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.