Men have exercised their genius to transform the despotism some males still champion into egalitarianism. There's hardly any men left in Australia who don't support the view women are entitled to exactly the same instruments of governance men granted themselves. A referendum on equal rights between women and men with governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees would be a certainty to succeed if conducted this Saturday.

What arguments? The five points above.

Females do not have the same liability or risk in having a specific child that males do. Do you deny it?

Thus:
1. the sexes are not equal and it is meaningless to say they are. Yes?
2. they cannot be made equal without bias against one. Correct?
3. even if they could be, which they can't, there is no reason why they should be? True?
4. you have not established any reason why men should have "responsibility" for reducing the particular liabilities and risks that females have in reproduction - as a sex, not a gender. According to your theory that there is no natural law, and only social conditioning, there is no reason why the law should not be the other way around - enforcing "responsibility" on women not to discriminate against men wanting to have casual sex with them, *and* leaving women to bear the entire cost of motherhood.
5. thus your argument is is completely, reflexively biased and sexist. It is self-contradictory and hypocritical. You consistently conjure "responsibilities" in respect of male, and "rights" in respect of female differences, without ever coming up with a principle that could be applied equally regardless of sexual differences.

You have only responded to these arguments by personal arguments directed at me, or by caricatures of my argument, or by generalisations.

You have never given any reason why there is a male responsibility to satisfy womens' reproductive interests, but not a female responsiblility to satisfy mens'?

Whistler

Wake up and smell the coffee.

You have not shown what equality of the sexes means, nor how the sexes could ever be made equal, nor why they should, nor why relations between the sexes should not be consensual, nor why equality should be the aim of policy rather than individual fulfilment, nor why men should have any responsibility to satisfy women's reproductive interests, nor why women should not have a responsibliity to satisfy mens'.

All you have done is evade all the issues again, as usual, derailing the discussion with another screed of hateful bigotry, irrelevance about court applications for child custody, incoherent drivel about men owning women, and separate legislatures.

I having proved that your argument would require separate legislatures for all different minorities whatsoever, it is no answer to say the problem would be solved by "equitable" governance since
a) that was the issue supposedly requiring separate legislatures in the first place
b) you don't have any presumptive qualification to speak on what is equitable, since you're in favour of special privileges for women on the basis of inveterate bigotry against men, remember?

Therefore your own dopey argument, if accepted, would require separate legislatures for every conceivable category of minority whatsoever, and stop trying to squirm out of it.

I think, as usual, Jack Marx has this CEO issue pinned...

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/why_do_women_want_to_be_bastards/

A survey of Fortune 500 CEO height in 2005 revealed that they were on average 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) tall, which is approximately 4 inches (10 cm) taller than the average American man. 30% were 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) tall or more; in comparison only 3.9% of the overall United States population is of this height.[11] Similar surveys have uncovered that less than 3% of CEOs were below 5 ft 7 in (1.70 m) in height. Ninety percent of CEOs are of above average height.[12]

See, it's nothing to do with life choices of women, short people of whatever gender just aren't suitable for the job.

It's really only a job for tall people. Hang on... I'd make a great CEO!

First time I have read Jack Marx and he nailed it. I like the bit about

<It is not, I think, from the burden of making decisions that she wishes to abdicate, but from the responsibility for them. She’d rather me be the (censored) responsible should everything go catastrophically wrong. Better to drive from the back of the bus than end up with a faceful of head-on collision.>

I wonder how common it is? >)

hi Jefferson, equal and the same are different otherwise women would never have been prohibited from governance.

Jefferson, you are simply ignoring the offspring in your analysis. Once the child is born, whatever the circumstances, then it requires certtain things. The question is how best to provide those things while not disadvantaging either parent. You correctly point out that the way it has been done is coercive of the father to the advantage of the mother, which is not ethically defensible, it seems to me. It would be equally wrong to suggest that the mother should bear all of the cost merely as a consequence of the division of labour involved in the reproductive act.

James, I liked that bit too. I've said for a long time that what women seem to want is 100% authority and 0% responsibility. The whole basis of so much of the ranting of the feministas is that they resent being held to account for their decisions and they demand that they the state ensures they don't have to be. I've said it before, but the whole current fuss around Feminism will become a thing of the past once the world runs out of cheap energy - we simply won't be able to afford to pretend that nature is irrelevant simply to suit the middle-class princesses.

A correction to the above. I should have said:"The question is how best to provide those things while not disadvantaging either parent unfairly."

hi Jefferson, achieve equality between women and men and equality is achieved between all demographics comprised of women and men, which is just about everybody.

hi Antiseptic, a judge of the Family Court would be most reluctant to give disputed custody to an applicant who considered the question is how best to provide support while not disadvantaging either parent unfairly because the question places the interest of each parent before the priority of the offspring.

"I've said for a long time that what women seem to want is 100% authority and 0% responsibility."

Well if you think that there is no room to move is there? Given that you believe that to be the case do you suggest revolution or force or will you have some faith in women and men to come to rational and fair decisions over the course of time.

It seems like you've already decided what all women think and ignore the fact that most women agree that parenting should be a cooperative arrangement with shared responsibility. Your own personal situation, skewed against you as you claim (without knowing the other side), should not be held up as the norm. There are now Courts to ensure that men do have access to their children beyond just what the mother dictates. Most couples I know work this out between them so maybe things are different up there in sunny QLD.

"a judge of the Family Court would be most reluctant to give disputed custody to an applicant who considered the question is how best to provide support while not disadvantaging either parent unfairly because the question places the interest of each parent before the priority of the offspring."

False, the question says that the lives of parents are not inherently less valuable than that of children and that fairness to both parents always has to be a consideration. Especially if that fairness can be achieved without the children involved being significantly disadvantaged.

It say's that one party should not be allowed to gain advantage at the expense of the other while using children as an excuse.

Any judge or magistrate involved in family law who is not constantly asking the question is fundamentally unfit to serve in the position.

R0bert

“Jefferson, you are simply ignoring the offspring in your analysis.”

No I’m not. The point is, there is no reason why the sexes should be regarded as having an equal interest in providing for a given child because if a man agrees to do so on equal terms with the mother, he is making sacrifices of interests and values that she is not (because he can have further children at the same time; she can’t).

Therefore if he were to contract with her on equal terms, he would be unequally disadvantaged. This is because of the natural difference between the sexes, nothing to do with gender.

Therefore because of this fact, wherever relations between the sexes are based on consent, we would expect them to be unequal, which is what in fact we do see. The reason is because, considering their unequal interests, equal obligations would be unfair. Their *unequal* bargain is fair; that's why it has arisen spontaneously in all societies in all times.

”Once the child is born, whatever the circumstances, then it requires certain things. “

No-one’s disputing that. However that does not ethically justify using aggressive violence as a mean to supply its requirements, since they can and should be supplied by consent.

“The question is how best to provide those things while not disadvantaging either parent unfairly. You correctly point out that the way it has been done is coercive of the father to the advantage of the mother, which is not ethically defensible, it seems to me. It would be equally wrong to suggest that the mother should bear all of the cost merely as a consequence of the division of labour involved in the reproductive act.”

Why would it be equally wrong? No-one’s coercing her to do it. The woman decides whether to use contraception, whether to have sex, whether to have the child, and whether to adopt it. Having passed through all those decision gates, why should she have the use of aggressive force simply to protect her from having to bother obtaining his consent?

If a man has committed to support the child, it's common ground that he should be liable. But if he hasn’t, the fact he has *biologically caused* the child no more justifies violence against him, than the fact she has caused his sexual interest justifies violence against her.

He has to obtain her consent to have sex. He can’t just say, as the feminists say, ‘you biologically caused my interest’. Why should she be able to?

Put it this way: what would be wrong if the woman had to get the consent of any person from whom she wants contributions to the child she has decided to have and to keep? It’s the basic rule of civilized behaviour. Why shouldn’t it apply to women as well? Even if she has to provide sexual services to get it… so? Why shouldn’t she do that? Let’s say $200 a week – a few hours of sexual services – so? What’s wrong with that? No-one has actually addressed this issue yet – everyone just assumes that it goes without saying women should have the benefit of force to protect them from any need to obtain the man’s consent. I say, why?

Whistler
“achieve equality between women and men and equality is achieved between all demographics comprised of women and men, which is just about everybody.”

Not necessarily. Even if men and women had separate legislatures, there’s nothing stopping both of them from oppressing or persecuting any minority, whether on grounds of religion, or nationality, or politics, or membership of a particular social group.

Therefore the rationale for a separate women’s legislature, being based on nothing but the fact that the majority of politicians are men, applies equally to any category of minority whatsoever.

You have been completely unable to say what it means to say the sexes are equal, how they could be made equal, or why they should.

In particular, you have not shown how biological causation of a reproductive interest in the services of the opposite sex is any more a justification of compulsory child support than it is of rape.

Also Antiseptic, there is nothing about so-called chid support laws that requires the money to go to the child. The mother can spend it on whatever she wants.

(The argument that the child support laws apply equally to both sexes still begs the question whether one parent should be forced to pay for another in the first place when the other is unwilling to be reasonable enough to do what is necessary to obtain the other's agreement.)

And the child is already guaranteed a basic standard of everything through social security law: income, medical care, education and so on. So it's not about a basic standard of living.

And the child support laws just require a certain percentage of the father's income. It's not as though they define certain minimum requirements for the child. They don't say that such and such a thing is necessary, or say why. And if the child already has these minimum things, the laws don't cut out, do they?

Therefore they are *not* about providing certain minimum requirements for the child, they are about taking part of the father's income and giving it to the mother, on a moral rationale left over from patriarchy which feminism has completely rejected, villified and abolished - but only so far as it applies to women.

People have been raising children for hundreds of thousands of years without compulsory child support. Why shouldn't women get child support the way they did before the dreaded patriarchy came along?

Jefferson,

The absolute fly in the ointment here is that, being human, a man is provided with a rather large outgrowth of brain tissue called the neo-cortex. that is, that he doesn't only rely on his basic drives to get him through the day, but a combination of thought processes that interact with each other.
If, as you so delicately put it, a woman is responsible for "the fact she has caused his sexual interest" then a man is also responsible for taking into account that the sexual act may produce a child which will need to be supported.
Since this act is not brought about merely by the woman, but as part of a partnership, it is incumbent on the male party to contribute to the care of the child.
It seems to be the case in our modern society that these things become skewed - that the interdependence in more traditional societies of each gender upon the other has been lost.

Pelican:"It seems like you've already decided what all women think and ignore the fact that most women agree that parenting should be a cooperative arrangement with shared responsibility. "

It seems that what most women want is someone else to pay for their choice to have children. All I've suggested is that if that is going to be the situation then the cost should be spread as broadly as possible.

Jefferson,given that copulation has a foreseeable consequence that is going to incur a long-term cost and given that both parties are aware of the potential outcome, then both parties have a responsibility to bear a proportional part of the long-term cost. They should also have a proprtional part of any long-term benefits and an equal part of any decision-making, with a few caveats.

Firstly, the male use of contraception is overt - it's impossible to pretend a condom is in use if it isn't, while female contraception is less obvious. If a woman doesn't take her Pill regularly there is no real way for the man to know, ditto for the use of diaphragms or IUDs. So it is possible for the woman to decide to become pregnant while pretending that she is using contraception, thus effectively defrauding the man.

Second, once conception has occurred, it is entirely the woman's decision to allow gestation to proceed. If she chooses to abort against his desire to have a child, then there is not a thing he can do about it. On the other hand, if he doesn't want a child, there is nothing that he can do to make her abort.

If either of those two situations obtain, there is no ethical strength to the view that the man should be liable. However, it becomes difficult to judge such cases, since contraception is not perfect, even with the best intent.

If they don't obtain, then the willing participation of both parties leads to the conclusion that both parties must share costs and responsibilities.I reject the idea that because a woman is attractive to a man she is responsible for his response.

hi RObert, a judge of the Family Court is bound by statute to consider the interest of a child over and above the secondary interest of a parent because the quality of a child's welfare should not be the subject of a primary dispute as to what level of support constitutes fair need, as was legislated two decades ago when the Court became clogged with vexatious applications from men with a perception of inherent privilege over women which impacted to the detriment of the welfare of children. Listen closely to males who claim grievance against the Family Court or the Child Support Agency and you'll more than often find an obsession with the minutiae of the circumstances and perceived obligations of the mother and very little about offspring, in stark contrast to the focus on the activities and achievements of children men who reconcile disputes equitably with women express. The Family Court can sense a male consumed with a morbid fear and loathing of women a mile off.

Hi Jefferson, equity achieved between the primary elements of community is the best it gets, imbalance is abysmal.

Poirot, you're very quick to dismiss biological drives in men as atavistic. This is feminist doctrinal orthodoxy, and I reject it as facile, self-serving rubbish

Women also have biological imperatives and emotionally driven desires. Is the urge to reproduce in childless women approaching middle life also something that should be simply dismissed as atavistic? Apparently our politicians don't think so or we'd not have the whole maternity leave thing. Do you really think that women are inherently more primitive than men, or could it be that biological drives are real, no matter how much "neo-cortex" we may have?

Antiseptic,

I believe you're being a tad sensitive here. My point - mainly to Jefferson - was that humans have recourse to a higher mode of thought and, therefore, are able to take things into consideration. Yes, I believe that the biological imperatives of both genders are real - Jefferson seems to believe that one of those genders can opt out of the equation on the basis of being mainly controlled by the more primitive drives. I was simply disagreeing.
And puhlease don't label me with feminist claptrap. I couldn't give a hoot about feminist agendas and the like - I'm more interested in investigating the organic nature and functional relationships within society as a whole.

Antiseptic "Second, once conception has occurred, it is entirely the woman's decision to allow gestation to proceed. If she chooses to abort against his desire to have a child, then there is not a thing he can do about it. On the other hand, if he doesn't want a child, there is nothing that he can do to make her abort."

Some of the imbalance could be reduced by future financial support being contingent on the nominated fathers acceptance of that at some point during the pregnancy - not perfect but a step forward especially where the parents were not in an ongoing relationship.

whistler "Listen closely to males who claim grievance against the Family Court or the Child Support Agency and you'll more than often find an obsession with the minutiae of the circumstances and perceived obligations of the mother and very little about offspring" - I don't doubt that's what you would find. The reality is much more diverse. There will be some men doing the wrong thing, there will be others who have had an absolute gutfull of hypocrisy of hiding behind children to further adults interests. Much of the grief with the FC and FMC is about the abuse of the idea of children's best interests to flagrently advantage one adult's interests over the others often at the expense of significant components of the childrens interests.

Those who make a lot of noise about children's best interest's overriding any needs of the parents don't seem to fly the same flag when it comes to women staying in a non-abusive but unsatisfying marriage. They don't seem to fly the children's best interests flag when it comes to mum's wanting to take a sea change. They rarely seem to fly that flag on any issue where the mothers needs are the ones being asked to be sacrificed for the sake of the children.

All to often "childrens best interests" is a pathetic cover for people advancing their own interests with little or no real regard for the children.

R0bert

RObert I have to disagree on that point.

The children's best interests should always be paramount to the selfish wants of adults and arrangements should be worked out to be fair to both adults but not if there is some contingency that causes greater hardship or pain for children. Even shared arrangements don't suit all kids and many have to endure in silence the disruption of moving from house to house each week/month etc. Most kids seem to adapt and older kids should be able to have a say in where they want to live most of the time.

I do agree that the best interests of children are best served when the two parents stay together except for obviously abusive and dangerous situations. You only refer to women wanting a 'sea change'. I assume that the same applies to men (?) who take off for the mid-life crisis sea change when family life becomes too inhibitive on those primitive desires.

Most adults with a bit of effort should be able to work out their differences or make some sort of agreements to stay together for the sake of the children - there are numerous counselling services. Unfortunatly one can't legislate for selfishness and in some cases if the home environment is too unpleasant it might be worse for the children if people stay together. There is no one size fits all.

Pelican "The children's best interests should always be paramount to the selfish wants of adults and arrangements should be worked out to be fair to both adults but not if there is some contingency that causes greater hardship or pain for children."

Is there any degree's in that or is it absolute's?
It appears to be used at times as an absolute in way's we would not dream of applying to other situations. A useful catch cry which is to often selectively abused.

I get the impression that kid's do better when the parents stay together but you are unlikely to see the "childrens best interests" lobbyists pushing for a tightening of laws around divorce to make it more difficult regardless of the potential benefit to children. Sea changes can taken by either party and can be damaging to the kid's regardless of who does it.

My point is that there the idea of childrens best interests is applied very selectively by those who tout the phrase most loudly. It generally boils down to mum getting most of the family assets and dad paying whatever can be gouged from him regardless of his needs, it's rarely an issue to those who make much of the phrase when it comes to other choices. The fathers's groups have used the term but less so than the mum's groups in part I think because it's already become such a farce.

Please put my comments in context with whistlers earlier response to the idea that the outcomes should be fair to both parents where that can be achieved without the children being disadvantaged (and I think that the idea of disadvantaged needs some degree's to it as it does in the rest of life).

R0bert

Who gets to decide, what is in a childs best interests?

How do we measure it, because it is one of those global statements that can mean anything.

What I think is in a childs best interest maybe totally different to another person.

Perhaps one to the sadest things in our society is the shear lack of boundary setting.

hi JamesH, a judge of the Family Court gets to decide a child's best interests measured according to parental means in the minuscule proportion of bitterly contested cases which can cause irreparable harm to children brought before the bench, otherwise mum's and dad's in a fluid conglomeration of family business decide mostly equitably.

When a child is in an intact family, it is assumed that their interests are best served by supporting that family to be prosperous. It is only after the family breaks down that somehow a child's best inteterests are seen as independent of the outcome for its parents, which is an obvious nonsense.

Whistler

You are correct, when you say that in most cases, parents work things out for themselves. The issue that you ignore is that he might choose to accept an unfair arrangement, because he knows that he will be unfairly treated if it goes to court. Every decision has a context.

I used to live in Indonesia and one day was talking with a local about marriage and divorce.

“So what happens when you divorce?” I asked “Do you go to court?”
“No.” he replied “We go to the village imam. We tell him we’re not happy and he says, it’s better to part as friends than to live together at enemies. That’s it.”
“Oh. So no court eh?”
“No. Imam.”
“And what about the children? Who supports the children?” I asked.
He said an expression which translates as “Up to you.”
I said “Whaddya mean ‘up to you’?”
“Well” he said, as if explaining something very simple to a moron “The child is the child of the parents. So… the parents will support the children.”
“What happens if the children live with one parent, and the other parent doesn’t want to pay anything to support the children?” I asked

He looked puzzled and said “Never heard of that before.”

Never heard of it before! Yet here in Australia it's a standard feature of our feminist family law landscape.

Any system that has ‘best interests of the child’ as its criterion, will have men as third class citizens – which is the system we’ve got in Australia – that’s why there’s no need to prove the child support money was spent on the child – the mother’s interest is presumed to stand for the child’s. The result is man as milking cow, man as chattel.

Men need to stop buying into this sh/t.

And the recent 50/50 custody split merely means that now the children are treated as chattels as well – all so the women can continue their privilege of treating the guy as chattel.

Antiseptic
That’s fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go so far as to justify a legal obligation, only a moral one IMO. The reason is that, since a legal obligation entails the use of force, we need to find an ethical justification of the use of force. Your reasoning hasn't done that.

For those interested in Jack, here are some other wonderful pieces...

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/the_constitutional_feminist/45799

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/cross_fingers_day/desc/P0/

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/will_everybody_please_stop_crying

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/thoughts_on_drugs/

hi Jefferson, the Indonesian man had never heard of that before because his children come first like every other father on Earth except for a few screwballs.

Jefferson,

In some countries like Indonesia, in a village (or even a close-knit urban neighbourhood), if a marriage broke down the father would most likely still be around, even if he was no longer living in the same dwelling as the child. Also, the other villagers act as an extended family to everyone in that village - even in some cases living in a communal "long house"...one big extended family.
Our culture organises itself along very different lines - as families we tend to operate as independent entities. No wonder we have difficulties when a marriage breaks down.

whistler
in that case there's no need for laws to enforce it is there?

I see you're still arguing that anyone who disagrees with you is mentally ill. Amazingly persuasive logic. The fact is, if all your irrelevant, abusive, personal, and circular arguments had been deleted, there would be nothing left.

But if that is not so, perhaps you can tell us what we're still waiting for: what does it mean to say the sexes are equal, how they can be made equal, why they should, and how it can be done without unfairly disadvantaging the other?

Why don't you just admit you can't, and stop this childish snivelling?

All your talk of "equity", "balance" and such is nothing but circular special pleading for the continuation of privileges for women and you know it, otherwise you would have refuted my argument.

The point is, while ever women can have the benefit of compulsory child support, there is no need for them to be balanced or reasonable in dealing with fathers, and that's why the Indonesian had never heard of the kind of unreasonableness that is rife in Australia under the feminist double standard.

You're not in favour of fairness, you're against it, so spare us your fake victim status!

Men need to understand this. More regulation will not fix the problem. We don't need men's departments and men's policies. We need the abolition of policies biased in women's favour, and for people, regardless of gender, to be free to choose, and to have the consequences of their actions. It is not the role of the state to try to "even things up" as between huge classes of people with different values and interests, and any attempt to do so will only perpetrate injustice.

I notice no-one has even tried to answer my question what would be wrong with women earning child support the way they did before the dreaded patriarchy came along, nor tried to explain how the supposed "responsibility" to pay child support justifies coercion.

Poirot,

The destruction of the extended family in Australia is recent and continuing. Unfortunately government policy in Australia is driven by economic considerations and some movements are inclined to toss out the baby with the bathwater (especially where they were not so impressed with babies anyhow).

Jefferson, all law is (or should be) founded in ethical principles. A good law does enforce ethical obligations, since ethical analysis of situations in which one is involved is often very difficult for individuals and can lead to very bad outcmes indeed.

Coercion by the State is not something that should be applied lightly, as the Ombudsman has pointed out very clearly with the CSA. In fact, it is so dangerous that I have suggested the alternative solution of the child support levy, meaning that such coercion is simply no longer part of the landscape in this context and that children get properly and adequately supported if they need it.

There is a great deal more to the subject of men in this feminist age than children's matters, though; let's not get too bogged down on this.

I wonder if being vindictive towards one's ex is an Indonesian cultural practice. I'm sure that there is some culture, somewhere in the world where people can work things out maturely after a break-up, because it has never occured to them that they should be nasty towards their ex.

hi Jefferson, to say the sexes are equal means women have the same right to a legislature, a jurisdiction at law and council and corporate committees as men granted themselves, hope this helps.

RObert
There are never any absolutes, just as I would never argue that both parents should have equal access 'absolutely' if there were extenuating circumstances.

The premise should be what is best and shared custody seems to fit the bill in most cases, given a healthy relationships with both parents is usually the best for children, the reality is there is no one-size fits all.

I agree it is difficult, particularly with very young children, to always be confident that what is 'best' is easily ascertained. It may not always be so - that is truly a dilemma. Thankfully I have never had to go through it, but I can understand how it would feel to be told you can only see the kids every 2nd week etc.

Pelican one of the problem's is that "childrens best interests" is treated as some kind of absolute when men's groups have raised issues about unreasonable impacts on men from the way family law and child support is implemented. The basic premise seems to be that childrens best interests should always trump the needs or wants of the non-resident parent regardless of the relative levels of impact.

R0bert