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.>