ChazP,

Why don't we then take all children into state custody if their parents ever shout. Why are we only interested in separating couples? If this abuse is so bad, I think we should have zero tolerance. All children should be protected, and if you neighbours have a row, you can call the police and those children should spend 6 months in a foster home until it is all cleared up. Oh, hang on, you said counselling and support don't work or aren't good enough. So, any shouting parent should lose their kids for good.

We have to protect the children!

Robert. that stuff happens within a couple of years of separation, many still caught in the hurt.

Many here seem to miss the major issue about abuse and violence, psychopathy and focus on death as if it were the only important issue, rather than the final act.
Perpetrators (whether they are caught and found guilty or not) soon learn to control by threat of violence, using emotional and verbal abuse. Not 'you can't watch your show' (trivialises power play and dominance), but says 'You know I can hurt you, and so you had better obey. Try harder, get it right, love me more, and we will be happy. I am judge and jailer.

They leave because perpetrators make it impossible to stay. To presume the issues are over separation itself is to avoid the issue.

The feminazi are not saying all men are evil and violent and you all know it. They are saying some fathers are not safe and do not observe Australian standards of raising children safely. i would hope all parents could put the children's actual needs first and understand the damage they do. As for McInnes - her expertise is in women and children. (that's boy and girl children)

The crack about women and credit cards? probably relevent, but way outweighed by the women who must pay all the bills from an inadequate 'allowance' with not a razoo for themselves, or the ones who end up with nothing because they were dumped and replaced and were not suspicious enough to make sure their hold on their share of the family finances was secure. Especially with business men/partners.

Instead of poor me and she dun me wrong, why not focus on the children of violent parents. But you have to recognise the range of violence and abuse that will affect them. For example, having' extra marital sex? is that abuse? What if the spouse ends up with an STD? is that abuse? Is it emotional abuse to threaten to kill, lock people outside, skitch the dog onto them?
Counselling wont work with the personality disordered.

Cotter "The feminazi are not saying all men are evil and violent and you all know it. They are saying some fathers are not safe and do not observe Australian standards of raising children safely. "

Just for the record I don't tend to use the term feminazi, it does apply to some but I don't see how it helps the discussion.

I get that McInnes, Flood, the mothers groups etc are saying "Some fathers are not safe and do not observe Australian standards of raising children safely"

What most of the men here are saying is that the issue is that "Some adults are not safe and do not observe Australian standards of raising children safely". We are also saying that most breach the standards sometimes and that playing out of context and minor breaches in custody disputes is not helpful to children or the accused parent.

The stats are extremely clear when it comes to child death and substantiated abuse that fathers have not cornered the market on child abuse.

It's really obvious that the push for these changes only seems to be coming from people who put the word fathers into that sentence rather than adults (or people/parents etc). The examples used are invariable about violent fathers, there is no reference to drops in rates of substantiated abuse or changes in patterns of child deaths.

The official DV stats show a massive gender difference but with so much of that research being distorted by assumptions about power structures within the home those stats are useless other than as propaganda tools.

Shared Care has been attacked while during the time it's been more easily obtained the rates of substantiated child abuse has dropped, the rates of fatal assault against children in NSW appears to have decreased (although with thankfully low numbers that's less clear).

It's not clear that there is a causal relationship but it's certainly significant enough to warrant serious consideration in regard to any changes which may make shared care harder to obtain in the face of allegations.

R0bert

R0bert:”What most of the men here are saying is that the issue is that "Some adults are not safe and do not observe Australian standards of raising children safely".”

I don’t think most men HERE are saying that R0bert. Many men here appear to be on a witch hunt.

R0bert:” It's really obvious that the push for these changes only seems to be coming from people who put the word fathers into that sentence rather than adults (or people/parents etc). The examples used are invariable about violent fathers, there is no reference to drops in rates of substantiated abuse or changes in patterns of child deaths.”

Yep they are out THERE doing that, I’ve seen them but it seems pretty equal overall online with the mens groups and womens groups.

But whatever… someone go help this dad:

http://forums.altnews.com.au/node/1875#comment-7308

He appears to need help right now to help his children.

I think he needs more help with punctuation...

Why is it so hard for people to understand that expanding the definition of abuse is an invitation for open slather on abuse allegations against people who sometimes shout in arguments.

'Many here seem to miss the major issue about abuse and violence, psychopathy and focus on death as if it were the only important issue, rather than the final act.

Perpetrators (whether they are caught and found guilty or not) soon learn to control by threat of violence, using emotional and verbal abuse. Not 'you can't watch your show' (trivialises power play and dominance), but says 'You know I can hurt you, and so you had better obey. Try harder, get it right, love me more, and we will be happy. I am judge and jailer.'

ie, If someone shouts it is more than likely that they use abuse and violence to control their partner and they are assumed a psychopath and should be denied contact with their children.

'To presume the issues are over separation itself is to avoid the issue.'

Well, as I said, why doesn't this new expanded definition apply to intact couples. We cant be too careful, so any couple who ever has a screaming match should lose their kids.

'Many men here appear to be on a witch hunt.'

Au contraire Piper, the new legislation is the witch hunt; Expanding the definition of abuse so that normal emotion in an argument is equated with a systematic bullying and controlling behaviour and a certain predictor of physical violence.

BTW Cotter: What if someone cries or threatens self harm as a manipulation tool? ie 'Try harder, get it right, love me more, and we will be happy.I am judge and jailer'

God forbid someone should cry - lest they be accused of manipulation. Whether having screaming matches in front of the kids is meant to instructive and educational for little minds is interesting - and hardly helpful.

Threaten suicide? Absolute emotional abuse. Needs to be met with 'I'll miss you'. Saying 'you'd be happy if I killed myself' - probably a desperate call for sanity and comprehension. Saying in front of the kids - beautiful, that should make them feel great.

By frequently ignoring the reality of violence, mental abuse, emotional abuse and manipulation, financial abuse, social abuse, psychopaths, sociopaths, drug users and alcoholics who may be involved in crazy-making behaviour, by suggesting an argument involving yelling = lose the kids, you show your determination to avoid the reality of so many people's own existence and lack of power over it. It doesn't matter who's the problem, the fact is blaming the other gender is putting too many kids in danger while this silly argument goes around. Boring.

Sometimes this list is like trying to talk to my ex. Avoiding the actual issue is actually an indicator of pathology of the mind, expecting a pathological to give a damn about any one else's opinion is fraught with impossibility - since they do not give damn about other people's opinion, unless it mirrors theirs.