<Men flocked to the Labor Party. Labor won the election and the men's vote helped them do it.>

Just goes to show you that politicians cannot be trusted, as they will say and do almost anything to get elected.

No reasonable person could disagree with any the comments in this article. Not being aware of the detail of the imminent changes to the law, it seems as though it fits into the category of ‘ just another mistake by the government’, detached as they appear to be from reality in any form. Without listing them all, limited as one is by word numbers, this appears to be just one more.

As for Gillard's predilections, her background and personal life would indicate quite clearly that she has no interest in, or intends to do anything about the problem referred to in this article, her world being so limited and detached, living as she does in what can only be said is a strange, on the surface 'convenient' relationship, with her dislike for males perhaps indicated by that relationship alone.

Perhaps the acceptable standards of days past had more merit than we thought. We now see a Prime Minister of a country like Australia being party to such practices designed to fool the public into thinking that there is something normal about her contrived circumstances which, when you add up all the 'unusual' activities of this strange woman, clearly indicate that her contact with any aspect of reality has been just a passing experience. And it shows, daily.

Therefore, one can assume that she hasn't the slightest interest in the welfare of fathers? Her actions show clearly that males and their problems with children or families, are not on her 'to do' shopping list. She really couldn't care less.

One’s background as a child, when values are created or one’s lifestyle since those early years, are the determinants as to a person’s values. When there is no category that adequately describes where a person fits into society peopled by the most common heterosexual relationships or same sex relationships, both equally normal (or should be In a decent, fair-minded world), it is not possible to expect understanding about people and their problems.

To want to do something decent for laws that are wrong, one has to care.

..We appear to be living in a period where children born into a family become the future impediment to survival of the relationship. The simple solution to the unfair treatment of Fathers and present day family law court outcomes, is to resist the temptation to have children at all.

...We live in times where the unequal influence of the pro-homosexual Greens party rules the day; where the pro-feminist Julia Gillard gladly “Locks In” compliantly behind the homosexual lobby, suffocating the life out of Australian culture, which had in the past, a natural predominance in law of “FAMILY” protection.

...The family as we knew it is dead in the water; a direct correlation to the increase in the debauched influence of homosexuals in our society. Thanks Bob, thanks Julia, both leaders of the “Queer” brigade: the sooner they stuff-off out of our lives the better for the continued "good future" of Australian society generally!

Gillard's attitude towards fathers and families was not only predictable, but predicted, by myself among many others.

It is tempting to say that those fathers who voted for Gillard, surely knowing her agenda, and will now suffer from this anti-family, father-hating woman's assault have only themselves to blame, but unfortunately the biggest harm will be to the children, and hence society in general.

Nothing surprises me any more from the Gillard/Brown government. Stumbling from bad to worse and leaving a societal wreckage that will takes years to recover from.

I get so angry reading about the gross unfairness that the law now metes out to estranged dads. How can any fair-minded person, let alone someone regularly involved in law-making and the justice system, not see the one-sided nature of the current laws?

Why is motherhood "sacred" but fatherhood is ridiculed or at best downplayed, to the extent that fathers are deemed "unnecessary" (in the case of lesbian couples raising children without the input of a father)!?

The sooner the current government falls apart or is voted out, the better. Besides the ethical vacuum that is the Labor Party, it has clearly shown that forming a minority government with radical, self-serving Greens has been a disaster.

Whilst the Greens maintain pursuit of their minority-focussed agendas, our attention will continue to be side-tracked from the more important issues facing our country.

And what more important issues than the family, the value of strong marriages, a fairer legal system for families and raising happy, well-adjusted children?

Unfortunately the Howard Liberal's are not really that much better, in the use of smoke and mirrors.

I have been a Registered Family Court Mediator for nearly 6 years and agree with Marsh's article. I do step outside of my role by commenting personally here but the issue will be used by law sharks and women alike to disadvantage other parties when trying to gain access. The new legislation places no burden on those who would keep the children from their fathers to prove what is alleged. Also, neither is the legal system obliged to have evidence produced for any such allegations. In short there is a huge hole now where abuse of this stupid ruling will be used by mothers who are out to punish fathers for hurt received in the relationship. In my experience, it was hard enough already to get fathers a fair go with the feminised legal system we have. Now Gillard and her Green bed partners have just made it doubly hard for dads. I still get communications from ex-clients who tell me that their male partner has just suicided. Expect an increase of the same and the odd double suicide where a father takes out himself and his family too. Thanks alot Labour for making my job harder as well.

Hard to know where to start with this overly emotional and rhetorical piece.

Do you really think the Prime Minister oversees every bit of legislation? She's too busy attacking the High Court!

Secondly, there have nor will there be any changes to the notion of lying in the stand. You lie - you go to jail.

While one can understand that this is an emotional issue, this article would be better off stating the facts and then drawing inferences from those facts rather than coming out and shot gunning Gillard, single Mums and how ever might be in the way of that shotgun.

Cheryl wrote: "You lie - you go to jail".

In your dreams! How many lies do you think have been told in the Family Court? How many perjurers have been jailed in consequence?

In an extreme case of provable perjury in the FCA being unpunished, a friend's wife broke down in the fourth day of cross-examination and admitted falsifying accusations of child sexual abuse by my friend. She agreed to, and did, make those admissions in writing, and the judge awarded shared residency, 50-50 - something she would not have done had she any doubt as to the accusations being perjurious.

Outcome, no charges of perjury, no penalty at all - not even costs (my friend's legal and medical costs were almost $500,000, much of which related to refuting the lies), and a little girl having been deprived of her father's care, love and protection for 18 months of the most important developmental stage of her life.

<Hard to know where to start with this overly emotional and rhetorical piece.> OUCH!

<Do you really think the Prime Minister oversees every bit of legislation? She's too busy attacking the High Court!>

<Secondly, there have nor will there be any changes to the notion of lying in the stand. You lie - you go to jail.>

<While one can understand that this is an emotional issue, this article would be better off stating the facts and then drawing inferences from those facts rather than coming out and shot gunning Gillard, single Mums and how ever might be in the way of that shotgun.Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 2 September 2011 12:31:44 PM>

There is a process that happens when certain findings are uncomfortable and unacceptable, then the evidence is ignored and turned around to suit a more comfortable preception.

Just recently there were findings that the airports weren't ripping people off, when in reality there are. The same thing occurs with family law.

Typically mothers can act and behave in ways that if fathers were to do it they would gaoled.

Cheryl:"Do you really think the Prime Minister oversees every bit of legislation? She's too busy attacking the High Court!"

Well, quite. This is McClelland's legislation and just like the legislation for the "Malay Solution", it's designed to pick winners, while pretending the losers aren't important.

Well done Bob...

Cheryl:"Secondly, there have nor will there be any changes to the notion of lying in the stand. You lie - you go to jail."

Actually, this isn't correct, sorry. Domestic violence matters have long had a "consent without admission" provision available to the accused, which begs the question of the evidentiary standard required of the complainant. As these matters frequently arise in Family Court proceedings, such a lack of rigour encourages abuse of Habeus Corpus through lack of punitive action on those who abuse.

The Attorney-General's Amendments make the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" an impossibility for fathers and children if mothers decide to unconscionably act to take advantage of the possibilities of making accusations that will be acted on with no penalty to the accuser if they are found false upon investigation.

They're poorly considered, poorly drafted and they will lead to poor outcomes, but at least the girls who run the ALP behind the scenes will have shown the men of Australia who's boss...

Before Gough Whitlam's family law reforms of 1975 that allowed divorce on the one simplified ground of irretrievable breakdown after a 12mth separation, divorcing parties needed to satisfy the Court as to other suitable grounds for a divorce (adultery etc). This was necessary because it significantly impacted property settlements arising from the divorce. But with the desired court result foremost in the mind of the applicant party, often the allegations made were significantly based on lies, without regard for the truth. The sad fact was that often the only way to 'effectively' compete at Court given these rules of engagement, was for the other party to play the same immoral game with their desired court result foremost in their mind regardless of the truth.

With respect custody matters, the proposed changes described in the 'Fathers Day present from hell' forebode a move back to a situation with similarities to that descibed above. The effect of the Bill will be to deliberately reward the one more inclined to lie convincingly at Court for their own selfish ends. The effect of the Bill will also be to cause the Court to have insufficient regard for parents who are more inclined to act with integrity, and selflessly in the best interests of the children.

Both theory and personal observation affirm the insights in Warwick Marsh’s timely article.

The social role of parenthood is undergirded by essential properties assigned respectively to men and women who become fathers and mothers. ‘Essentialism’ posits a set of fixed universal properties to humankind, dividing into distinct male and female persons. Both genders are needed in the balanced nurture of children. Notably, the highly influential European feminist Luce Irigaray, philosopher, linguist and psychoanalyst, acknowledges essentialism, even if a ‘strategic essentialism’.

Fathers are men, mothers are women, and each gender has unique and necessary characteristics or properties, such as authority, protection and discipline for the father, and meekness, care and maternal love for the mother. While there is some overlap, such predominant characteristics equip fathers and mothers respectively, and each parent is required as a role model and a naturally equipped individual nurturer, provider and guide. Fatherhood and motherhood are a simple extension of how men and women are wired to nurture offspring.

On a personal level, we think of one among many cases where the father figure has been unfairly and unfortunately denied his role. This father of five children has suffered for over six years from the anti-father bias in a custody situation. The younger children particularly miss their Dad. Fathers, faithful to their natural role, deserve greater not lesser equity and access. They deserve it, the children need it

A very emotive piece by Warwick Marsh but little to do with reality and more to do with rabble rousing. Neither of the two cases he cited would be affected in the slightest by the proposed legislation which is concerned primarily with enabling children and young people to actively participate in decision-making processes affecting their lives (their right under International Convention) and to broaden the currently very narrow defintions of domestic violence and the inherent abuse of children. The proposed legislation came about after a series of carefully undertaken research studies of the workings of the Family Law and much discussion about their findings. Such findings were then embodied in the proposed legislation and received 73% approval by public submissions, including those of sensible caring fathers.One of the most influential research studies was that of former Justice Chisholm on domestic violence - is he a well known leader of the feminist movement?.
The reckless comments about fatherlessness does not take into account the harm which may have been done to those young people by fathers, prior to their leaving the household nor the many thousands of successfulk people who have been raised in fatherless households e.g. Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and many others. Warwick Marsh's comments are an unfounded insult to them.
This proposed legislation makes no changes to shared care which remains the principle consideration of Family Courts providing the children's safety and protection are ensured and they have actively participated in the process.

Further to my recent post, I previously heard of a case from Queensland (unrelated to Family Law) where a particular offense was worded such that there was no defense to it. This meant that once you were charged with that particular offense you must be guilty by virtue of the way the offense was worded in the legislation that created the offense. An appeal of a conviction to this offense ultimately led to the offense being struck down as unconstitutional on grounds that there was no defense to it.

It seems that the proposed ‘Bill from hell’ maycreate a situation with similarities to the one described in the previous paragraph. False allegations will be able to be made with impunity, there will be no disincentive from doing so, and less effective ability to adequately defend such allegations. The time pressures the Family Court operates under, will likely cause such cases to largely degenerate into each party creating a list of allegations (true or otherwise), and the Court deciding competing interests primarily on that basis.

It remains to be seen whether even if passed by Parliament, the 'Bill from hell' may be struck down because of the 'unlawful' way the Bill will operate in practice, or how little regard Court decisions will have for the objective best interests of children.

It will be a significant tipping point for the electorate at the next election, if it is not just asylum seekers, but we the current citizens of Australia who need to rely on the High Court to be the umpire of last resort to protect us from the policies of the current government

And just to lay to rest some other myths, there is no evidence from Coronial Inquests of any father who has committed suicide as a consequence of not gaining contact with his children after separation. Who and where are all these fathers who have killed themselves in such circumstances?. Secondly, the rate of deaths of mothers killed by male partners has now risen to 60 per annum and children's deaths at the hands of parents have risen to 20 per annum since the 2006 Shared Parenting laws were introduced. Are you suggesting that more fathers will kill their children if this amendments are passed?. What evidence do you have to make such an assertion?.
The only ones to fear the introduction of these amendments are violent partners and child abusers. Are they the fathers who you are supporting and therefore opposing this legislation?.

The current Prime Minister has very recently said "People are entitled to the facts".

So facts should be given in court, and lies not accepted, and perjury laws upheld.

Similarly, while saying that facts should be available to the people, she has never given out the facts to the public regards what happened to Kevin Rudd.

She has also recently condemed a High Court judge for making "arbitary" decisions, but has said nothing regards the Family Law Court for the endless record of arbitary decisions it has made.

The current Prime Minister is hopeless, and not to be trusted with anything.

What you don't realise is that the pain of the new legislation comes into play way before court.

As a a registered DRP I am required under my code to pick up on claims of violence. A DRP is pressured in our training to STOP mediation immediately and call a halt to the process when this occurs. We are taught to have our ears prick up whenever there is any mention of the word and assume the worst.

Mediation is discontinued and both parties receive a certificate so they can proceed straight to court. What happens then is that the contact is jeapordised as the mother is the one with the kids in her possession. She senses her advantage and proceeds to punish the father for hurt suffered in the relationship by trumping him with the kids.

From there, assisted by a feminist legal and health system, the father has to fight for months, sometimes years on an endless round of penance to gain access to his kids just because he was the male. Some dads don't get to see their kids at all until the court makes its ruling - this is the suicide zone.

According to Australian suicide researchers Dr Chris Cantor and Dr Pierre Baume, men are most vulnerable in the period immediately after separation.
Recent research into male suicide in this age group revealed that males in the 'separation phase' of a marriage break-up were most at risk of suicide, compared with widowed or divorced males... Relationship breakdown is a significant characteristic of male suicide in the 24-39 age bracket. The anxiety and emotional pain of separation and divorce appear to effect men differently. LifeForce, Wesley Mission 2001
Relationship breakdown is a major trigger for male suicide, exacerbated by men's experiences with the family law system. This conclusion was supported by a study involving 15,000 Australians, released this week by the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University, which found relationship breakdown to be the main cause of suicide, with the male risk four times that of females.
The QLD Health Suicide Research Project is a study of some 2600 suicides in QLD for 1990-95. In a sub-group (n=294) that reported on relationship separation and length of time, 73% of suicides occurred within one month of the relationship change.

guys...as a father who lost his daughter to female-interest-only family court, when 6 to 9 fathers were committing suicide everyday...forcing p0arliament to bring in shared parenting amendment2006...its taken women 6years to break it...by producing bogus studies on family violence...women sweet and fathers nasty...whitewash...any reasonable person will know these studies are bogus...still parliament accepts and empowers lies...so what does all this say...

well...the problem is energized X-chromosome...these naturally communicates with other x aiming for dominant power, and have little bonding with y...which expressed as destructive self service...but its going to take a book to explain...but crux of it basically is: eve should have been banished from eden by adam after she ate the apple...all the failings then, with god in direct contact to them...still exists now...so we men have to do what adam failed to do...

this takes an energized Y chromosome...but Ive never seen one to date...so far Y chromosome is dying(google it)...maybe this is the next stage of evolution...like the neanderthals...the suppressed y will evolve out...leaving the energizedY and all Xbanished...

I wish these were the words of a hurt or angry father...buts its applying logic+reason to the facts...the conclusion point to the above constantly...

even communities where X suppression is attempted...like muslim countries...x is still organized waiting for the moment to energize...just watch the middle east...culture will die and skirts will rise...and boys broken by their mothers to obey through as adult...knowledge and `attempts to control destructive x is ancient...just have to accept its not possible...

sam

There are 260,000 fathers of Australian children who evade paying Child Support [Five per cent of them having fled overseas] and who are thereby financially neglecting and abusing approximately 500,000 Australian children and leaving them in poverty and destitution [CSA figures]. It is little wonder that some of those children will become engaged in crime, drug taking, etc which Greg Andresen speaks of. So it is not that fathers are excluded from children's lives by Family Courts or anyone else, but that the vast majority of fathers choose to exclude themselves.
Until of course they are uncovered by the CSA and then use the Shared Care provisions to continue to evade all or part of their financial responsibilities for their children. Thats the real agenda underlying the Sharia Parenting Law and not that fathers have an interest in their children. 500,000 fatherless children living in poverty are far, far greater the the relatively small number who are dealt with under the Sharia Law provisions. It is these 500,000 children we must have most concern about.
WAAM - those suicide studies must have been extremely exclusive as Aborigine males figure most highly in suicide rates, followed by males in the 18 - 25 age group.
"Relationship breakdown is a major trigger for male suicide..." - this has no relevance unless there is a breakdown of how many of those males had children and it was clearly shown that the suicide was linked to separation from those children, not merely from their wife or partner. It is far more likely that the major reason for such male suicides were that they had been dependent on a female to provide for their basic needs and to organise their lives (their mothers and then their wives) and they are suddenly thrust into the world to manage on their own and simply can't cope. Simple statistics such as those WAAMM presents do not provide any indicator of a ny father having committed suicide because he needed his children, as is being implied. This again proves the mythology created around this topic by Father's Rights extremists.

ChazP:"Who cares how many men kill themselves, the only good man is a dead one, especially if he's a father"

thanks for clearing that up, Chaz...

It is claimed by some Father's Rights activists that the reduction in Child Deaths in NSW is somehow linked to the 2006 Family Law Act. On reading the reports of Child Death Review Teams in various States, there seem to be a consensus that "..causes [of child deaths] are drownings in private pools, drownings in natural bodies of water, transport passenger fatalities, pedestrian fatalities, vehicle driver fatalities, asthma, cerebral palsy, congenital malformations, epilepsy, leukaemia, meningococcal disease, pneumonia and deaths due to prematurity.In addition, fatal assault, suicide, sudden unexpected death of infants, and deaths that occur in the context of alcohol and illicit drug use, risk-taking, inadequate supervision, and vulnerability are examined.".
Can those making such clearly absurd statements, show how the above causes of child deaths are in any way linked to the 2006 Family Law Parenting Law.?.

"There are 260,000 fathers of Australian children who evade paying Child Support [Five per cent of them having fled overseas] and who are thereby financially neglecting and abusing approximately 500,000 Australian children and leaving them in poverty and destitution [CSA figures]".

The deception of the Government and the CSA is swallowed by only a few, and ChazP is one of those few.

CS is NOT given to the children - it is given to the other parent usually the mother (mothers are relatively far less likely to pay when the CSA claims on them, so why does ChazP only target fathers? Because the Government does?) to spend as she likes, cigarettes, drugs, pay-tv, her finery all being as acceptable to this Government as the children's needs such as education and sport.

The CS is non-acquitable and is in reality in most cases defacto alimony. The mother is under no obligation to tell the children that the father pays, and the Government won't, so many mothers lie to the children about their fathers' financial contribution to further alienate them from their fathers.

And it gets worse - mothers are now routinely granted CS for adult children who still live with them. Adults who have the right to vote etc, yet mummies-dear are given hand-outs from fathers' hard-earned.

The CSA is an "equal opportunity employer" with 75%+ female staff; it's a joke, a sick anti-father taxpayer money-sucker.

From the CSA publication Facts and Figures 2009

International cases as percentage of active caseload 3.9% Total caseload 768,856

11.7 per cent of paying parents are on a Newstart Allowance.

Over 96 per cent of all child support liabilities since 1988 have either been collected or discharged, representing more than $29 billion.

And most telling of all

$414.5 million (or 38.1 per cent) of overdue child support associated with paying parents who have child support incomes of $12,000 or less. That is 39.2% of the total number of paying parents with arrears. A further 13.7% have an income less than $20,000.

The CSA harasses one set of parents on the dole to pay for another set of parents on the dole. Great outcome folks.

ChazP - "progressively framing the debate" with lies and lurid fantasies...

Waamm,

I know of a case where the mother phoned up the separated father and said that he had to change the tyre of her car because she wanted to use the car.

The father said that he was at work and couldn’t change the tyre.

The mother then said that if he didn’t change the tyre then he wouldn’t be seeing his daughter in the future. The mother could simply deny contact, and it might take the father months or years of legal action for him to even see his daughter once a fortnight.

So we are in a country where a father has to change a tyre of a car, or he won’t be allowed to see his children.

That is the inglorious, dehumanised and wretched state of our feminist society.

Chatz P

I know of a case where the father was looking after the child for 3 weeks out of 4, but still paying the mother full child support.

This situation came about because the mother suddenly got a job that involved shift work, so the father began looking after the child.

However, the father still payed full child support to the mother in case the mother took the child back and denied him any contact.

I also know of numerous situations where the father was paying much more child support than he had to in case the mother denied him contact with his children.

Such issues and situations are rarely mentioned, but should be mentioned and made known to the public, and should become a part of the education of young men about our feminist society.

Warwick you may have missed a part of the picture, I've not found more recent info on this but I suspect that Roger Smith's article ( http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11280 ) ties in strongly with this. Especially the point's he made on page 2

"Recently enacted domestic violence acts in several states are prefaced by the words:"domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children" (eg. s.9 (3) of the NSW Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007).

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) in its far-reaching report Family Violence - A National Legal Response released earlier this month has recommended that similar discriminatory words preface all state and federal laws dealing with domestic violence, including the Family Law Act (see Recommendations 7-2 and 7-3 of its report). "

Add those bit's to a broadening of DV definitions, a reduction in the requirements for evidence, a failure to put in place any safeguards and it becomes and even scarier picture for men with an ex who fights dirty.

L.B.Loveday I think you've misunderstood ChazP, to get a better understanding see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212833 "The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate"

Eg in the most recent claims ChazP ignores the point that discussions around that issue have been directed to the fatal assault category of child deaths and quite specifically not at accidental deaths.

Links to a number of posts I've made on the topics can be found in this post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12153#209514

R0bert

Marsh's usual anti-female preaching only serves to tell us some of the sad stories he has heard involving poor men who have been abandoned by their rabid feminist women, and had their children cruelly ripped from their chests.

What he doesn't seem to say, is if he has also heard (as part of his loving pro-family ministry) from abandoned women who are trying to survive on a single income, with a bunch of kids, and an ex-partner who tries everything in the book to get out of helping pay for his kids upbringing?

What I don't understand, is what these 'Father's groups' actually want to happen?
Marsh wants all of us to live as a family of dad, mum and kiddies, who all live together forever, go to church on Sundays, and live happily ever after.
All very well until one member is unhappy permanently.

Do many of the men in these father's groups want to be permanently shackled to a women they don't love? Forever?

What if the men and the supporters of these radical groups have daughters who grow up and marry or live with a violent or controlling man? Wouldn't they want to protect her and their grandchildren?

I wouldn't mind betting they would be the first to rant and rave about the inadequacies of the family court system if it adversely affected their daughter or grandchildren.

The courts must be given the powers to protect anyone who is being abused or bashed...especially children.
Anyone who doesn't agree with that has obviously got a problem...

"The courts must be given the powers to protect anyone who is being abused or bashed...especially children.
Anyone who doesn't agree with that has obviously got a problem..."

Suzie what about the topic of this article?

Eg changes to the law which will enhance the power of false accusations with no real safety mechanisms in place.

I've not seen anyone arguing against genuine safety, what's being argued against is systems that further open up those posers to abuse.

Take a step back from the standard gender lines, the usual combatants, our shared distaste for the anti-homosexual stance which some are so fond of and have another go at the topic. There is much more to it than you seem to have seen in the response you've given so far.

R0bert

Well RObert, there was much more to this article than the part about
<"...changes to the law which will enhance the power of false accusations with no real safety mechanisms in place."

But ok, I will have a go at how I feel about that too.

At the end of the day, aren't there lies from both mothers and fathers in the few custody disputes that come before the courts?

Surely any change in the rules will equally affect lying fathers, as well as lying mothers?
How can courts decide who is lying anyway, with only one party's word against another?

This area of law must be particularly awful to rule on, with children's wellbeing at stake in many cases, so I can understand how mistakes can be made, and disputes can be nasty.

I do agree, however, that there should be penalties if it is PROVED that someone has lied under oath, especially if children's safety or wellbeing is compromised as a result of that lie.

Suzanonline,
The court does not check on the wellbeing of the child after it has made a decision.

About 90% of the time, the court makes the decision that the mother has custody of the child and the father pays money.

After years of feminist demonisation of men, the father is believed to be abusive, and it is safest that the child goes with the mother.

A certain amount of evidence is also coming to light that many mothers want custody, because they think other women will look down on them or gossip about them if they were not the primary parent.

So the mother has to have sole custody, or else other women will gossip that she is a bad mother.

What an inglorious situation in our feminist society.

Suzie I think that the strength of perceptions about DV being genderised will mean that implementation of the changes is very unlikely to be gender neutral. If proposed changes to the Family Law act which I referred to earlier go ahead then it will be far worse than perceptions.

A good investigation system should be in place to protect all children (and adult's) from ongoing abuse. It should not matter if the parents are in the process of separating or not.

In the context of family law there should be safeguards put in place to ensure that allegations can't be used to gain advantage for the accuser or unreasonably harm the accused. Stuff such as establishing patterns of residency, denying the accused access to finances, housing, clothes, tools needed for work etc.

R0bert

Early in 1975, Senator Lionel Murphy, Attorney General, euphoric veteran of a quixotic storming of ASIO and new champion of divorce Law reforms received a delegation of men and women concerned with the direction his new law was taking. I was one of the delegates.

The man was, as I understood, a mix of Politician and Lawyer in equal parts.

As a Politician he could not entertain that ‘the State and its instruments’ are the aggregate of citizenry and, for this, it or any of its instruments (being people), had no right to interfere with that intimacy of two people that we call ‘family’.

As a Lawyer he could not conceive a relation between two people outside a Law or any other construct of ‘The State’.

Our submission to him consisted in warning that if he proceeded with the ‘elimination of guilt’ without making provisions to safeguard the children of the marriage, the costs of easy divorce would be paid entirely by the children.

Facing that man with the trust of the major of our requests was then, as it is now, facing a person entrenched in untenable convictions.

The proposition to Mr. Lionel Murphy was and remains as follows:

<The State has no place in a consensual union of two adults>

< When a child is born, ‘The State’ must protect the new entity, being it one of its citizens>.

<The spouses, now parents, have hence the duty of care for the child until adulthood>

The propositions between the brackets have the following consequences.

If a dispute between parents or any event conducive to danger were to occur, ‘The State’ must order that the child be removed from the care of the two natural parents and given to the protection of a person in an institution paid in equal parts by the parents.

I am convinced that, as we parents are the ones who contrived and disrupted the family, we and not the child should be made to pay.

I am afraid though that cecity would make this, the only quasi-Solomon justice, unpalatable to both parents and Judges.

RObert, yes I agree, but HOW can judges make sure no one is lying for sure?
Sometimes abuse in a family is not obvious to anyone outside that family. I guess I wont be happy until people who break AVO's after a couple breaks up are dealt with more severely...

Vanka <"The court does not check on the wellbeing of the child after it has made a decision. About 90% of the time, the court makes the decision that the mother has custody of the child and the father pays money."

Really? Are you privy to ALL the child custody dispute reports then?

If the courts decide that children need to reside with the mother 90% of the time, as you claim, then maybe the kids have been found to be better off with the mother 90% of the time?

Are all family court judges feminist women, Vanka?
No?
Then how can all the decisions be the result of all these rabid feminists?

Are all parliamentarians feminist females?
No? (Not even 30% are female).
Then how is there this feminist conspiracy to make laws that assume all separated fathers are violent abusers, and all kids should stay with their mothers?

I think there is more than a little paranoia out there...

suzeonline wrote "Then how is there this feminist conspiracy to make laws that assume all separated fathers are violent abusers, and all kids should stay with their mothers?

I think there is more than a little paranoia out there..."

er...if you said feminocracy(as in image of democracy but actually facism under organized female control...an only female empowerment and continuation of, and protecting it matters...I think thats closer to the truth...no conspiracy here...just look at where money for nothing flows...child support, family support, child care and on...

and I think with time, looking at the trends...all politicians will be paid actors, all judges well trained tools, and whole show run by organized women who have iron control of the government...

so unless you are not a beneficiary of one or all above...then you must be living on a deserted island with no other women to instruct you on living well by approaching the right government department to start the gravy train process...or you know exactly whats going on and hiding behind false incredulous decency...

sam

Suxanonline,
I would think many people are under the illusion that the child would be better off with the mother.

Whether or not this is the case is another matter.

And of course there is mummy's little secret that has now come to light.

There have been more women in Australia paying child support in recent years, and many of these women were paying privately, and not having their child support payments taken out of their wages like most men.

When questions were asked about this, the answer has come out.

The women didn't want anyone to know, including their employer, that they were paying child support.

They thought it too embarasing if someone knew they were paying child support, and the father was looking after the children.

Many mothers also don't want the father to have custody, because other people would think of her as being a bad parent.

Mummy's little secret.

The situation has little to do with the welfare of the child, but more to do with the mother.

Best interests of the mother, with the word "child" being used as a smokescreen.

Though it might be useful to summarise my views on this.

- Child protection in Australia has plenty of scope for improvement.
- That's not just for kid's who's parents happen to be in dispute over residency/property or just lashing out in the hurt of the end of a relationship.
- Parents of both genders harm kids, tell lies, exaggerate or minimise actions. Those are human failings and not gender specific. Increasing the stakes increases the likely hood that people people will behave badly.
- Whatever we do there will be failures, the debate should keep the big picture in mind and not just the exceptions.
- The supporters of the proposed changes have made a point of attacking the shared care changes as increasing the risk to children. If those changes had placed more kids at risk then we should expect to see a notable increase in the numbers and or proportion of kids killed or harmed by fathers (especially in single parent male lead households). That's not been the case.

It's been a campaign based on emotive appeals and selected and isolated incidents whilst ignoring context and examples that don't suit.

It's in my view a clear attempt to provide a back door return to maternal bias, and has little to do with actual child protection.

R0bert

Robert - if you had carefully examined and analysed the statistics on child deaths from fatal assault in NSW you would have seen that the number of such child deaths had been declining since 1995. In the five years ending in the year 2000, there were 75 such child deaths, in the following five years there were 60 such deaths (a decline of 20%), if the numbers of such deaths continue the trend from 2005 to 2010, they will have declined to 48 child deaths. (reduction of approx 18%). So the reductions in child deaths from fatal assault in NSW has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Family Law amendments of 2006. In fact there was an increase in 2008 to 12 and immediately after the introduction of the 2006 Act, but which was against this trend.
You are quite right Robert about the false testimony given in Family Couirts and it not being punished. Alleged child abusers and domestic violence perpetrators blatantly and constantly make FALSE DENIALS, but very safe in the knowledge that such allegations cannot be proven against them for several reasons. Child testimony of abuse, no matter how horrendous, are insufficient, and the Family Courts do not have the POWERS, EXPERTISE, nor RESOURCES to investigate child abuse and domestic violence (Chief Justice Bryant - 2009), and Section 140(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 and the Briginshaw test ensures that paedophiles and other child abusers are very well protected under law, even by civil laws and civil Courts. Furthermore it is so easy in so many cases for lawyers[ICLs], fathers, and various unqualified others to make counter-allegations of mental illness and delusion (see for example Langmeil & Grange 2009) thereby alleging emotional and psychological abuse of the child, and not have to prove such allegations to the Briginshaw standard.
The persons to gain most if this proposed law is not passed are violent assailants of their spouses and partners, abusers of children, paedophiles and other child sex abusers. I would not wish to have that on my conscience, would you?.

R0bert:"Whatever we do there will be failures, the debate should keep the big picture in mind and not just the exceptions. "

Very true. Sadly, there is a lot of effort made by advocates to only mention the extremes. Hardly surprising, since a broader analysis simply doesn't support the picture they're trying to paint for their own cynical reasons.

The Chief Justice of the Family Court was moved recently to say this:

"Raising an allegation or a concern is not the same as proving it to the requisite standard in a court. I can say, however, that contrary to the assertion attributed in the article to Mr Charles Pragnell that "the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities at the extreme end of the scale", that is not the applicable law in Australian family law courts.

Since the 1988 decision of the High Court in M v M, even if a judge cannot find an allegation proved on the balance of probabilities, having regard to its seriousness, the court may still refuse to make an order for contact between a child and a parent if that order would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of abuse. That is because the court is ultimately deciding what is in the best interests of the child, not whether abuse can be proved to have occurred."

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/rights-of-child-supreme-in-abuse-claims-20110822-1j6l6.html

Charles Pragnell is something to do with a Maternal Rights group called "The National Council for Children Post-Separation". The comment the CJ was referring to was:"there are a small number of occasions where the state child protection authorities have intervened and have found the allegations substantiated, but such substantiations have frequently been disregarded by Family Court judges, who see the right to shared care as the principle overriding consideration.''

http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-kids-are-not-all-right-20110816-1iw7l.html

The rather hysterical article was typical of the sort of misinformation peddled by the maternal bias crowd. It's a great shame they have the ear of the ALP via the very powerful Emily's List group.

Perhaps the only effective way to stop either parent from playing the games that go on, is to give custody to the other parent, and that all child support be based on the principle of 50/50, regardless of actual time.

After all if the noncustodial parent had 50/50 or there abouts, that would provied more time for the custodial parent to partake in paid employment.

Robert - this may help you also to better udnerstand what is happening in the Family Law system.
http://safe-at-last.hubpages.com/hub/The-Fine-Art-of-Grooming
Institutional Grooming Defined and Explained
In the context of abuse, grooming refers to actions deliberately undertaken by a perpetrator with the aim of befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a victim. The victim is "prepared" in this way, so they unwittingly allow abusive behavior or exploitation to occur later. The abuser typically befriends or builds a relationship with the victim in order to establish a relationship of trust.
It is not only a perpetrator's victims that are groomed (which would be considered emotional abuse), but the victims' family and friends, the perpetrator's own family and friends, and even public servants and medical professionals (in which case it is purposeful manipulation).
The grooming of doctors, nurses, mental health carers, family support workers and other public servants is called "Institutional Grooming" and the perpetrator does it for the purpose of self-preservation.
Institutional grooming refers to the manipulation of professionals who have contact with the victim, so that any allegations of abuse made by the victim are doubted or outright disbelieved."

I should also add, that whilst Chapz, Suzie, Cherly may add some seemingly valid points, its purpose is to act more as a distraction from the reality that the vast majority of children are not at any risk from their natural fathers.

This also tends to disguise areas of child abuse and neglect that are caused by or contribuited to by the custodial parent.

As RObert writers, there is not doubt there is room for improvement in the Family Court sytem. Much of the policy IMO comes from a desire to protect children who are at risk which sometimes results in an unfair impact on the majority of cases where there is little or no risk.

It is a difficult area and one that I find many commentators rushing to demonise men and women (single mothers) for failures in what is a very difficult area of policy. Who can honestly come up with a completely failsafe and fair system that would not let a few dodgy abusers through the net?

Shared parenting should be the premise from which to start as it would seem the fairest however it is not a one size fits all solution . Shuffling kids between mum to dad over an agreed period does not suit all children and not all age groups particularly if there is breast feeding but there is room to manouvre around those restrictions.

James H

You are corect.

In terms of child abuse, the two most likely sources are indigenous households and single parent households.

- The households most likely to have a history
of ongoing departmental intervention are
Indigenous households (at least one person
identifies as an Aboriginal and/or Torres
Strait Islander person) and single parent
households.

- 40 per cent of Indigenous households have a
history of ongoing departmental intervention
compared to the average of 26 per cent.

- One-third of single parent households – 36 per
cent for single father households and 33 per
cent for single mother households – have a
history of ongoing intervention.

- Two biological parent households are
less likely to have a history of ongoing
departmental intervention, at 23 per cent
compared to 26 per cent of all substantiated
households.

http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/childsafety/about-us/performance/child-protection/report-3-history-of-contact.pdf

From this, the family type to be avoided is indeginous and/or single parent households.

However I have heard of no efforts by this federal government or feminists (is this federal government also feminist?) to get indigenous or other couples married.

Judging by the current Prime Minister (a self-declared feminist), marriage is something not to be valued, and she is not setting a good example by not getting married.

But I have never known a feminist to get anything right.

My problem with Marsh is his proclivity to blame women for all the woes of the Family Court system and his refusal to acknowledge that some fathers do abuse and then lie about it. It is the liars in the process that is the problem. How to discern the truth. What does Marsh suggest we do to protect kids from abuse or worse death in resentful marriage breakups? What is Marsh's solution?

Marsh also constantly blames single mothers with no compassion about why they might find themselves in a 'single's state - perhaps there was domestic violence, dad might be in jail or has run off with the neighbour's wife. All sorts of reasons that does not fit in with his 'evil mothers' mentality. Marsh's use of self-fulfilling statistics to report high crime rates in single parent families does not include any acknowledgment of demographics. The fact is highest crime rates come from those who experience disadvantage, lower educated and poorer families. He ignores economic disadvantage as a relevant factor in crime rates.

Marsh's demonisation of women, single parents (only mothers) and his refusal to acknowedge legitimate reasons for marriage breakdown means I often read his pieces with preconceived expectations which have never yet proven wrong. Any legitimate points he offers about the system's affect on men get lost in his obvious bias against women.

I don't know what changes are being proposed and I will look further into it but one thing I do know is that demonising women and 'saintifying' men is not the way ahead on this really important issue. We just replace one imperfect system for another.

<I will look further into it but one thing I do know is that demonising women and 'saintifying' men is not the way ahead on this really important issue. We just replace one imperfect system for another.Posted by pelican, Sunday, 4 September 2011 10:50:25 AM>

But that is exactly how feminists and feminism has operated over the last few decades, by demonising men and saintifying women.

Some female posters even demonstrate that when their saintly image is challanged, the men are then accused of being 'female haters'.

Pelican

I think it important that opinions from people such as Warwick Marsh are presented.

There is almost no research undertaken into relationships in this country, most likely because feminists control so much of social science research in universities. However, there is a regular survey undertaken by a private organisation here
http://www.relationships.org.au/what-we-do/research/australian-relationships-indicators/relationships-indicator-2011

In regards to reasons for relationship breakdown:

Financial stress 26%
Communication difficulties 25%
Different expectations 23%

Feminists haven’t got it right there, believing that infidelity at 11%, drugs and alcohol at 6%, or abuse at 5% were the main reasons for relationship breakdown.

In regards to what were the best relationships:

Spouse at 53%
De facto partner at 9%.

Feminists haven’t got it right there, believing that de facto relationships are the best relationships.

Our feminist Prime Minister sets an excellent example for a feminist, believing that abuse is the main reason for relationship breakdown, and also believing that de facto relationships are the best type of relationships.

Incredible that live in de facto relationships at 9% were considered to be only slightly better than relationships with friends from a school or university at 6%.

How far off the mark can feminists get?

I always say I won't get involved in these blatantly biased 'discussions' of the rubbish articles written by this annoying bloke.
But I just can't seem to help myself :)

Sam said <"...all politicians will be paid actors, all judges well trained tools, and whole show run by organized women who have iron control of the government..."

Really? Gee, I wish I could believe you about that, but I very much doubt that all these so-called powerful males would allow this 'control'of them, do you?
So what you are saying, is that the only 'real' men are those who are 'in control' of all and everyone around them?
That's just sad...

Pelican, you are a patient woman :)
<"...but one thing I do know is that demonising women and 'saintifying' men is not the way ahead on this really important issue. We just replace one imperfect system for another."

You are certainly right there.

Going back to the terrible system before women were 'allowed' to have equal rights would be awful, but then again, we don't want to see the system tip too far the other way, with the men that we love getting just as hurt, or discriminated against.

theres a reason why the family law court is not a trial by jury affair. Men might actually get a fair hearing if it were. I am appalled to see what so many men go through.Womens liberation used to be the cry when I was a boy. Perhaps its time men banded together to demand their liberation from an increasingly inequitable society.

vanna and JamesH
I don't have any issue with the men's movement's goals to seek fairer arrangements for fathers as regards custody arrangements - this is a no-brainer.

What I dispute is the implication that it is some grand feminist conspiracy or that somehow single mothers (never single fathers) are responsible for societal woes. Do men take no responsibility in these break-ups at all? And what about all the single men - unless a mother is a widow, for each single mother there must be a corresponding single father. It is simple mathematics.

That is my only problem with Marsh. I think the world would be a worse place if we did turn back the clock as suze pointed out where a woman had little legal rights and had to endure ill treatment for the 'sake of the marriage'. And it is also a freedom for men who feel a duty to remain married for the same reasons. It is really an absurd proposition if you think about it.

The men's movement are demonstrating some pretty typical extreme views about women. Apparently it is okay to assert a majority of women lie in child custody cases or lie about rape but heaven forbid someone suggest some men lie about these things too. That would be a feminist conspiracy.

Extremist and hysterical reactions to problems is not the way to go and it has nothing to do with women's saintly status as clearly they never had it nor do any women even here on OLO ever profess to be saintly. That appears to be the domain of men who appear to do no wrong according to authors like Marsh.

How are radical masculinists and there poorly formed assertions about women any better than radical feminists.

Pelican,
Women (and some men) were sold a lie some time ago.

They were sold a lie that marriage was oppressive, and that lie was based on statistics that were later found to be erroneous or purposely altered.

Years later, the social science researchers know that a lie was made, but still try and hide the lie, by rarely carrying out research on marriage, and by trying to hide statistics on de facto relationships.

But, as I have shown in a previous post, statistics on de facto relationships keep slipping out.

I don’t blame women so much, and even out Prime Minister seems to believe the lie, and sets the worst example for women and men.

But fortunately the feminists in universities who were responsible for the lie are gradually losing their jobs as university budgets shrink, and universities can no longer keep liars on staff and pay them a salary.

That’s some good news for father’s day.

Love your work Warwick. The biased Family Court treats men as an impediment to children's development. The law should not be changed!

Family Courts are civil Courts and no one is on trial or charged with any offence. The responsibilities of the Family Court are to determine the care, welfare, safety, and protection of children. Such decisions about children should be based on a `Balance of Probabilities' as they are in the Children's Courts where proceedings regarding the abuse and future protection of children are determined virtually every day. Two different standards of proof in two civil Courts determining similar matters i.e. the safety of children. It is for the police to determine, after the child's safety and care is taken care of, whether or not there is sufficient evidence to bring proceedings in a criminal court. If this did occur, then it would be the right of any person charged with abusing a child to have a trial by jury. Family Courts are confusing these two roles and responsibilities by applying the Evidence Act 1995 Sect.140, just as some contributors here are confusing the two distinctly separate purposes of Family Courts and Criminal courts. Sect 140 is in fact protecting alleged child abusers from being charged and tried in a criminal court by blurring the distinctions between the respective purposes of the two Courts and their respective standards of evidential proof.
In short, the safety and protection of the child must first be ensured, and then if there is sufficient evidence against an alleged offender, bring proceedings in a Criminal Court. There may in most cases be insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges, but enough to need to ensure the safety and protection of a child.

The magazine with the sunday papers have had two articles about fathers and suicide.

"The feminist grand conspiracy"?

Perhaps an early example of female behaviour is the behaviour of those who were involved in the "White Feather Brigade"

<But the public reaction to the distribution of white feathers and women’s attitudes while doing it caused a serious rethinking of that role. Women weren’t supposed to take such joy in sending young Englishmen off to their potential deaths. Nor were they supposed to accost war veterans who had done their part and deserved to live unmolested. But both of these things happened in the public eye and this kind of involvement was no longer an act of patriotism. Never again would women be asked to take up this kind of shaming action, their job would be to support their men, never again to humiliate them.>

The White Feather Brigade was an organisation set up by an Admiral and white feathers were given out by men as well as women. It was an atrocious act but considered 'right' for the times; similarly burning women at the stake as 'witches' just for non-conformist behaviour particularly in highly patriarchial societies and throughout particular periods in history.

vanna
If the Marriage as Oppressive line was so believed, why do most women and men still marry? Only a minority of rad fems make the claim that marriage is an oppressive institution and in the past many marriages were oppressive for women (and for men) as it was difficult to dissolve a marriage without negative reactions from society, from family or from the Church whose influence was much greater. Women who were abused were told 'you made your bed' and when women's refuges were established so women and children could escape domestic violence, those involved were denigrated and dismissed as a threat to marriage. It beggars belief. Do you really think a women should have to ensure risks to physical safety just to save a marriage?

Men and women are equally as capable of bad behaviour and equally as capable of reason and compassion. Why do we continue to accept these anti-women (or anti single-mother) articles as being representative of the truth when all Marsh is doing is spinning his own personal religious agenda. I am beginning to wonder just how many men really think women are inferior and not as deserving of legal protections or opportunties that men have enjoyed for a long time. Men have also benefited from the feminist movement - in many ways it has been a win-win albeit sometimes a slow progression. Sometimes revolutions start to right a wrong and end up benefiting the majority in the end.

I have asked a number of times what some of you believe as regards how societies should be structured. What would your society look like as regards men and women's roles. So far I have not had a response.

Pelican, I've said previously that I have no problem with equality of opportunity for the genders, but the fact is that equality of outcome is not possible, within each gender or across the gender divide.

What I object to is the ever-increasing favouritism shown to women in every aspect of society to try to make the outcomes equal. It is distorting the natural proclivities of men and women to choose different work and different types of lifestyle. It is damaging our nation's productivity in favour of a welfare-mediated mediocrity based on dishonest premises. It is creating generations of children with no family to speak of and all the associated problems that brings.

It is fragmenting our society and it is sucking enormous amounts of productive tax revenue to do so. I realise change is inevitable, but the change we are seeing in Australia today is not good and it's not what the majority of either gender want. Women complain about being "commodified" and yet that is precisely what they have allowed to be done to them in their name.

It's throwing all of the accepted "finer feelings" of men back in our faces to the detriment of everyone. I am not at all sure that if the Titanic was to sink today that there would be many men prepraed to give up their seat in the lifeboat for women. After all, why should they?

'Institutional Grooming Defined and Explained'

Haha.Classic! Oh let me guess all the 'groomers' are male? They must be pretty talented seeing as how they live in a society prejudiced by the general stereotype of male=abuser woman=victim, and all the officials of all the organisations will be prejudiced by such, without even starting on all the PC feminist bent on all legislation. No women groomers in this wonderfully supportive environment around the Family Court of abused women making a difference as 'counsellors' and career feminists looking to make a name for themselves.

'Such decisions about children should be based on a `Balance of Probabilities' '

Wow! That's NEW! I though zero tolerance, and the best interests of the children was the standard cry from Ms Chaz. If you could just save one child... Where there's smoke... How can you alow any risk... Women just don't lie about this stuff...

That'll do me! Balance of probabilities. I like the sound of that much better.

Oooooh. I get it. Balance of probabilities=the butler did it. ie. Smoke=Fire even if the mother is a chain smoker.

Even better I like the sound of...'Family Courts do not have the POWERS, EXPERTISE, nor RESOURCES to investigate child abuse and domestic violence'

Amen. They should. Any accusation of any abuse should be straight in the criminal court, with due powers of investigation and laws against perjury. In the meantime, kids with the state until it all gets sorted out

Special merit to Vanna...

In regards to reasons for relationship breakdown:

Financial stress 26%
Communication difficulties 25%
Different expectations 23%

You would NEVER know that by reading most of the comments on this topic. Why all them mariages that break up are due to them abused woman y'know! Lookin at you too pelican!

PS: It is a common feminist re-painting of history to depict all marriages pre-feminism with a cold, aloof (at best) or abusive (mostly) patriach and a timid scared helpless woman.

Kinda like this...

http://www.redbubble.com/people/bronek/art/393697-dinner-time

Good article by Warwick Marsh. Unjust treatment of fathers in the Family Court is a significant aspect of a fatherless society.
Defence of the family is met with intimidation and distortion.
Miranda Devine's moderate words http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/jack_boot_left_gives_dads_a_kicking/ were twisted to “People in London are rioting because Penny Wong is having a baby". In reality she is not having a baby. There is no relationship between her and the child, who factually has one father and one mother.
It is appalling that a donor father was struck off his daughter’s birth certificate http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/stroke_of_a_pen_cuts_sperm_donors_life_with_his_child/ . Lisa Miller, a natural mother, lost a court case to retain custody of her own daughter from her former Lesbian partner.http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/nov/10110208
Radical activists are unrelenting in an attempt to impose their will on society. SSM activists can not speak for homosexual persons, as radical feminists can speak for women.
Alienation of fathers from their natural role as protectors of the family is gravely detrimental to women and children. Tony Abbott exercised this paternal role when he advised his daughters to maintain chastity before marriage. Julia Gillard labelled this as "a woman's worst nightmare". It is a distorted view to suppose that promotion of promiscuity for girls somehow enhances the status of women!

Houellebecq:"Ms Chaz"

Actually, it's "Mr Chaz Pragnell". Chief Justice Diana Bryant of the High Court doesn't think much of what he's got to say.

The group he's hitched his wagon to since leaving the UK consists of a group of social misfits who share a dislike of traditional masculinity. They come from a common background in women's refuges and women's social advocacy. The most respectable of them is Barbara Holborrow, who can seem reasonable, but is quite fanatical in her ideology.

Pragnell can be summed up by two quotes:"He was a member of an international working party of social workers in child and family services which was set up by the Federation Internationale de Communite' Educative to produce an international Code of Ethical Conduct and Practice Principles for social workers worldwide "

http://www.nccps.org.au/eap/charles_pragnell.html

and

"The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212833

Ethics, anyone?

It is always comforting to read that feminists rule the world and that single mothers are more dangerous to world peace than the weapons industry. Dear Warwick knows what unowned women can do but he is only one man and can't own and control all the women in the world. What a shame, with his credentials of all that religion and all. Maybe if he asked all the woman-hating men who have been abandoned by women for no better reason than their body-odour or tyre-changing ways global female dominance can be eradicated in the name of the Lord (Lord Warwick and his many man minions every ready to subdue the evil of untamed woman - look at what Eve did to her chap when left alone with a snake for a minute). Go guys go you hate them women that will stop the ruling the world. Gr growl hate females.

WOW!. Thank you so very much Antiseptic. "it's "Mr Chaz Pragnell". What a fantastic compliment.!. He is certainly eminently better informed and balanced in his views than you and your buddies on the Sharia Parenting Council, who use dear old grannies as their `Front(wo)men.'. Yes I certainly use and quote Mr. Pragnell's work frequently as it is always so accurately analytical and descriptive of what is occurring in the Family Courts and wider society. Thank you again Antiseptic. I'll now count you as a friend.
Nona Floral - "Alienation of fathers from their natural role as protectors of the family is gravely detrimental to women and children. Tony Abbott exercised this paternal role when he advised his daughters to maintain chastity before marriage.". Excuse me for rolling on the floor laughing uncontrollably. Wherever do you get these outdated and outmoded ideas?. These are throwbacks to Victorian times. Abbott was being an unashamed hypocrit in advising his daughters when he did not apply such old fashioned maxims to himself - Whats good for the Old Gander is good for the Goslings, especially when they are nubile young females.
What is it that women and their children need protecting from?. Sex abuse predators related by blood and marriage?. Its rather like setting the fox to guard the chicken coop, don't ya fink?.

i see the closet communist, corporate paedophiles are at it again, defending the indefencible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZHKCbHGlS0&feature=related personality disorders in dangerous women, caused by fatherlessness.

http://motherandbaby.ninemsn.com.au/family/familytime/8292286/hands-on-dads-smarter-kids

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8291815/sa-woman-guilty-of-pensioners-murder "girls are made of sugar & spice & all things nice"?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8264178/mum-arrested-after-baby-dies-in-microwave who said women are better at cooking than men?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvTGYiwXKZ0&feature=share PAS

No Australian child will be safe until all feMANazis are in Baxter rehabilitation resource.

Charles Pragnell:"Yes I certainly use and quote Mr. Pragnell's work frequently"

Yes you do...

I keep labouring this point: The reason why this legislation will hurt fathers is because 99% of the time when the breakdown in a family occurs the kids are with mummy. So it will now become a race between both parties and who cries “violence” first. So because the kids are with the mother, the father gets the dirty end of the deal having to cajole, beg, pay, litigate and sometimes go outside of the law to have contact with the kids before the big court day which can be years down the track for a good resolution if that. By this time he has made some fundamental errors because of the desperation of the situation and will be punished again with drawn out proceedings involving child psychologists and the like.
We all know why the system is like it is but we also know beforehand who will suffer the most – fatherless children.

Interesting program on the ABC radio today dealt with child neglect.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2011/3307783.htm

Interesting because in Australia the child welfare agencies actually carry out more interventions and prosecutions for child neglect than for child abuse, and according to the guests on this program, child neglect often has a greater effect on children than child abuse.

Odd how I have rarely heard someone from the Family Court speak about child neglect, and never have I heard a university harboured feminist talk about child neglect.

More than likely because child neglect is directly related to poverty in families, which is now so often associated with single parent families, de facto relationships, divorce and fatherless children.

The UK is an example, with about 50% of children born to de facto relationships and more than half of these children will become fatherless by the age of 5, about 30% of all children in the UK are now living in poverty, and about 10% of all children in the UK now suffering child neglect.

The feminist world is a world to fully embrace, if you are an anarchist.

Vanka <"Odd how I have rarely heard someone from the Family Court speak about child neglect, and never have I heard a university harboured feminist talk about child neglect."

Really?
Where are your stats on these outrageous claims?

Have you been privy to all Family Court transcripts?
How may 'university harboured feminists' have you listened to?

Look up this official website about both child neglect and child abuse and see for yourself all the stats that have been collected and collated by your dreaded university graduates:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs1/rs1.html

Suzanonlie,

Those statistics come from The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

They are put together from data collected by the child welfare agencies, not from data collected by the Family Court or from feminists harboured by universities.

Interesting that if emotional abuse and neglect are combined, (and they are in many countries), they are 3 times higher than physical abuse and 5 times higher than sexual abuse.

But of course the Family Law Court and feminists harboured by universities focus on physical abuse and sexual abuse.

As I have said, neglect and probably emotional abuse are mostly associated with child poverty, and the quickest way to child poverty in our society is through de facto relationships, single parent families and fatherless children.

Feminists harboured by universities and the Family Law Court must be proud.

Vanna, Prof Parkinson agrees

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/decline-in-marriage-blamed-for-neglect-20110905-1jubo.html

"'Governments in Australia cannot continue to ignore the reality that two parents tend to provide better outcomes for children than one, and that the most stable, safe and nurturing environment for children is when their parents are, and remain, married to one another,'' the report says."

and
"Among the signs of deteriorating well-being are:

- a tripling since 1998 in the number of children notified for abuse or neglect;

- a doubling in 12 years in the number of children in out-of-home care;

- a 66 per cent rise between 1996-97 and 2005-06 in the rate of hospital admission for self-harm for 12-14 year-olds;

- a rise from 28 to 38 per cent in the rate of female students experiencing unwanted sex,

- a doubling in the rate between 1998-99 and 2005-06 of hospital admission for intoxication for women aged 15-24.

The report says myriad explanations could be offered, including child sexual abuse and family violence. But the main demographic change is the rise in the number of children who by the age of 15 have spent time not living with both biological parents.

About 25 per cent of children born in 1981-85 had either been born to a single mother or experienced parental separation by the age of 15, nearly three times the rate of baby boomers. They had also spent three times as many years living in a stepfamily."

WOW....refining human-nature and the age old thinking's.

Time for refinement in the case of the 21. Thats all the clue:)

The play card of the ( wounded female is getting a bit....we/us wont here with-in laws of LAW its-self.

A BAD female can/and will use the ( Its not me, its him ) I would do the same thing, when knowing the court system, as is.

All humans lie. I have seen it, and I have seen it, and I'll see it, and some.

Females do and will LIE.......Just like males will, and that's why humans try in most cases, and fail! Thats why we have a court of process....

And I know most can play:) sexes:)

Is a female fully taken as trust......and its No more different to the male with he same..........both will and both wont, and will do, in the eyes of the LAW.

Thats why its there:)

cactus

Here's the full summary of the report by Professor Parkinson. He's a real expert who actually knows the Law, being a Professor of the subject.

http://sydney.edu.au/law/news/docs_pdfs_images/2011/Sep/FKS-ResearchReport-Summary.pdf

"There is a canary in the coal mine that provides early warning about the extent of social problems we are facing, and this is in the child protection system. There has been a dramatic increase in the last 15 years in the numbers of children who are reported as being victims of, or at risk of, child abuse or neglect, the numbers of children where that abuse or neglect has been substantiated after investigation, and the total numbers of children in state care."

and
"If one examines only the individual statistics on issues such as the rise in reported abuse and neglect, or the increase in hospitalisation of adolescents for self-harm or alcohol intoxication, then there are a myriad different explanations that might be offered – including attempts to explain away the adverse trends."

and

"While it would be simplistic to posit just one or two explanations, if there is one major demographic change in western societies that can be linked to a large range of adverse consequences for many children and young people, it is the growth in the numbers of children who experience life in a family other than living with their two biological parents, at some point before the age of 15."

and

"Children whose parents live apart are also exposed to a greater number of risks and difficulties than children in intact families. They are significantly more likely to be subject to reports of abuse and neglect than intact families. Two of the most significant reasons for this are the presence of new partners who are not biologically
related to the children, and the financial and other stresses of lone parenthood. Girls in particular are at much greater risk of sexual abuse from the mother’s new partner than from their own father. Single parents, and especially those who are working to support the family, also have less time to monitor and supervise their children."

I agree with those paragraphs taken from Professor Parkinson's report, the greater risks to children come during and after divorce. The best thing for children is for their parents to stay together even if the marriage is not absolutely perfect. However, it is not always possible, especially if there is violence.

It is not the reality and that is what policy concerns itself with by and large. Unless of course, we introduce draconian laws that force people to stay married what is the alternative? It seems we cannot hope that the minority who create problems might mature and grow up and not use their personal resentments against their ex-spouses or children. And that children are put first not last next to the mother or father's next girlfriend/boyfriend.

I note, unlike Warwick Marsh, Professor Parkinson isn't blaming single mothers but the repercussions of divorce. Divorce is the issue and the failure of people to work at it for as long as is feasible. It is not the fault of women or men if their spouses leave them, or if there is mutual agreement about separating.

What if the biological father is abusing the kids and nobody believes the mother because it is assumed to be a bogus claim?

There are bad mothers and bad fathers - the difficulty is protecting children from abuse both emotional and physical during divorce proceedings.

The following paper mentions divorce and other issues like parental drug/alcohol abuse and depression and effects on children particularly in 'early transition to adult roles'.

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/research/socialpolicy/Documents/prp42/sprp_42.pdf

Instead of wasting time on blaming and demonisation which is clearly not assisting these matters why not work out ways to ensure kids are not victims of their parents divorces. How can this be avoided or minimised?

Pelican,
There has been virtually no research undertaken into divorce in this country, even though divorce has such a profound effect on the health and economics of our society.

The last study undertaken on divorce by the Australian Institute of Family Studies was in 1999, and at the time the study was heavily criticised as being biased, and of misusing and corrupting data.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VqQ1mMPKl94J:www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/WP20.html+reasons+for+divorce&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=a

There has been no other study conducted since, (which makes social science even more contemptable), and the closet we have to go as to why people get divorced would be the regular survey conducted by Relationships Australia.

http://www.relationships.org.au/what-we-do/research/australian-relationships-indicators/relationships-indicator-2011

Time after time that survey finds problems such as financial stress and communication problems as the main reasons for relationship breakdown, and reasons such as abuse and alcohol or drugs are hardly relevant at all.

The reasons for divorce or relationship breakdown are basically solvable, and the marriage can be repaired.

But in our society there is a culture of divorce and a culture of belief that marriage is not required anyway.

That culture of belief was mainly spread by feminists within universities, and now society pays the cost of believing it.

Children within the country are also the greatest victims of that feminist misinformation.

I had my ex take my two daughters, 6 and 3, out of the country and out of my life for 1.5 years, then arrange for them never to see the letters I wrote. When I finally linked up they had grown up. They still have not recovered from that. That was back in the bad old 70s, and then came a new era and we men were allowed equal parenting access. I breathed a sigh of relief, but too soon it appears. If you destroy fathers, you destroy families, and the biggest threat to the sort of total control that the left aspires to is the family. Abolition of the common man is their motto. Think of the wonderful posibilities of having a whole generation of fatherless, enraged and violent boys. Then indeed we could have the permanent revolution that was the dream of so many of the old dictators. Hopefully the west will have birth controlled itself out of existence by then.

I second Pelican's request by asking how we stop parents breaking up?

Given that the rest of society can't see into a family's personal life, as a general rule, then we can safely assume that we can't stop some parents not wanting to stay living with each other.

So we must have rules and laws to help these broken families.
We must try to do so in an equitable manner, with all other things being equal.

We all know that the majority of Fathers are good men, and the majority of women in this country would want the best for their close male relatives at least.

So the few bitter men, who may or may not have good reason to be bitter, following a relationship breakdown and a battle in the Family Courts, are in the minority.

Let's not tar all separated/divorced men and women with the same brush...

Pelican and Suzeonline, if you read the report summary, it makes several recommendations on how we help people to stay together.

"Recommendation 1
That to further implement the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children, and promote the emotional wellbeing of children and young people, the Federal Government should provide funding for a major new initiative to help strengthen relationships between couples and to support parent-child relationships. The funding, initially for a four year period, should be used:
a. To assist in the development of education materials and the training of educators to offer relationship education programs in each local area, in
workplaces and in universities.
b. To encourage the development of materials, and the provision of programs, for culturally and linguistically diverse communities, that are off ered in their languages and appropriate to their cultures.
c. To encourage Parents and Citizens’ Associations, community organisations such as Rotary or Lions Clubs, churches, other faith-based communities, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse organisations, gay and lesbian organisations and any other interested group to off er relationship education programs free of charge in their local community or in workplaces, or in universities, utilising trained volunteer educators, or educators paid on a sessional basis."

and

"Recommendation 2
Programs on couple relationships should be off ered both when people begin living together and when they are preparing for marriage. They should explore the benefits to the relationship of making the commitment of marriage, and address issues that arise for blended families and stepfamilies. They should also include material about
domestic violence."

and

"Recommendation 4
Programs on parent-child relationships should address the importance of a healthy relationship between the parents for the wellbeing of children."

and

"Recommendation 5
Programs on parent-child relationships should be developed for the following stages of parenthood, and should aim at involving both mothers and fathers:
• Preparing for childbirth.
• Starting primary school.
• Starting high school.
Programs on parent-child relationships should also be developed specifically for parents without partners who have the primary care of children, for stepfamilies, and for non-resident parents."

Seems pretty sensible to me.

It appears that Professor Parkinson is desperately trying to justify the need for fathers in our society, when a major societal trend is underway. The same paranoid and desperate pleas are apparent in the offerings by several male contributors to this thread as it is in the pleas of the Father's Rights groups. even in their titles. e.g. `Families Need Fathers'.
Most females are now economically independent of males, and are increasingly recognising that they do not need males permanently in their lives, nor do their children, especially if such males are inadequate, insecure, and violent individuals. The vast majority of such females raise their children successfully without male assistance. This must be very frightening for such males as they are no longer needed beyond the act of conception and having now lost the argument that females need them, are turning their attention to trying to make a persuasive argument that their children need them. This is not radical `feminism' as such males would claim, but simply a recognition of a social trend. There is nothing that Professor Parkinson or his band of male sympathisers can do about it. Male fear and paranoia rule, OK!.

Val Kyrie,

Well you display an equivalent level of "dumbness" to all the paranoid males who postulate that the majority of women follow rabid feminist theory.

What happens to your precious "societal trend" when the present teetering economic paradigm falls flat on its face? It's only the in blink of an eye that we're experiencing this "warped" paradigm - it's certainly not sustainable.

Poirot - It is not a `Theory' but the reality of what is happening, why otherwise would Prof Parkinson express his concern about it?. Prof Parkinson's report is wildly biased - where is the study and comments on the many thousands of children who are successfuly raised by single parents and go on to have successful careers?. e.g. Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and many hundreds of thousands more. Patterns of female/male relationships are affected far less by economic events than by `Belief Systems' such as religious brainwashing in Patriarchalism, which Parkinson's views represent. I know these truths are very painful for you to recognise and acknowledge, but it is the present and future reality.
In the words of the Spice Girls, "You'd better shape up".. if you want to be needed.

ChazP,

I'm sorry to pop your bubble, but it "is" our economic paradigm that has given birth to feminist theory and has increasingly loosened the bonds on women. And, what's more our consumer society encourages women to be out there doing her bit for the GDP. These days a woman almost has to defend her decision "not" to send her infant to daycare.
Our community infrastructure has been systematically centralised - so much so, that smaller organic community interaction is, for the most part, absent. Everything depends on the prevailing economic model, and it is a system propelled equally by men as it is women.
Rabid feminism is a symptom of our system - the Western system of rabid consumerism.

Poirot,

I, for one, don't think most women are rabid feminists. As I have said many times, the huge volume of FSC (Feminist Social Commentary) is pretty rabid, one-sided, victim-feminism. I would be surprised if you disagree. There's lots of it on OLO, which makes me question people thinking this site has a right-wing bias.

'Rabid feminism is a symptom of our system - the Western system of rabid consumerism.'

I don't know about a symptom, but I know it wouldn't be possible without the western luxuary of cheap third world Labour and resources.

In the end, I pity people like Val Kyrie are very sad. Just... sad.

Of course so are formersnag and vanna.

Whatever happened to love...

Poirot - Val Kyrie and chapZ are correct. Professor Parkinson is arguing from a reactionary masculinist and defensively Patriarchalist perpsective and not from any kind of `economic paradigm', a term you use to obscure the absence of arguments, rather than to enlighten. It was of course Parkinson who was the major architect of the disastrous 2006 Family Law changes, which took such laws back 150 years to Victorian times. So its not difficult to see where his ideological beliefs are based. And they are not in an `economic paradigm'.

Houellie,

I'm with you, in that I don't believe the majority of women are rabid feminists either....they've just conformed to a particular pattern according to their economic opportunities.

My point to vanna and co has always been that our system, it's upsides and downsides, is propelled along by the spontaneous participation of both genders.

What did ever happen to love? : )

In any fight against paranoid masculinist oppression and its elements of subjugation and subordination to the will of others, suppression of abilities, and denial of equality of opportunities, there are always those who lead and take the flak, while others are more passive but enjoy any benefits which may accrue to them. (e.g. Universal franchise in 1908, property rights, partial equal pay etc). Some are so conditioned into acceptance of their subservience and see no means of resisting, or are oblivious to their subordination, that they comply to the power and control exercised and controlled within society and social groups.
Fortunately the vast majority of males are not paranoid, oppressive masculinists and supremacists and recognise the inequalities and oppressions experienced by females, especially when such paranoid psychopathic control is enforced by violent means. Many such males are angry and appalled at seeing their sisters abused and violated by their male partners, or their wives similarly oppressed and abused by former husbands in Family Court proceedings, and consequently they are supporting the moves to stop such oppression and violence against females. And they recoil in horror at the kind of contemptuous, derogatory, and dehumanising of females apparent earlier in this thread.
Poirot – Love is not enough, especially when it is seen as a weakness and is abused by using it as a control mechanism.

In any fight against paranoid feminist oppression and its elements of subjugation and subordination to the will of others, suppression of abilities, and denial of equality of opportunities, there are always those who lead and take the flak, while others are more passive but enjoy any benefits which may accrue to them.

Some are so conditioned into acceptance of their subservience and see no means of resisting, or are oblivious to their subordination, that they comply to the power and control exercised and controlled within society and social groups.
Fortunately the vast majority of females are not paranoid, oppressive feminists and supremacists and recognise the inequalities and oppressions experienced by both genders, especially when such paranoid psychopathic control is enforced by dishonest means. Many such females are angry and appalled at seeing their brothers abused and violated by their female partners, or their husbands or partners similarly oppressed and abused by former wives in Family Court proceedings, and consequently they are supporting the moves to stop such oppression and violence against males. And they recoil in horror at the kind of contemptuous, derogatory, and dehumanising of males apparent earlier in many feminist writings.

Not perfect but close.
R0bert

“Women’s violence to male partners certainly does exist, but it tends to be very different from that of men towards their female partners; it is far less injurious and less likely to be motivated by attempts to dominate and terrorise the partner" The Law Commission has referred to one study which was significant in its account of what women did not do (but which constituted tactics frequently employed by violent men) - “No husband was threatened with a gun, or chased with knives, axes, broken bottles or by a car. Husbands were not kicked or stamped on, with steel-capped boots or heavy work boots. Strangling or choking were not used. No wife attempted suffocation with a pillow. Husbands were not locked out, confined to particular areas of the house, or isolated from friends. No wife has ever killed her husband insuide Family Court premises or immediately following a Family Court ordered counselling session. Security is not rooutinely required to ensure wives do not behave violently inside Family Court premises”. Butterworth’s Family Law Journal Dec.2004.

How desperately inept Robert. Six year olds respond with "And you too!" when they have no counter argument. Is that what they are teaching you in the Men's Sheds?. A classic demonstration by you of what was said about using, abusing, and misusing information.
However we do thank you for the statistics you provided that,
"Every week in Australia a woman is killed by a male partner", and every month, 7 (seven) males are killed by their best `mates'.

Val Kyrie,
I think men have been taking it quite well really.

Consider the situation where a man is looking after another man's children and providing for them by being a step father, while at the same time he is only allowed to see his own children every second week.

That is becoming very common, but I would think women would be kicking down the doors if they were placed in the same position.

However, I think the feminist attempt at destroying marriage is gradually coming to a close. De facto relationships are gradually being exposed as one of the worst ways to raise children, and the divorce rate in a number of countries is actually declining.

In future years, we will probably look back on the Family Law Court as being the feminist version of something similar to Stalin's purges or the Great Inquistion, a dark and ignomious time in human history, but thankfully something left behind in the history books.

I see that Charles Pragnell and his sock puppets feel very threatened by the possibility that Professor Parkinson's work may lead to an increase in the stability of marital relationships.

Hardly surprising, he makes his money from other people's misery. Of course he wants to maximise it.

Let's not forget that Charles works for a minor and discreditied single-mother advocacy group.

It was a poor call to echo Val Kyrie extremist views back. The point is lost on Val and others like her or him. In their world it's all about nasty men doing the wrong thing.

Beannie Sidhe summed it up for them, changes to Family Law based on a presumption of shared care whose lifespan has coincided with a drop in substantiated child abuse across the country and no apparent rise in the proportion of substantiated abuse occurring in single parent male lead households (despite more children being in those households) is "the disastrous 2006 Family Law changes, which took such laws back 150 years to Victorian times."

The courts will have got it wrong at times, it's a tough job and they are dealing with people at one of the worst times of their lives. The evidence I've seen though suggests that the changes have improved things not made them worse.

We do need better means to investigate allegations but we don't need a return to maternal bias via concocted claims of abuse no matter how much some people think it's about "Mothers and THEIR children".

R0bert

R0bert, mirroring is a potent tool against the sort of extremist stuff that Charles Pragnell, posing as the new users "Val Kyrie" and "Beanne Sidhe" is seeking to promote.

A good test for any statement relating to gender is to transpose the gender terms and see whether the output makes the same sense. If it does, then the whinge is about something other than gender, despite being couched in gendered language.

For example, turning "women bear the children" into "men bear the children" is an obvious nonsense, therefore the first statement is clearly inherently gendered and no amount of sophistry will change that. However, changing "controlling behaviour may include him restricting her access to money" can be easily changed to "controlling behaviour may include her controlling his access to money and make just as much sense, therefore the statement would be better put in non-gendered terms. I think your effort showed that Charles Pragnell and his sock-puppets are making gendered statements out of ungendered subjects, proving that they are no more than shysters. It's also interesting that he had to invent a couple of imaginary friends. Do none of his colleagues support his views? He claims to be a well-regarded professional...

Sounds like pynchme or SJF. You cant buy that kind of amusing parody of a rad-fem undergraduate.

I love it because people always say this kind of character doesn't exist, but they're still out there man. I call them the lost soldiers, running around in the jungle long after the war is won. Shrill doesn't cut it with this stuff. When I hear 'The Patriarchy!' I always hear that old Monty Python 'The Bishop!'

'In any fight against paranoid masculinist oppression and its elements of subjugation and subordination to the will of others, suppression of abilities, and denial of equality of opportunities, there are always those who lead and take the flak, while others are more passive but enjoy any benefits which may accrue to them. (e.g. Universal franchise in 1908, property rights, partial equal pay etc). Some are so conditioned into acceptance of their subservience and see no means of resisting, or are oblivious to their subordination, that they comply to the power and control exercised and controlled within society and social groups.'

See that kind of gear gives me a real chuckle. Bravo! You wont find a better parody.

'In any fight against paranoid masculinist oppression and its elements of subjugation and subordination'

You just cant read that and not laugh.

val kyrie's article on male oppression illustrated something for me. This sort of savage rhetoric cannot be answered with debate. People who are that commtited to something as barking mad as this kind of feminism (or indeed any kind) will simply reply with sneers and put downs and more slabs of libellous rhetoric. It is a real problem, especially when one replaces 'feminist' with 'islamic fundamentalists', 'jihad', etc. I therefore refuse to join in the 'debate' about feminism.
Just a p.s., from a strong women who believes in her rights. Every time a job goes to a woman, another woman, the partner of the man who didnt get the job, loses out by that much. No simple solution to that one, but certainly can't be solved by just giving lots of jobs to the girls. Unless of course you can arrange for men to bear children and breastfeed them. But then most australian men handle a baby in the same style as they do a football.

"But then most australian men handle a baby in the same style as they do a football."

A most unhelpful comment in a debate such as this.

It's always the same. Where is the middle ground? We have created a society that encourages mothers back out into the workforce at the earliest opportunity after childbirth....economic imperatives again.

I'm not in favour of placing very young children into collective care with age peers as there is very little one on one interaction. It's a herd situation where children are denied the appropriate interaction for their age.

All the dads I know are wonderful with their youngsters, balancing the child's world with masculine interaction. I'm assisting an acquaintance next week when he gets the chance (after four years in the legal system) to bring some pressure to bear on his state-hopping wife so he can see his kids again.

There is no one-size-fits-all system that is ever going to satisfy all situations....my dad used to hit my mum and she left him, but I've seen enough of the other side of the coin to dismiss rabid views whichever gender they emanate from.

Right with you, Poirot.

I found that "football" comment exceedingly offensive too.

As for violence and bullying - I was abused by my ex-husband, however have encountered some female bullies in the workplace I'd like to see behind bars with the key thrown away.

That said, it is always the extremists from either sex who cause the most discord and sully any attempt to work through issues that effect everyone of us - even if not directly but our partners, children and other loved ones.

And so the cycle continues.

Poirot:"A most unhelpful comment in a debate such as this."

I dunno, most blokes pride themselves on their ability to control a football. Ball security, for example, is regarded very highly. The quick offload is also well thought of. the key there is to watch for the runner coming up the inside, while appearing to be paying attention to something else entirely.

All in all a highly complimentary expression.

No football fans?

Here's a quote from Charles Pragnell about Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, which seems to contradict his stance on the subject of claims of abuse made by mothers about fathers

"One of the things we were supposed to learn from Cleveland was that social workers should not act on the basis of a medical diagnosis alone,” Pragnell said. “If you look at Munchausen’s cases there is often no corroborative evidence. ”

and

"“If a paediatrician suspects child abuse there is no need to give it a label,” said Pragnell. “It’s for the police and social services to investigate. By pinning the blame on someone the doctor is acting as judge and jury.” "

As anyone following will have noticed, his position on allegations of abuse in the Family Court is that they should be accepted without question, if the mother makes them about the father.

Poor confused chap.

I also wonder whether Charles Pragnell still holds the views he expressed in a piece for The Independent back in 1994

"In the longer term, there is certainly an increasingly powerful argument for a Children's Ombudsman. We must also examine how we assert better and more effective control over the activities of social workers. This could most effectively be done by a system of national registration and discipline where families could take their assertions of misconduct and malpractice, and if these are proven, social workers could be removed from practice."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/torn-from-their-mothers-arms-what-are-social-workers-for-charles-pragnell-considers-some-disturbing-cases-1389422.html

Antiseptic,
I think there has to be a little more background reading before you give support to Professor Parkinson.

For example, he has said the following:

“You've got to be very careful with shared care arrangements under about five-years-old because of the attachments that very young children have to their primary carer. You don't want to have long gaps between the time they see mum. “

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2587963.htm

This use of the term “primary carer” occurs right throughout family law, and it means that the father is viewed as being secondary, and ultimately superfluous within the family.

Indeed, a lesbian mother with no biological connection to a child can now have the natural father’s name taken off the child’s birth certificate and her own name added instead.

The view that the father is secondary or superfluous has been a part of feminist demonisation and denigration of father’s for many years.

It is now a typical bind.

The Professor wants better parenting, but at the same time doesn’t properly acknowledge that the father is a parent and part of the family.

Within feminism, the father is simply someone who pays child support money to the mother.

And of course, they are now trying to use a totally watered down definition of domestic violence, with no penalties for perjury, as an additional means of removing the father from the family.

vanna
What if the mother is still breastfeeding? Do you think the father's rights override this very natural need? Some fathers also believe in 'breast is best' and are happy for the mother to remain the primary carer for a short time. While I agree shared parenting should be the starting point it is also not a one-size fits all. What if there is some anxiety caused with children who suffer from the constant uprooting and moving from house to house. This is particularly so with very young children and sometimes teenagers coping with HSC. It does not mean of course that the mother has to always take primary role in those cases, but shared parenting is not always a quick fix.

There are many ways to work within those restrictions it just takes a bit of creativity and a willingness to put the child first.

Pelican,
A high % of women in Australia do not breastfeed at all, and I think the statistics are that about 50% do not breastfeed past 6 months.

Australia has one of the lowest rates of breastfeeding in the world.

So much is being done to hide mummy's little secret, and to ensure best interests of the mother.

We couldn't have the situation where she is not regarded as being the "primary parent", and is not receiving money from the father or some other man.

It would be too embarasing for the mother if other women where to find out that she is not the "primary parent".

Vanna

You so clearly see children as commodities to be equally split that you have lost any empathy for the well being of children.

I don't care if you respond to my comment - I will NOT be entering into any argument with you.

Ammonite, what's the point of making a post to tell someone you're not going to talk to them?

squeers did something similar to me a week or so ago, in response to a question about philosophy. I have no idea why you'd bother.

vanna I do think that there is plenty of reasons why shared care is not a good plan for very young children. Not just breast feeding but there are developmental issues.

The problem being that residency arrangements put in place for young children can be hard to get changed later if the prime carer does not want change. It's complicated by the ties between residency and property settlement and ongoing handout money. Those issues effect both genders and decisions which they might otherwise make about residency. It's also complicated by the reality that for parents who separate when the kids are young they will be going through the worst turmoil while the kids are young as well. Not the best time to deal with the complex issues involved in shared parenting of young kids.

A fundamentally different approach is needed so that as far as possible the external motivators to fight over residency are removed and parents can get on with arrangements that give all involved the best chance at a good and happy life.

I do think shared care should be the starting point but it can never be a fixed end point, there are too many situations where it does not work or where the harm outweighs the good.

R0bert

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12558#217588
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12558#217605

Hello vanna & antiseptic, all of the feminised metrosexual softies on the loony left always argue the same way as a co-dependent, neurotic woman, when they have NO answers to your logic & facts, they cry foul &/or refuse to continue losing the argument.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/10225424/senator-tells-shoplifting-trial-of-her-depression/

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/odd/10229869/florida-woman-bites-elderly-man-in-vampire-attack/

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8296701/great-grandmother-jailed-for-centrelink-scam

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8296794/us-mother-glued-daughters-hands-to-wall

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8296795/sydney-school-formal-ends-in-a-brawl

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8294677/man-ordered-to-pay-ex-wife-for-lack-of-sex

the evidence of fatherlessness is everywhere & still the closet communist, corporate paedophiles promote the neglect & abuse of children. clearly feMANazism & all loony left politics is an incurable mental illness.

No australian child will be safe until they are all in a secure mental hospital until cured or dead.

Robert,
Remove the words "primary carer" or "primary parent", and re-install the words mother and father.

Also, a woman could be asked in court if she would be embarrassed if others found out that she is paying child support.

If her answer is yes, then most likely she wants custody so that she does not become embarrased.

That now appears to be a major factor.

RObert
Your thoughts marry with mine for the most part.

vanna
Sorry you have lost me completely. Sometimes I really don't know what you are going on about. Mother's little secrets - what secrets? Why would it be shameful to admit paying child support, men don't feel the need to hide it. Most arrangements are now shared care except where ex-spouses have agreed to mutually suitable terms.

Formersnag
I don't think I have ever seen you show any compassion for women in any situation even if she has been abused or mistreated. In your world you only see women as 'bad' men as pure as the driven snow. I hate to break it to you but some men do cheat, lie and even rape. Why should women have to put up with that from radical MasculiNAZIS.

Some of you don't like it when women are displaying independence or being supported or reliant. No win situation really as far as your perception goes. When a man agrees with equal access for women FS does nothing but denigrate and emasculate him.

Your responses really do reveal a lot about your attitude to women and for those reasons I cannot take much of what you say seriously. It is more than just wanting equality for men as well as women as many women have acknowleged men can get a raw deal from the Family Court at times.

What is it you want from women? How do you think families and societies should be structured in your perfect world?

Still waiting for an answer on that one.

Pelican,

Mummy's little secret, is that she doesn't want other women to know that she is not the "primary carer".

Other women might think she is a bad mother.

So, if she is in a position where the father might get custody and the father becomes the "primary carer", then the mother is likely to try all sorts of tricks to get custody.

That is another reason why the term "primary carer" should be dropped from the Family Law system.

It is also a myth that most arrangements are shared parenting.

The system still remains that a father gets every second weekend and half the school holidays with few, if any, questions asked, but if he wants more, he has to spend a lot of money and time in court.

Most allegations of abuse mysteriously arise if the father wants more than every second weekend and half the school holidays.

How not so unusual.

Yes vanna it is clear you think women are no good, they are all liars and men always tell the truth. You need a reality check and some perspective on this.

Of course mothers don't want to be seen as bad mothers. Do men want to be seen as bad fathers? Why all the fuss about these millions of false accusations then? But what has that got to do with who gets primary care? Those decisions are not based on what other people might think?

What term would you use instead of primary carer?

vanna,

I know you think you understand how it is when a woman has a baby - but you don't.

When my son was born, he was almost glued to me. His father, of course, was in his life too but, especially in the early days, its as if mother and child are still one entity. I breastfed him and we were as one. You mightn't like the term "primary carer", but its probably the most appropriate term for the role. It doesn't mean that the father is not involved and bonding. What it does mean is that during babyhood and infancy, Mothers tend to be primarily the nurturers - do you have a problem with that? It seems a natural thing to me that men and women have complementary roles in this area...and it doesn't mean that men are not capable of the nurturing role.

It's not a conspiracy that the one who gives birth is also equipped to feed and nurture her offspring - all mammals have the same capacity.

Poirot,
Yes, terms such as “women and their children” are heavily applied as a part of feminist propaganda, and of course women cannot be without “their” children, because they wouldn’t be a “real woman”.

And of course the mother can't be seen by other women as not having custody, because other women would think she wasn't a "real woman"

Motherhood is now in its worst state ever.

One of the lowest rates of breastfeeding in the world.
One of the highest rates of caesareans in the world.
One of the highest rates of overweight babies being born in the world.
One of the highest rates of childhood obesity and childhood diabetes.
One of the highest rates of childhood depression and mental illness.
One of the highest rates of divorce per 100,000 people in the world.

And then we start to get to the statistics as outlined by Professor Parkinson, such as

“the number of women aged 15-24 hospitalised for acute alcohol intoxication leaping from 46 per 100,000 in 1998-99 to 99 per 100,000 in 2005-06.

“a fourfold increase in chlamydia infections among those aged 10 to 14 in the last decade and a rise from 28 to 38 per cent in girls reporting unwanted sex between 2002 and 2008.

One in four people aged 16-24 has a mental disorder and 6500 children are using anti-depressants.

“a 66 per cent increase in 12 to 14-year-olds being hospitalised as a result of self-harm between 1996 and 2006. There was a 90 per cent rise in the hospitalisation of 15 to 17-year-old girls for self-harm.”

Isn’t motherhood combined with feminism a truly wonderful thing?

Poirot, the issue of maternal/child relationships is made more complex within the Family Law because the amendments that McClelland is trying to ram through give greater recognition to the "primary carer", which is nearly always the mother. Even the Howard FLA, which asserted equality of parental responsibility, gave the "primary carer" precedence in any dispute and an assumption that once a pattern of care was established it should be writ in stone.

That gives unscrupulous lawyers and vindictive mothers an incentive to make maliciously-founded accusations and allegations, since the Court sees the child's relationship with the primary carer as a paramount factor in most cases. It is very hard for a non-primary carer to establish that the best interests of the child run counter to the wishes of the primary carer, especially if there are allegations of abuse or violence, as there so often are, whether true or not.

People like Charles Pragnell and the toxic little group of self-serving misfits he belongs to only make that harder. As he said "the selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate" and he claims to be an "expert witness" for hire. What a nasty joke.

Antiseptic,
I agree.

The term "primary carer" now overrides "best interests of the child".

There is no hope really.

The father cannot do much because he is not the "primary carer", while motherhood slides into an abysmal mess.

And if fathers try to fix this mess, they are being "patriachial".

Best to go to another country to raise a family.

vanna and Antiseptic,

(vanna first)

It can't be helped if mother's and their children have such a relationship. Your sniping comments are always the most unhelpful in these discussions.

Much of what you listed is a direct consequence of this selfish little society we've dreamed up for ourselves in the West.

(Both)

You don't have to tell me that "some" women are diabolical and take advantage of the system. Next week I'm giving testimony in the Family Court on behalf of a male friend who was the "primary carer" before his wife nicked off. She has behaved in most despicable manner and has led him a merry dance all the way along...time for her to pay the piper.

The difference is that I can appreciate both sides of the coin - something which vanna is incapable of.

Poriot,
The jails are filling with fatherless children.
The Children’s Courts are filling with fatherless children.
The drug and alcohol rehabilitation centres are filling with fatherless children.
The mental health clinics are filling with fatherless children.
The public hospitals are filling with fatherless children.
The STD clinics are filling with fatherless children.
And when these children grow older, the Centerlink office’s are filling with fatherless children.

But it has been worth it.

We now have a feminist Prime Minister and a feminist Governor General, with more and more feminist school principles and vice chancellors. Of course we also need more feminists in industry and on government boards.

But no one should mention the fatherless children.

Not good PC in a feminist society.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12558#217630

pelican, don't be ridiculous, i have always shown compassion to genuinely, abused women, as have all the other males on these debates.

i have merely stated that dead beat motherhood is on the rise because of feMANazism, shown examples & stats to prove it as has vanna, antiseptic & all the others.

i am well aware that there are some dead beat men out there, have admitted this repeatedly when explaning that the dead beat women simply outnumber them spectacularly.

the only masculiNAZIS in the world are the Muslims whom everybody on the loony left wants to import more of, while simultaineously demonising ALL men of british & european decent.

i have never said anything negative about women being independent. am still waiting for women to be truly independent of men, because it is impossible. no win situation really as far as your perception goes. according to you, i & all other men who disagree with you, always exagerate, women never do.

i have never denigrated 50/50 shared parenting or any man who supports it.

feMANazis like yourself have grudgingly admitted that a small number of men have "ocasionally" gotten a raw deal in the family court but never that it is common place, which it is.

your responses reveal that you are almost incapable of rehabilitating yourself from the half a century of feMANazi spinganda you have been brain washed with. that does not mean i do not read & understand your comments before i destroy your ILL logic.

i dont hate women, i feel sorry for them, closet communists from the PC, Thought Police trained you to hate yourself as well as men, abuse yourself constantly & blame me for your self inflicted wounds. how sad & pathetic is that?

what do i want from women? same as all the others i guess? partnership & co-operation instead of "cold war" might be nice.

My perfect world? have told you before, promote families instead of promoting divorce.

Well this *is* an interesting thread, though I can’t help wishing – no disrespect to anyone – that there was a wider range of contributors. And OK I’m somewhere between the pot and the kettle in this regard. Maybe the percolator.

I subscribed to Marsh’s newsletter after reading this article, the first helpfully pointing out that said article had attracted a large number of comments, as if that was a success.

So far it’s been a pretty straightforward political debate, with each person putting their perspectives across with an admirable degree of sophistication. As usual I agree with pelican. Polemics don’t get you very far and we might actually be able to reach some sort of solution if we could all simultaneously consider each other’s point of view, warts and all. And, just as under the new legislation there’s no necessary requirement to prove abuse in order to accuse someone of it, I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue against the fact that, given that there exists a cohort of men who feel they have been the subject of false accusations, who are we to doubt what they say? But what disturbs me about the debate is that I'd venture to say the arguments - and the manner of delivery- offered by the sole pro-amendment commentators ChazP and Val Kyrie are I think highly analogous to those you would hear from someone who would make false accusations against their former spouse in a courtroom. That is to say, they are the arguments of psychopaths, or of borderline personality disordered individuals. High time to call them on it methinks.

Antisceptic, I’m not convinced ChazP is Charles Pragnell, unless perhaps from his experience with psychopaths he has learnt to argue like one. However there’s conceivably a connection there somewhere: http://www.nccps.org.au/misc/PSYCHOPATH-AGGRESSORS-IN-THE-FAMILY-LAW-COURTS.html

A realistic outcome will only emanate from a court if all parties make their representations in good faith. The fact that this rarely happens in family law, but that there is so much at stake, is evidence enough that this Amendment is going to disenfranchise a hell of a lot of people

Sam thanks for that link.

For those pondering the dangers of using unsubstantiated allegations to initiate actions in family law a list from the link

the major tactics and ploys of the psychopath are:
- Denial of wrongdoings in the face of clear evidence;
- Refusal to take responsibility for behaviours and actions;
- Minimise the incident and consequences;
- Blame others;
- Misrepresent, fabricate, embellish, and distort information and evidence;
- Minimise all information and evidence regarding wrongdoing;
- Claim victim status alleging the victim was the aggressor;
- Project their own actions and behaviour onto the victim; e.g. she abuses/neglects the children/ she is an alcoholic or drug abuser. This is based on the belief by the psychopath that attack is the best form of defence.

R0bert

Sam Jandwich:"I’m not convinced ChazP is Charles Pragnell"

Oh I am. Perhaps the handle has been taken over in recent times by a hanger-on from the rabid little group he's linked himself with, but read the earlier stuff. It's Pragnell all the way. In fact, the only article "ChazP" has not contributed a comment to on the subject of Family Law is one by Charles Pragnell. Probably felt it was too obvious a link.

If Pragnell wishes to dispute this, I'm happy to debate him here. If GY is amenable it would be possible to check IP addresses, but I somehow doubt he'll want to waste the time on that.

What I find fascinating in this is that I'm making an allegation here. It may or may not be true. Does Charles Pragnell think that my allegation should be accepted without question, as he advocates for allegations made by women in Family Court proceedings? Apparently not, given the amateurish effort at denial when I first raised it...

Formersnag are you quite well. I am not a FemiNAZI as I don't know what you mean by the term. You have never defined it. I don't hate men, I like men. I don't hate myself.

Given you have said you agree with equality and cooperative relationships (most of us do) what is it you don't like about feminism. Is it tied in with Family Court matters? That seems to be the experience of the most anti-women posters on OLO at least.

If you really believe that all feminists need to be killed as in one of your previous posts (along with non-existent Communists) there is probably no point in continuing a discussion with you. I don't talk to terrorists who wish to confine the rights of free speech only to those who agree with them and proclaim death on anybody who disagrees.

Not the sort of world I want to live in thanks.

Looks like the Liberal Party is not that into fathers having denied Craig Thomson leave to be at the birth of his first child. The LNP obviously thinks fatherhood is not important.

It was only after pressure they conceded to find a pair to match Thomson's absence.