Suze

I find it interesting how these people can imply things without saying them. The article never actually said that men tend to abuse kids. They did say that the Howard government's changes, which lead to more kids spending more time with their natural fathers, put kids at risk. This claim has been refuted effectively by Robert here and elsewhere. Furthermore, Anti has argued several times that spending some time with both parents is a major protective influence on kids.

As for family courts treating kids like possessions, they have always had a say in who gets the kids and still do. No-one accuses mothers who naturally want to spend time with their kids of treating them like possessions.

I see the logic of assessing the relationship that both parents have with their kids before seperation. However, many fathers hide from a crap marriage by spending much of their time at work. It is quite plausible that many would want to reassess their life and spend more time with the kids after the break-up.

"Surely there are enough bright men (fathers)out there who work in family law, or social work or as specialist advisors etc such as the writer of this article, who would work towards ensuring men are treated fairly in the child custody situations?"
What makes you think they didn't?

Research (do not love that word) shows that girls in separated families, enter puberty earlier, and begin sexual activity at an earlier age, than girls in an intact family.

So ae we really interested in better outcomes for children is it all a bit hot air.

The is a problem in that as children grow older, their needs change and as such parenting tactics change as well.

Even in an intact family there can be disputes over parenting style, so how do we deal with this when families have separated.

For those that are interested in the welfare of children, it appears that the greatest threat to children when very young is childhood diseases, then when they are older it becomes accidents in the house such as tripping, falling, burns etc, then when older it becomes traffic accidents and suicides.

Throughout, their greatest risk of poverty and neglect comes when living in single parent families.

However I have never once heard a feminist mention any of these things, and it does appear that their concentration on abuse is just another attempt at alienation of the genders, and eventual denigration of fathers and males in general.

Thanks RObert and Benk, I really do see where you are coming from, and for many warring families there is often at least one parent trying to fool the family courts for their own benefit.

Luckily, the vast majority of separating couples seem able to amicably work out the child custody arrangements for the benefit of all the family, or at least as good as it can be in such awful circumstances.

We may never all agree on this subject because we are all coloured by our own personal experiences, of course.
As a child of divorced parents where it was truly AWFUL for us kids at the time, you will understand where I am coming from?

RObert <"Try out vanna's challenge to find positive comments about men (or masculinity) by identified feminists employed by Australian University's and have a think about the role their research plays on public policy. "

Why oh why do you guys want to hear something 'positive' from university feminists about men? What does it matter what they think?
Why does EVERY discussion from Vanka about anything also include the same question? That subject is really very tedious

<Why oh why do you guys want to hear something 'positive' from university feminists about men? What does it matter what they think?>
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 3 December 2010 1:09:15 AM

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0301/wt030108.htm
<Social work literature is biased against heterosexual males, leading to "unfair and untrue" stereotypes about men and hampering social workers' ability to counsel men, an Alabama professor has concluded after reviewing articles in two social work journals from the last decade.

Out of hundreds of articles, book reviews and published ads, only "a fraction — about 25" — were about men, Jordan I. Kosberg wrote in an article titled "Heterosexual Males: A Group Forgotten by the Profession of Social Work."

Of the studies Mr. Kosberg found about men, half were about homosexuals and most of the rest were about men categorized as abusers, absent fathers, AIDS victims, prisoners or homeless.>

So Feminists argue about negative stereotyping of women, and Suzie asks why is it important for feminists to say something positive about men instead of negatively stereotyping men. Somehow this just doesn't compute.

A popular propaganda technique, particularly in times of war, is to negatively stereotype the 'enemy', accuse the enemy of being rapists, murdering women and children, of not being human or the enemy wants to enslave your country.

And typically the defenders take the high moral ground and portray themselves as rescuers, saviours, righteous, just.

Sound familar.

Someone asked if I cared to "back up" my statements. No. All one has to do, is be aware of the news, at a very grassroots level.

The death or mangling of even ONE child's life, as the result, however unintended, of a mis-interpreted or poorly designed law- is unacceptable in any society which thinks itself evolved. A mother who warned of ongoing abuse, and who had to follow the law and who now sits holding the lifeless body of her child; astonishly, has no use or interest in "stats" and voluminous verbalizations.

A mother who lost custody to her and her children's abuser, and who holds the sobbing body of her raped girl- child in her arms - knowing that, as before, no-one will believe her or her child; regards the proselytizers of theories that did this- as- unhuman/criminal. Even other living creatures -at least other mammals, do not destroy their young like this.