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