http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/alcohol-key-factor-in-criminal-kids-20110225-1b7ws.html

"Mothers' alcohol abuse is a stronger indicator of antisocial and criminal children than rough neighbourhoods, a new study has found."

My point is that either parent maybe be a risk to children.

Yuri, the media loves it when men can be shown as the perpetrators, there was a flurry of article after darcy freeman trial.

Quote "I was concern about the welfare of my children" then the call came for such concerns to be taken seriously.

Every single parent worth their salt, are concerned about the welfare of their children.

You're surprised about the fury around the Freeman case given the backstory?

It seems inevitable these subjects become the catalyst for gender wars. Of course “neither sex has a monopoly on vice or virtue".

Where is the demonisation, both men and women are accountable. It gets on my wick a bit, this oversensitivity around gender. You can't read about a crime committed by a man these days without someone bringing up all follies of women as a counterfoil. It is as if reminding people of the crimes commited by women will make a difference to the tragedy of the crime. It is not a competition.

Look at the press around the Keli Lane case. Are women demonised because of this one woman's actions? No, of course not.

Bottom line is any scenario where children are killed is a tragedy regardless of the intent of the perpetrator - it all results in the same tragic end.

It is no surprise that acts of revenge will be perceived much more strongly than the act of a mentally ill person (regardless of gender). Sometimes it is that simple.

The reality is authorities cannot always make the right call as regards child safety based on the information provided and sometimes they get it wrong.

People are not that stupid. The reaction is the same towards those who use the statements of a radical feminist as indicative of all feminists - most people don't fall for that approach and self-serving agendas are usually that transparent.

Indeed, censoring data will negatively impact on the formation of appropriate child abuse policy. It is only when all the facts are available, that weaknesses in the system can be identified and improved. That may be in the form of extra supports for single parents, those with mental disorders, better counselling during relationship breakdown etc.

If one really believes in the statement - “neither sex has a monopoly on vice or virtue" - why don't we just live by it instead of complaining if one of our own sex is arrested for a crime.

The best predictor of children at risk is not education, income, aboriginality etc... it's simply when a child does not have both natural parents caring for him!

This evidence-based data shows that the risk of child abuse in single-parent households is 2300% times that of children living with both natural parents !

Nationally child-protection authorities have tried to deny the existence of this data and refused to release it. Only WA has provided meaningful data. Effectively these bodies are saying that they have no idea of the main risk factor for child abuse!

Putting this into perspective, we all believe smoking ‘causes’ lung cancer. Statistically, the risk of lung cancer in smokers is 120% that of non-smokers. But the risk of child abuse in single-parent households is 2300% times that of children living with both natural parents ! (96%/4% = 23) Children need BOTH NATURAL parents.

Our volunteer attempted to obtain the same data under FOI (why is it no longer freely available?). The various state child protection departments variously claimed not to have any information or that it would be prohibitative to extract the data from their databases. If this is true, it is an admission that they have no idea of the risk factors for child abuse!

PartTimeParent@pobox.com

'It is no surprise that acts of revenge will be perceived much more strongly than the act of a mentally ill person (regardless of gender). Sometimes it is that simple.'

Yes, but often when a women does something heinous, she is considered in need of counselling, support or some assistance. It's considered 'out of character' for a 'nurturer'. We look to find an excuse as to why a *woman* would do such a thing.

When a men does something heinous, well, that's just men for ya. It's the 'innate' brutal nature of men. It's testosterone, or nasty male aggression, men's attitudes to women, misogyny, Male 'culture', The Patriarchy, you name it.

Women are mad, men are bad, or as I like to say, 'Acting their gender'.

We look to help women and punish men.

When a woman hurts her child, she must be depressed, in need of better support systems, counselling. We have let her down as a society.

We just look to punish men, or keep them away from women and children. At the very least, we look to 'educate' all men so that these men, as a gender, don't keep doing that. There is no culture of support, or any feeling that we have let these men down at all. There are no excuses.

'Look at the press around the Keli Lane case. Are women demonised because of this one woman's actions? No, of course not.'

There is no movement to highlight each and every woman's actions as a slur on their gender. Correct. So why is there when it comes to men. Look at the recent defence forces scandal. All the talk about a 'male culture', misogyny, Men's attitude to woman. Can you imagine any of this talk if a male nurse was bullied at work or his female lover was indiscreet?

Every heinous act by each individual man is included in a continuing narrative of 'men', and 'men's attitude to women'.

Whenever the raw data has been available, the sad facts show that "dead beat mothers" outnumber the dead beat dads several times over. But still "pelican" & all the other FauxMANistas continue to promote the neglect & abuse of children.

It is high time, we went back to time honoured systems of family law, that WORKED to protect children. Where the custody of children & all family property automatically went with the father, unless, "via a fault based divorce law" it can be shown that in the tiny minority of cases where it does happen, that the father, is "at fault", then the mother & children can be protected from him.

That is exactly how our divorce laws used to work until the Closet Communist Corporate Paedophiles acted to destroy our society.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

“Why do state agencies censor data showing the risk that biological fathers pose to their children?”

Because they can.

And they have continuously censored data relating to de facto relationships, and continuously censored data relating to single parent families.

Who is most likely to censor such data, and where were they educated are the more pertinent questions.

So men (not always the father) kill more children than women.

And I also got that it is near impossible to find the stats.

Mothers seem to lead the abuse and neglect stats in the stats found.

There was mention of scant resources at the end, really?

I have no idea what point the article is making or what it had to do with the title. And why give us stats then indicate they were unclear or incorrect?

I dunno Houel, some groups look for bad things done by one person and turn it into a gender, race, age, religion, ad infinitum issue. I’m sure they are all parts of the whole not to be confused with a whole part.

In general a white man in the west probably gets a little more sympathy than a black man. I’m just hoping a group of them don’t arrive on OLO and throw stats at us and begin pointing out every horror they can attribute to white men proves how innocent most of them really are.

Snag you want all children awarded to fathers? Except for that "tiny minority" of fathers at fault. So in the case of two good, stable, loving parents you want the father to automatically get full custody and all property?

R0bert!

pelican you ask "Where is the demonisation, both men and women are accountable."

It's in the publicly funded campaign's about violence against women with no mention (or counterpart) about violence by women.

It's in the campaign to unwind shared care if there are unsubstantiated accusations of abuse (have a look back through the posts of those supporting the proposed changes and see what their attitude towards fathers is).

It's in the way that "protecting women and their children" is used as a slogan.

It's in the high profile given to sexual abuse of children (a very small proportion of substantiated abuse) and the very low profile given to most other forms of abuse which don't lead to serious physical injury.

On this issue the demonisation is out there, it's not over sensitivity. The single mum's groups have fought hard against reform to family law using the spectre of abusive fathers as the cornerstone of their campaign.

R0bert

Robert,
"using the spectre of abusive fathers as the cornerstone of their campaign"

True.

And who is most in support of single (mother) parents?

I'm glad the article had a by-line. It's the only thing that offers clues about the author's contention. Indeed, much of the article seems to be leading to the point, then the rest seems to be defusing it. As far as I can tell (based on the evidence offered), biological fathers present no more risk to their children than their ex-wives' new partners. Apparently, depending on which set of statistics we are meant to accept, the mothers pose as much risk as either category. Hopefully this is 'part 1' of an article, because we need 'part 2' if we are to get to a clear point.

Houlley
Do you accept that this 'demonisation' is the greater public perception. The claims are highly overstated IMO and those negative views written about are more imaginary than any reflection of widespread opinion.

Men are generally more violent than women, the incarceration rates are evidence, but that does not hold that men are 'naturally' violent as a rule. I would suggest that many men in prison are themselves victims of abuse and neglect and some suffer from mental illness. How to stop the cycle of abuse is the million dollar question.

As some posters have alluded, the biggest risk to children is not from biological fathers but from defacto arrangements. There is no paternal bond between defacto and child, but this does not mean all stepfathers are violent or abusive just that the statistics indicate some raised risks in these arrangements.

Why do women stay with men who abuse? That is another aspect of accountability worth further investigation given the high level of support services for women. Are they adequate. I couldn't say.

RObert, DV programs are focussed primarily on women, authorities do tend to focus funding on the biggest area of need. It is a shame that violence is not treated wholly as a society problem, not just in terms of gender, but I think this is changing in response to street violence.

Women like the mother in Tasmania who prostituted her daughter with the help of her boyfriend are also monsters. One also has to question the integrity of all the men who paid money to effectively abuse this child with the full knowledge she was under-age. I don't accept that 100% of these men had no qualms about her age and vulnerable circumstances.

Sure bring on more honest statistics but don't be surprised if you don't get the statistics you are hoping for, the final word has to be for the protection of kids. There is no room for male/female ego in the pursuit of honesty around this subject.

Formersnag <"But still "pelican" & all the other FauxMANistas continue to promote the neglect & abuse of children."
Where is your evidence of such a nasty statement Formersnag?

Why is it that we have to have an 'us and them' situation when discussing children of broken marriages/partnerships?

Why can't we all just work together to do what is right for the children in each different families situation?

I agree we shouldn't have the 'one size fits all' scenario that we have now with regards to family law.
We should go back to the days when children stayed with the most appropriate parent at the time.
We should not just be dividing them up equally between each parent unless that is what is best for the kids.

In my opinion, if there has EVER been any definite evidence of abuse of any kind towards the children before the marital breakdown, then the kids don't go with that parent.

Courts these days are trying to be far too politically correct when allowing children to go and live with an abusive parent (male OR female), just because some militant groups in our society say it should be EQUAL parenting, no matter what.

Children have been dying because of this problem.

Pelican
“Sure bring on more honest statistics but don't be surprised if you don't get the statistics you are hoping for, the final word has to be for the protection of kids.”

I would think the rates of welfare dependent children in de facto relationships and single parent families should be made known to the public.

I would think the rates of poverty for children in de facto relationships and single parent families should be made known to the public.

I would think the rates of neglect for children in de facto relationships and single parent families should be made known to the public.

I would think the rates of homelessness for children in de facto relationships and single parent families should be made known to the public.

I would think the rates of fatherless children in de facto relationships and single parent families should be made known to the public.

In fact, I would think the rates of alcoholism, drug dependency, domestic violence, infidelity, and STD’s in de facto relationships and single parent families should be made known to the public.

Such statistics should not be hidden away because de facto relationships and single parent families are a part of the political goal of certain people in our feminist society.

G'day All,

Look, we the Labor party have a moral imperative to make this economy stronger because we're the workers party and we have to give 'em jobs and big salaries and GST and Power and Power and .. The only way we can DO it is by massive immigration which costs massive amounts of money and life shattering inconveniences for all. All of which which we don't want to pay for or know about.

A few kiddies get murdered or abused by mum or dad? Who cares, its just one EXRTERNALISED cost of doing business in the best economic performing country in the World today. And there'll be a LOT more of it before I'm through.

So we tell a few lies to cover it up. So what? We have to tell lies to make it palatable to the apathetic Anglo or Aussie born electorate who are still 53% of the bloody population who still could vote us and immigration out the door if they were awakened.

The BEST lie of them all: It really costs $300,000 in admin to settle each and every migrant plus $300,000 infrastructure costs they will need. For example,
200,000 migrants per year times $300,000 is $20billion a year that should be spent on electricity infrastructure alone. If migrants were really paying their way and carrying their weight we could all have cheap electricity, less stress on parents an thus fewer cases of the externalised costs of an economic great Nation being violently passed onto the tiny lives of no-hoper's children . But if we charged migrants then no one would want to come here and oopsy .. no Nation building and no economic and no political bounty.

So you can see our dilemma. But don't worry, our courts will mop up the mess. We'll put all the stressed-out murderers in Gaol. And that just makes our Government look all the stronger. How clever!

So take a pill (http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/racist-angry-the-answer-may-be-in-a-pill-20110407-1d5c9.html#poll), get used to it, Labor's here to stay .. and YOU and your bloody kids will PAY and Pay and PAY!

Ghoullia Shillard

PM

One of the problems is sorting out what is actual fact and what is someones paranoia.

Secondly there is the escalation, subtle sabortage, I think Erin Pizzey nailed it when she wrote about the family terrorist.

Defining someone with a personality disorder can be extremely difficult, usually personality disorder have a large number of supporters and enablers. It can some times can take a number of years before it becomes apparent.

From my experience there are more than a few custodial parents who are more than happy for the non-custodial parent to be absent.

James:”From my experience there are more than a few custodial parents who are more than happy for the non-custodial parent to be absent.”

Well they’re crazy, non-custodial parents are usually the ones that give you a few days off. My experience was the custodial parents really looked forward to handing them over and having a break.

Do we have the stats on how often through family court a parent does not want their ex having any contact with the children rather than asking for the majority of custody?

Kaep, what is a migrant?

pelican,

'That is another aspect of accountability worth further investigation given the high level of support services for women.'

That's a brave statement. BLAMING THE VICTIM! I suppose you have more scope to say such things as you're a woman.

'Do you accept that this 'demonisation' is the greater public perception. The claims are highly overstated IMO and those negative views written about are more imaginary than any reflection of widespread opinion.'

Those two sentences seem contradictory. I'm confused.

As I said, every heinous act by each individual man is included in a continuing narrative of 'men', and 'men's attitude to women' in the media. The whole 'culture' of men must be changed, even bringing the responsibility for one man's actions in his private life onto his employer and team mates in the case of the NRL or AFL. In that StKilda girl scandal, nobody even considered that the club shouldn't have any responsibility at all. In fact the girls actions were motivated by a societal assumption that the club should do something because her 'relationship' didn't work out with one of it's 'players'. The 'male dominated' institution is more responsible for it's members than a female dominated one that's for sure.

Like that white ribbon lot attempting to shame me into accepting responsibility for others my gender. I have no more responsibility for others of my gender than women do.

Every male dominated group is derided as if the very presence of all that evil testosterone makes it inevitable men will revert to their innate abusive, exploitative, violent, abusive women hating ways. This puts the responsibility on all men for an individual man's actions.

You never see that with female dominated areas of society. Nobody thinks it's in any way dangerous for the oestrogen meter to overheat. Women as a whole aren't responsible or assumed supportive of an individual woman's actions.

BTW: I agree men are more violent, and stats that show women up as more abusive need to be viewed with respect to how many more women are the primary carer.

Hey Jewely,

Judge rules white girl to be tried as a black adult.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84phU8of02U

It's genius.

I love the parents...

'We're going to do our best to ensure Hannah is treated with the sympathy and sensitivity that she, as a photogenic white girl, deserves'.

'This is America. Nobody deserves to be treated like a black man!'

Now that she's been ruled black, the court has instructed local media to ASSUME she's guilty.

Suze,

'In my opinion, if there has EVER been any definite evidence of abuse of any kind towards the children before the marital breakdown, then the kids don't go with that parent.'

I agree. It's the definitive evidence part that is hard to obtain.

From all these discussions though, it seems to me the campaigners against shared custody would be happier with 'if there has EVER been any *rumoured suggestion* of abuse of any kind towards the children *during* the marital breakdown, then the kids don't go with that parent.'

"the campaigners against shared custody would be happier with 'if there has EVER been any *rumoured suggestion* of abuse of any kind towards the children *during* the marital breakdown, then the kids don't go with that parent.' - if the parent is male.

Allegations of abuse made against female's should of course be recognised as men just trying to get custody to avoid paying child support.

R0bert

"our feminist society"

What on earth are you talking about?!

"What's a migrant?"

Why, they are the people who ALWAYS vote for ME.

The silent invasion force, the Gerry in gerrymander, the bloodless Coup d'etat.

Of the 5 billion who, like you & I, have a divine RIGHT to settle here, above any environmental or social concerns, they are the ones's the Labor party chose to suit our divinity and our economic imperatives.

What's important is that people born here who don't vote LAbour deserve to be stressed into hoplessness, killing & ultimately into Gaol. We have no sympathy, only Law, economics and Nation building in-OUR-own-Anglo-image.

ATB

Ghoulia

PM

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11867#203248

Dear Jewely, no dear, in the case of a natural, normal, heterosexual marriage i am in favour of them being supported, encouraged to stay together, happily for life. What is wrong with good old fashioned Christian Family values?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11867#203275

Dear Suze, all feMANazis have been have been promoting the breakdown of marriage, sex, drugs, rock & roll for half a century now. "The proof is in the pudding", dear.

The "us & them situation" was created by FauxMANistas, not me, i have always advocated for happy, harmonious, relationships between men & women.

Now you are getting closer to the problem, but as usual getting it the opposite way around. "Why can't we all just work together to do what is right for the children" in what is the ONLY family situation that has been proven safe, "lifetime heterosexual marriage"? As opposed to promoting the well documented, scientifically proven failure of single motherhood. Why don't you want males who impregnate women to be encouraged to marry them, love, cherish & support them?

Your also half correct about children dying, in more than 3/4 of those it was mommy dearest who killed them.

So of course we should go back to a "one size fits all", or "default position" where fathers (who have been proven safe almost all of the time) get everything until they are proven to be "at fault". Don't you remember, that is what we had prior to 1975? A "fault" divorce system where either party if shown to be the one, NOT "at fault" won.

Prior to 1975 men were regularly jailed for not paying maintenance. It was the Loony Left feMANazi's who stopped that from continuing. How can you punish someone who is not "at fault"?

Formersnag,

Men can still be jailed for not paying child support. That is part of the reason for hiding statistics and the denigration of fathers.

If he is not in favour of her having the children, and not in favour of having to pay her child support while she simply takes away his children, then he has to spend many years in a family court, and spend many dollars to prove that he should have the children.

He has to overcome the feminist bias that he is an evil male who will harm the children.

That is why the statistics regards child murders, child abuse and child neglect are purposely kept hidden.

By hiding the statistics, it makes it easier to denigrate men and fathers.

"That's a brave statement. BLAMING THE VICTIM! I suppose you have more scope to say such things as you're a woman."

Not BLAMING the victim just saying it is still an area that needs work despite the support services for women. You have to read it in context Houlley. Women or men who stay with abusive partners also contribute to ongoing child abuse. The child is not responsible.

Thanks suze
I have learnt to ignore the irrational statements or where there is a flavour of unrelenting hatred - no point in banging one's head against the proverbial wall.

vanna
We seem to be in agreement that statistics should reflect what is really happening out there so that support services can be targetted appropriately.

Houlley
We won't agree on this, but despite all the perceived demonisation of men I don' see mainstream Australia holding that negative perception.

If it were a feminist writing about their woes in modern Australia, I would be arguing the same thing about perceptions versus reality on most issues.

One of the failures of feminism is the lack of involvement of men in discussions about roles, inequities and expectations ie. as a group rather than two subsets arguing at cross purposes.

Snag:”What is wrong with good old fashioned Christian Family values?”

The word Christian.

Loved it Houel then got trapped on youtube watching Sarah Palin clips after that, no idea why but I blame you.

Suze:'In my opinion, if there has EVER been any definite evidence of abuse of any kind towards the children before the marital breakdown, then the kids don't go with that parent.'

Then Houel:”I agree. It's the definitive evidence part that is hard to obtain.”

I disagree with the “any kind” part. A woman is considered unable to protect her children if she allows a man to beat her in front of them and children get removed for this reason quite often. Probably works the other way round too but I’ve never come across it.

There are abuses that occur just because the couples were living together. We have financial abuse etc etc and the abuse umbrella is getting bigger. They’d have to make a list of which abuses would put a child at risk post-(cannot think of good word to insert but it would mean after separation).

Kaep you lost me. 5 billion out of 7 can come here?

The marriage contract has been so sucessful for the economy that I propose it be transposed in law to ALL commercial and other contracts.

1 Investments must be Based on Love, not TRUTH or hard figures. They must be till death(unemployment for more than a month) do us part, and for better or worse.
Worse being: I only pretended to be a profit making concern/10 times a week sex kitten before marriage/contract because I was desperate not be left on the shelf while all my girlfriends/co-investors were busy being married/signed up).

2 False pre-contract prospectuses are to be encouraged, not hounded by ASIC because they stimulate the players to SPEND SPEND SPEND and thus they stimulate the economy. Women are allowed & encouraged to dress like whores pre-contract and turn into harpie-frumps after. Businesses seeking investments should be allowed the same latitude. The more money and kids that spill out of loser's pockets the more Canberra will find ways to collect it for Nation building and economic growth.

3 In Divorce/nullification of contracts, judges may deem women( the greater consumers) better carers/directors for family/company assets because theyare rarers and closer to the reproductivity/productivity cycles than men in the trenches. Thus they get the company cars, properties and kids or workers as the case may be. No basis in MERIT will be entered into as this saves court time and costs. And all the stamp duty goes to Canberra!

What a robust Nation/economy we could build with those contractual arrangements. Its basically how the Westminster system operates in Government anyhow..
We Anglo ruling-class Australians in Canberra know a thing or two about economic imperatives, GST, migration and EXTERNALISING costs to the States and thereon to the stressed out potential child killing losers in society - where those costs beong

Ghoulia Shillard

PM

Vanna and Formersnag seem to want all of us to stay married permanently so there won't ever be single mothers or defacto relationships.

What century were you guys raised in?

How naive to think all our problems would go away if we forced married couples who hated each other, or where one partner is violent and bashes everyone in the family, or where one partner gambles away all the money, and the kids are starving, and all hell is breaking loose... if we all just stayed married, all would be good in society.

Yeah right... lol!

Aren't there a few countries in the middle east and a few other parts of the world, where women remain in servitude to their husbands for life, and their husband owns them and the kids, no matter what, and they have no legal or religious way of getting out of this situation?

Wouldn't you guys be happier living that ideal lifestyle?
Excellent!
Off you go then...

Suzanonline,

There have been very few studies undertaken into marriage or divorce in Australia, but from certain studies in other countries, the majority of people are no happier after divorce than before.

Very few studies have also been undertaken into single parent families and de facto relationships, but from certain studies in other countries, both single parent families and de facto relationships should be declared a health hazard for any children involved, as there are very few benifites for children in those so-called family types.

The lack of studies undertaken is similar to hiding data. It is done to prolong the feminist ideal of children being raised by the mother and the state, with the father removed but paying money to the mother.

vanna,

You can't generalise where these things are concerned.

A good friend of ours is at present going through a family court procedure to get access to his children. We have been behind him all the way and he has the support of many friends. We consider his wife treated him terribly - she just up and left and he has been playing catch-up ever since...but he is making progress and the cards are now beginning to stack in his favour.

However, my own father was a gambler and a drinker - he made our childhood a misery. When they split up, my brother went with my mum and for some unknown reason he took me with him. I was eight years-old and I spent the next seven years following him around the countryside while he drank and gambled and continued on his merry way - until at 15 I found my own way back to my mum....

Don't generalise...

Vanna <"The lack of studies undertaken is similar to hiding data. It is done to prolong the feminist ideal of children being raised by the mother and the state, with the father removed but paying money to the mother."

I'm sorry to disagree again Vanna, but aren't the decision makers in this country predominantly male- eg in parliament, state and local governments?
Why then are you assuming it is these mysterious 'feminists' who are calling all the shots where family courts/laws etc are concerned?

Isn't it meant to be 50/50 custody arrangements these days?
And aren't the laws changed now so that men and women in broken relationships get a reasonable deal financially, unless they are unreasonable people themselves of course?
Or do you secretly want to go back to the 'good old days' when men 'owned' their children, wife and all marital possessions exclusively?

So what are you complaining about? The bulk of bright couples work out their own arrangements re finances and custody issues, and only a very few aggressive/bitter individuals have to go through acrimonious court battles.

On the one hand you take every opportunity (again and again,
ad nauseum !) to knock all university educated people, and then you call for studies, to prove your anti-female hang-ups, which only university -educated people would be qualified to do.

How very complicated...

Poiriot,
There has been a major study into children’s wellbeing and also mother’s wellbeing.

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/families/pubs/lsac_report_2009/Pages/6_how_well.aspx

By far the most important factor in children's wellbeing and in mother's wellbeing is finances, and drugs and alcohol play a minor part in children’s wellbeing and in mother’s wellbeing.

I have never know a feminist to get anything right, and the feminist ideal of single parent families and de facto relationships normally ends in financial problems.

Suzanonline,

About 0.0016% of children are killed by their father each year. The leading causes of death to children (discounting abortion) are actually childhood diseases and traffic accidents.

While feminists like to mention “women and their children”, I have yet to hear of a feminist show any concern about childhood diseases or traffic accidents.

The portrayal of fathers as abusers and murderers of children is part of the system of vilification of fathers.

“While feminists like to mention “women and their children”, I have yet to hear of a feminist show any concern about childhood diseases or traffic accidents.”

Well said Vanna and now you mention it I have yet to see them out there saving whales. Not that I’ve seen any dadsonair dudes hooning about the oceans trying to cripple Jap research ships either.

Jewlery,
Don't try and misquote me, or leave something out. You wouldn't be a feminist would you?

The full statement is as follows.

"About 0.0016% of children are killed by their father each year. The leading causes of death to children (discounting abortion) are actually childhood diseases and traffic accidents.

While feminists like to mention “women and their children”, I have yet to hear of a feminist show any concern about childhood diseases or traffic accidents."

You didn't answer any of my questions above Vanna.
Obviously you couldn't answer them.
Enough said...

Suzanonline,
There is no 50/50. This is a feminist society where people believe that women are wonderfull creatures but badly oppresed by evil dastardly men.

Still waiting on an academic (any academic from any school or university) to make a positive statement about the male gender, because to date they have made almost every possible negative statement about men.

Bring on the gender villification laws I say.

BTW. Why should couples have a "broken relationship", or should someone have a series of "broken relationships".

It sounds like an adolescent feminist's dream.

Vanna:”Don't try and misquote me, or leave something out. You wouldn't be a feminist would you?”

I don’t think I’m a feminist Vanna. :)

I’m not convinced either the mens groups or female groups give a flying toss about the actual children they use to score points.

As for traffic accidents... I assume the children weren’t driving.

"As for traffic accidents... I assume the children weren’t driving."

Probably depends on the suburb.

R0bert

Jewly,
I would think the author is well acquainted with many of the aspects of childhood in our feminist society. He has carried out extensive research on the subject.

My personal research has shown motherhood in this country to be in an absolutely abysmal state, with an estimated 1 in 20 pregnant women now believed to be diabetic, right through to the estimated 600,000 children in Australia now being referred to as "disadvantaged".

I would also think that leaving out of information is as bad as misinformation, and those surveys and research papers that carry out misinformation are almost always connected to universities, or produced by people educated in our highly feminist university systems.

Lol! Has anyone else noticed that as Vanka (sic) gets more and more upset and confused about his 'facts' about all those nasty feminists out there ruling the world, he deliberately starts misspelling his detractors names?

Poiriot, Jewlery and suzanonline must be really annoying him!

Vanna <"While feminists like to mention “women and their children”, I have yet to hear of a feminist show any concern about childhood diseases or traffic accidents."

Really?
Are you suggesting that of all those university educated doctors and researchers in Australia who spend their whole working lives caring for sick and injured children, researching diseases and injuries caused by accidents, that there is not one feminist amongst them?

Try looking up Dr. Fiona Stanley and Dr. Fiona Wood before you continue writing more untruths Vanka (sic).

I'm not a feminist, but I believe in equal rights for women, I was university educated and am proud of it.

One fact that is indisputable is that men kill more women, children and other men in our world than women do.

That fact doesn't mean I am a feminist, just a realist.

Suzanonline,
There is a question mark concerning abortion, and whether or not it is murder. If it is murder, then about 25% of children are murdered by their mother.

Certainly there should be better research and surveys undertaken into society issues, particularly issues such as de facto relationships, single parenting and fatherless children, because for all the social science departments in our so-called universities, there are almost no studies undertaken into these areas.

I tend to think the reason for this is that few positives can be found for de facto relationships, single parenting and fatherless children, so the feminist social science departments in our so-called universities do not carry out research on these issues.

Yuri:

Thoughtful article with very appropiate recommendation for granular publicly available data. The more factual data, the better to de-politicize the topic and end sterotyping, especially at this juncture when the amended version of the "Family Violence" legislation is out for public comment.

The AIFS Evaluation report made it clear that funding to streamline court procedures together with emphasis on integrated multidisciplinary courts was what was required. It's sad to see the government copping out with regressively poinless legislation rather than funding the necessary pilot-extensions and programme implementation called for by experts across the ideological spectrum.

George Piskor
I would agree it is necessary for some accurate data for once. However I would be circumspect regards data for family violence or abuse.

There appears to be minimal secondary data to support the concept that there is widespread family violence.

For example the "Snapshots of family relationships" produced by the AIFS shows most couples are highly satisfied with their relationship.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/factssheets/ssreport08/ssreport08.html#keytrends

Interesting that in this HILDA survey, the lowest levels of satisfaction occur in step families.

I would think that there needs to be extensive education of men regards having children.

Men have to be informed that if they have children in our current society, it is likely that their children will be raised by another man who has no biological connection with those children, and only about 30% of children will be satisfied with this.

OR, their children are likely to be raised on welfare, with the children likely to fall into the category of disadvantaged children.

While at the same time, biological fathers are likely to be demonised and vilified by certain people, most of whom are taxpayer funded and many harboured within universities.

That is the current situation in our society.

Just quietly, this is comedy gold.
I'll always be back for more of this.

You chicks crack me up when you take vanna on. Is masochism the new black?

Hey vanna, I'm part of a de-facto couple. I would actually have gotten married, but at university I went to a gender studies lecture. It turned me against marriage forever. The feminists there told me not to, and they were particularly persuasive.

PS: Vanna. My de-facto family and I are available for study if you're up for it.

pelcian,

So you're arguing that the demonisation must be successful for it to exist.

Maybe it's more focussed on NRL and AFL rather than men in general, but with this latest military thing I reckon it's any male dominated group. If a non NRL playing non military guy behaves unethically there isn't such a big fuss, and his employer is irrelevant. But if he is employed by any male dominated employer, it's all about the danger of men in large groups. ie all that testosterone is dangerous, and men are actually innately dangerous without the civilising effect of women.

I reckon the constant repetition is working, just look at all the programs being put in place for PR purposes. The NRL and other organisations are buying feminists off by giving them cushy jobs 'educating' their players. They have raised the white flag. The propaganda has worked, society expects these measures to be taken. The link has successfully been propagandised between individual player and 'men's culture'. Men in large groups are a missed feminist lecture away from being a pack of rapists.

Houlley
"You chicks crack me up when you take vanna on. Is masochism the new black?"

Don't spoil our fun.

"So you're arguing that the demonisation must be successful for it to exist."

If a tree falls in the forest and you are not there to hear it, did it really happen?

Yes it did but how did it affect you?

This article is about some anti-male conspiracy. If there is no impact clearly it is a failed 'campaign'. Most of the protests of demonisation are in the mind, fuelled by the media. People only see demonisation if it affects them or is perceived to affect their gender, but most people wear self-protective blinkers.

Take the St Kilda photo scandal - who was demonisded most in that media debacle. I would say the girl has copped the most flak in the media spotlight, certainly as much as the football fraternity. But I am a girl so maybe I have my blinkers on too.

The opinion sheets could change any day when the media takes another tack and the lemmings might all follow in the other direction.

Clearly if there is a claim of mean-spiritedness or mass-scale demonisation there should be some impact. Demonisation of male footballers is probably fairly successful but footballers do insist on helping the media so much in their endeavours.

But one stupid act by a male defence cadet won't demonise all men. Be comforted Houlley that if the comments on OLO are anything to go by, much of the venom will be reserved for the 'sluttish' behaviour of the woman.

Didn't those feminist lecturers teach you anything?

pelican,

I may agree. This reminds me of the feminist social commentators predicting Joooolia would have her appearance and clothes commented on *because* she is a woman.

It was like...

any day now...
any day now...
just you watch...

Nothing happened, then something really random on twitter about her ears (By a woman I think from memory)

Seee! I told you! That Tony Abbott budgie smuggler big ears is so sexist!

In the end, the people making most comment on Julia's appearance were actually the feminists.

'I would say the girl has copped the most flak in the media spotlight, certainly as much as the football fraternity. But I am a girl so maybe I have my blinkers on too.'

Just a bit. She didn't cop half the flak she deserved! She was defended by the very feminists who were all up in arms about the guy who posted Lara Bingle topless. The double standards were legendary.

The lasting characterisation was of the 'poor troubled girl', and the nasty corrupt football club. I'm still waiting to have it spelled out what happened to make everyone decide she was the victim. I saw lots of innocent victims, not her though.

'Demonisation of male footballers is probably fairly successful but footballers do insist on helping the media so much in their endeavours. '

Obviously you don't link that to the alpha male thing. That's why it's successful IMO. You could say tall poppy or class, I say it's testosterone. Lock up your daughters sums it up. The converse is fear of sexually assertive women and the slut thing though. People have trouble with the groupy concept and all groupies are considered star struck young powerless victim girls looking for 'love' not assertive chicks looking to brag about sex with a famous athlete.

I like sluts, always have. My partner is one. It has no negative connotations to us. Actually I like the word slapper even better.

BTW: I'd love the same scrutiny applied to footballers applied to the legal profession and journalists. Lots of coke and hookers and wild stuff there!

No argument that the girl was very foolish, but people aren't going around now supposing all girls are foolish just by the actions of one girl. Footballers probably get off less easily, they are in the media spotlight and while some footballers are nongs that does not imply all footballers are nongs or betray their wives/partners.

Too right about the journos and politicians (and their staffers) if the walls could talk.

Sometimes I reckon the world would be better off if we all were sluts and then there would be nothing to be outraged about, in fact the word 'slut' wouldn't even be coined.

An old male friend of mine used to say he liked a 'lady in public and a whore in bed'. Trouble is most women don't really know what men want, there are so many mixed messages.

Hey Pelly,

"Trouble is most women don't know what men want..."

Sounds like a good topic for a new thread (what do men want?).....could prove enlightening....

Pelican "Trouble is most women don't really know what men want, there are so many mixed messages." My girlfriend has been reading a book called "365 Nights: A Memoir of Intimacy" and I've picked up a copy as well and am now reading it.

http://www.amazon.com/365-Nights-Intimacy-Charla-Muller/dp/B001QFZLPM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302498232&sr=8-1

I'm about 1/2 way through. An interesting read that explores some of the issues around intimacy in relationship's. The authior has come about as close as I've seen to honestly addressing some of the issues around sexual intimacy for a lot of couples (Holly and his partner excluded).

The messages are mixed in the real world but one message is common from many men in long term relationship's, a lot of women seem to find a lot of other stuff far harder to say no to than physical intimacy with their partner after a few years (and kids) regardless of how good a partner the man might be. Whilst being unhappy with a man might further reduce the chances of sex (or other forms of intimacy) occuring the reverse does not necessarily make sex all that more common.

The book's a worthwhile read if the rest is as honest as what I've hit so far.

R0bert

Houellebecq,
Sorry to inform you of this, but de facto relationships have about 3 times more chance of separation than a marriage.

When the separation occurs, you have a 90% chance of losing the children, and your children may be raised by another man, or will likely live on welfare.

You will also lose the majority of assets, and you will be required to pay the mother child support, while having no say in how that money is spent.

Sorry to inform you of all that, but to continue with that system, there has to be demonisation of fathers.

So there has been demonisation of fathers.

Also note that in the largest study undertaken in Australia to date, children rate the natural father as their most satisfactory parent, while their least satisfactory parent is a step-mother.

So there have been very few studies carried out by social scientists in so-called Australian universities that have actually involved the children.

'Sounds like a good topic for a new thread (what do men want?).....could prove enlightening....'

That would be entertaining.

It's not very difficult though. I have understood what women want since about age 25. I cant for the life of me understand how women cant work men out. If I was a woman I would be merciless in my manipulation of men. Fish in a barrel that lot.

Quick Guide (By no means exclusive)

Men (for Women):

Leave him alone for long periods of time.

Don't nag. He's an adult not one of the kids.

Be assertive in bed. He's un-shockable and no matter how kinky he will be into it too.

Accept that he will only really listen to about 65% of what you say, the rest of the time he is hearing blah blah blah, or trying to remember the score of the 89 Grand Final. Laugh about it.

He doesn't really care about your friends and relatives (He struggles even remembering their names) but he genuinely cares you seem upset by it all.

He doesn't like his parents much either.

Adore and worship his penis.

Women (for Men):

Give her lots of compliments.

She needs to feel sexy and desired before she can be sexy.

She doesn't care what's rational, she just wants you to be on her side.

Random acts of housework and grand gestures distract her from the fact you're not pulling your weight. She knows she's being manipulated but cant help being sucked in.

When you think you're totally in the right and she hasn't got a leg to stand on, its the best time to say sorry anyway. She'll melt at the time and make your favourite dinner, and 3 weeks later she'll quietly admit you were right and thank you.

To Both:

Timing is everything.
Keep track of partner's general emotional state and work with them. ie How are they travelling.
Keep some mystery. For god's sake.
Any insult after 3 in the morning is best forgotten.

What do men want? Who knows! Women? Ditto! What about other transgender/transexual confused types?

My guess - INDIVIDUALS regardless of gender or sexuality have some agenda, some plan - vague or defined or at very least, ideas of what they want in life.

Most want love and companionship with the perception that when they find their 'perfect match' it will be for life. The majority of these couplings will produce children.

Unfortunately, given current trends, almost half will break down. Children will the biggest losers in many cases.

It strikes me that too many people do not communicate effectively during the building phase of relationships. Then years later realise their aims/expectations/values are conflicting. Or couples fail to keep the lines open after the relationship is bedded down and start moving in entirely different directions.

Add de-stigmatising of divorce and single motherhood and the throw-away culture that has evolved in the past 30 - 40 years and there you have it - the disposable family!

I'm not suggesting women or men stay in truly abusive conditions, tolerate infidelity or continue in situations where the partners actions (eg alcohol, drug, gambling addiction, criminality) threaten the family unit physically, financially, psychologically and morally.

I am saying PEOPLE NEED TO WORK AT THEIR RELATIONSHIPS A LOT HARDER BEFORE THEY WALK OUT THE DOOR ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE CHILDREN!

Maybe we need to look at 'fault' in divorce cases again? Maybe we need to discourage young women from bearing children out of wedlock when they are hopelessly incapable of supporting them financially?

I agree wholeheartedly from experience that the 'abusive father' is most likely NOT the biological sire. We see too many women with children from multiple fathers, none of whom adequately support their spawn and Mum moving onto the next potential BabyDaddy ... Society pays many times over - to enable this 'lifestyle' and then the ensuing fallout.

Vanna, (Just for you girls)

'de facto relationships have about 3 times more chance of separation '

Considering not all de-facto relationships have even a distant goal of any kind of long term commitment, I'm sure you're right. Mine just happens to have that goal. Formalising that goal with the state and exhibiting in front of a mix of reluctant guests, free-loaders, and people we party with every other week anyway, would make no difference. Thanks for your concern though.

'When the separation occurs, you have a 90% chance of losing the children, and your children may be raised by another man, or will likely live on welfare.'

My children are quite healthy thanks, and should I one day separate with my partner, I would be happy to take on her primary carer role, but accept that the children's best interests would come first, and that is currently not my role. I have the opportunity to change that pre-emptively, as my partner has the opportunity to build her super and career, but I feel secure and confident in our relationship, so it really isn't an issue for me.

'You will also lose the majority of assets, and you will be required to pay the mother child support, while having no say in how that money is spent.'

To some degree I would find this idea of re-birth liberating (I tend to be a positive person), and I imagine I would probably rent a small flat in the inner-west, bar-hopping and getting into adventures and mischief. I would be happy to provide for my children as I am currently, and respect the motherly nurturing abilities of my partner. She does a fantastic job. I am confident she would spend the money wisely, but if not, as long as I can afford a studio and have a bit of change to spend at the pub, well, it's only money.

Snag:”What is wrong with good old fashioned Christian Family values?”

And while I'm at it - Absolutely nothing Snag!

I believe the almighty statistic will demonstrate beyond doubt that couples who share and practice Christian beliefs and values are much more likely to MARRY rather than live and reproduce in a de facto relationship and much less likely to DIVORCE. Ditto for other religions.

I am a practicing Christian, married for almost 34 years and know the importance of communication, shared values and goals. I also know that life happens around you, people and circumstances change, things are sometimes great, sometimes terrible, mostly somewhere in between but through this you and your partner must always remember to love, appreciate and understand each other. And if you believe there is an external force available through faith and prayer - that can be an aid and strength. In the congregation of which my family are part, there is little divorce, few out of wedlock children, lots of family stability and lots of happy healthy kids.

"Christian" values - because that was what our Nation and culture were built on. That's the truth, if you don't like it - too bad!

The upshot is "Christian" or not - we need a return to some old fashioned values in the whole area of relationships and family.

Houellebecq
I would think you are either extremely optimistic, extremely naive, or extremely brave, or all three at once.

Unfortunately I think many other men are similar.

Having children in our feminist society is becoming similar to buying a house. If you think too much about it, you would probably never do it.

But for the sake of the children, it is becoming very necessary to gather the relevant statistics, and present these statistics in a booklet, for men to get the full picture.

I would discount any government agency or so-called Australian university being able to present the relevant statistics, which basically leaves an NGO organisation to carry out this necessary and important task.

Thanks for bringing the book to our attention RObert. If it is as close to reality as you say, I might learn something. :)

Houlley, your posts do make me laugh and there is some truth hidden in those words however much it is couched in humour. The one important factor you missed was mutual respect.

Wise words divine_msn. Married people need to try harder but even more importantly make wiser decisions prior to marriage. I have spoken to many women who married for the wrong reasons, some men too. Recipe for disaster in most cases.

Kids and families should not be disposable, but family breakdown is happening more and more, maybe the growth of the 'me me' mindset and a general malaise around working hard to keep things together. Too many other pressures around debt and two people working does not help.

Vanni:”I would think the author is well acquainted with many of the aspects of childhood in our feminist society. He has carried out extensive research on the subject.”

Yes yes but I wonder if he has ever actually met a child.

Vanndi:”There is a question mark concerning abortion, and whether or not it is murder. If it is murder, then about 25% of children are murdered by their mother.”

And if wasting sperm is murder what then punk?

Vannci:”But for the sake of the children, it is becoming very necessary to gather the relevant statistics, and present these statistics in a booklet, for men to get the full picture.”

Will this be a secret mens only booklet for the sake of children? What is it you want to know then beat someone over the head with anyway?

What an awesome potential ex you'd make Houel.

Jewely,
If someone were to look closely at abortion legislation, then the majority of abortions would constitute murder, particularly those that do not have a referral from a doctor.

However, in a feminist society, that is regarded as a minor detail.

Of much more importance is misinformation, hiding of information, advocacy research, and not carrying out relevant research if it is likely to produce results that are contrary to previously prepared propaganda.

pelican I liked Holly's list. Not that I ever spend time trying to remember a football score, more likely solving some problem for a project I'm working on.

The book comes at the issues from one perspective and does not have all the answers but I do like the questioning approach.

R0bert

Jewely <"And if wasting sperm is murder what then punk?"
Rofl! Well said.

Houellebecq, You actually made heaps of sense in your insightful explanation of how men and women should understand each other in relationships. Well said.

I loved the answers you gave to Vanna.
I think we will leave you to tackle him on his many anti-feminist issues from now on :)

Suzanonline,
Sperm and ova are not a fetus, and there is legislation concerning a fetus, although that legislation tends to be ignored.

Similar to the numbers of murders of children carried out by mothers.

But I would think that if misinformation, hiding of information, advocacy research, and not carrying out relevant research is accepted, then eventually nothing from government agencies or so-called Australian universities can be relied upon.

Vanna:”If someone were to look closely at abortion legislation, then the majority of abortions would constitute murder, particularly those that do not have a referral from a doctor.”

I think proof of malice is required to assign the word murder.

Vanna:”Of much more importance is misinformation, hiding of information, advocacy research, and not carrying out relevant research if it is likely to produce results that are contrary to previously prepared propaganda.”

Yes I agree it is important but I also believe that has been happening well before we became this feminist society you speak of. What I can’t be f’d with is you adding abortion stats to child murder stats because the only reason you wish to do it is to mess with child support payments and custody of children so before a child exits the womb how about we don’t add them to your wish for relevant research and instead leave them in the mens propaganda basket where they belong.

There is really no making you happy, if a woman keeps a child not wanted by a male then they are devious wenches who did it to suck a mans wallet dry for the next 18 years, if they abort they are murderers. If they are too young, too broke, or unwell and abort you’d still label them killers while men wander the world in faultless glory.

Vanna your attitude is proof that the feminist’s propaganda attempts have so far completely failed, well done.

Jewely <"Vanna your attitude is proof that the feminist’s propaganda attempts have so far completely failed, well done."

And so say all of us Jewely.

See you on another thread.
Cheers,
Sue.

Jewely,
Feminist propaganda does fail on me. This general system of propaganda has been used countless times, and ironically it was a part of study at school, because we were required to read “Animal Farm”.

One group demonisises another group so that the first group can benefit.

In the case of Animal Farm, the pigs demonised “Man”, but eventually the pigs became “more equal than equal” and had all the farm animals doing the work for the pigs.

Almost impossible to find a feminist with one good word to say about “Men”, but noticed that men now do most of the work and are required to pay women money for most things, including paying the woman child support while having no say in how the money is spent.

So feminist propaganda, misinformation, advocacy research and basically lies do fail on me.

"Feminist propaganda does fail on me. This general system of propaganda has been used countless times, and ironically it was a part of study at school, because we were required to read “Animal Farm”.

Yes I can see where that would have prepared you for the feminist onslaught.

“In the case of Animal Farm, the pigs demonised “Man”, but eventually the pigs became “more equal than equal” and had all the farm animals doing the work for the pigs.”

Surely not a man, those evil pigs – yes even Snowball. Let us hate the pigs and the animals who followed them. I bet you hated Mollie but saw Clover as a decent motherly type. But let’s go over the commandments:

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal.

And your own of course:

1. Whatever has two boobs is the enemy.
2. Whatever sits with its hands down its pants is a friend.
3. No man shall pay child support.
4. No man shall give up custody.
5. No man shall give money to a woman.
6. No man shall work.
7. Some men are more equal than others.

“Almost impossible to find a feminist with one good word to say about “Men”, but noticed that men now do most of the work and are required to pay women money for most things, including paying the woman child support while having no say in how the money is spent.”

I’m unsure where you go feminist hunting Vanna but hopefully you get away from your mother to go into town now and again.

“So feminist propaganda, misinformation, advocacy research and basically lies do fail on me.”

Glad to hear it buddy. See you on another thread, live long and prosper, nanonano, missing you already!

Jewely
"And your own of course:"

I never said any of what you have said that I said, and what you have said that I said is the type of misinformation I find repugnant.

I remain hopeful that one day the public is able to take legal action on government employees and university academics who purposely do not provide sufficient information, or hide information, or carry out forms of misinformation.

If they are paid taxpayer money to provide the public with relevant and unbiased information, and purposely do not do so, then the public should be able to take legal action on those government employees and university academics.