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.