HowardBeale <"Please desist from beclowning yourself.
It's really embarrassing especially after the truth has been pointed out to you."

Charming again.
Whose 'truth' has been pointed out to me?
Yours?
Who says your truth is correct for all?

You can only speak for your own bitter experience, just as I can.
I am embarrassed for you, and a little saddened at the utter hatred you seem to have towards everyone.

I realise some family court battles are bitter, and I'm sure all parties feel aggrieved.
Luckily, these battles seem to be in the minority.
We all want the best for our kids, but after a bitter separation, not everyone can have their way unfortunately

connie2 said
>>Warwick, the supreme irony is however to be seen maybe when all the boat people take over, rescue us from ourselves, and circumcise our grand-daughters in twenty-sixty. We'll still be able to recognise Julia in a burqa however with those prominent physical features. To all and sundry, I hope you've been practising saying your "Allah is Great" if you wish to go on living. Study history all you ignoramuses! Otherwise, read Enoch Powell's speech of 20th April, 1968.<<

Pericles said
>>Connie2 perfect summary of the thread... Boatpeople invasion, female circumcisions, Sharia Law, Enoch Powell...<<

Howard Beale said
>>Are you medicated, because it doesn't seem to be working.
But do keep making shite up though, perhaps you'll be offered a job in the PM's office.<<

Epic fail. Insults instead of rebuttals speak volumes about your debating skills. Especially when those insults are groundless.

>>Please desist from beclowning yourself.<<

Cheers,

Tony

Good gracious.

I think I can see what Warwick is getting at: he is essentially lamenting the fact that traditional, and not so traditional notions of masculinity are currently devalued. OK, that's relatively uncontroversial.

However the ensuing commentary seems to me to be a pretty clear indication that the way he has gone about framing his argument - through appeal to its alleged effects on family relations - has somewhat exceeded many people's ability to talk about it sensibly.

There are so many complicating factors surrounding Herr Marsh's application of his core contention, and so many people with dire emotional investments in the consequences of it, that this discussion has somewhat fascinatingly descended into a parody of itself - and I'd be really interested to know what people will make of it 2000 years from now, if it survives that long.

But I think that's a shame, because fundamentally I agree with what Warwick is saying. I do think it's eminently arguable that the positive qualities of masculinity have been inappropriately devalued, and even that this can be seen to manifest in imbalances in family law and notions of gender roles, parenting, domestic violence etc, to the detriment of us all.

But I don't agree with his analysis of the way this has occured, nor of what its implications are - and in fact I would go so far as to say it's hardly surprising, looking at the fractured, undignified, incompetent arguments that are being advanced here, since it rather clarifies that men who care about this stuff are obviously in no fit state to contribute to the debates.

So come on fellas, get yourselves together. Learn some integrity and responsibility for yourselves, and drink a cup of cement and harden the schluck up. If you want respect, then you're going to have to get off your arses and earn it - because you clearly don't deserve it at the moment.

Oh for the 'wisdom of Solomon'.

As great as the love of a man for a woman may be it is slight in comparison with the true love of a woman for a man. It is certain that a man must do much and be unwavering to win and maintain the love of a woman - and so attain the ultimate relationship, the blessed union (in practical, as well as possibly in 'spiritual' terms). But we so often hedge around our foundational motivations and deepest aspirations, and settle for less, as players in some 'real life' video game - deceived and manipulated by a constructed scenario full of false leads and enticing diversions. The material world overshadowing what is truly meaningful and inspirational.

Throughout history man has constructed rules and prescriptions to a greater or lesser extent to closet or regulate female freedoms, as though this could somehow enforce an 'illusion' of the ideal, of a steadfast partnership between man and woman. How dismal, how pathetic, and yet how understandable - given a natural motivation for woman to be attracted to the strongest male, to the best provider and protector, and given the huge changes in circumstance, occupation and environment encountered in the relatively minute span of 'human' existence, from hunter-gatherer to Wall Street banker in a literal blink of an eye, from stone tools to iPad4.

Constructed rules have failed, and will continue to fail to overcome the failure of man to understand and fully appreciate the evolved role and psyche of woman - and the adaptation of woman to man's failure to keep pace has generated even greater confusion. A new paradigm is at hand, in the ascension of woman, and both man and woman will have to learn or relearn the true meaning of love and loving expectations in this new and confusing world.

Warwick's "Gay Hate Truck" lands itself in hot water.

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2012/03/20/hate-truck-in-hot-water/74445

Quote: "The photographer behind an image used in the signage of the now infamous ‘gay hate truck’ has sought legal representation to contest the use of his image in the campaign.

Danish photographer Yuri Arcurs licenses his work through stock photo website Fotolia.com and said the use of the image by truck organisers breaches its licensing agreement.

One of the terms and conditions of the site’s image licensing clearly stipulates that photos may not be used in connection with anything that would “imply that the creator of the work, or the persons appearing in the work, endorse any political, economic or other opinion-based movements or parties”.

Arcurs was unaware that the image, which shows an older man embracing a male child, was being used in the ‘Queensland Election Prayer Rally Tour’, organised by failed Christian Democrat candidate Peter Madden and The Fatherhood Foundation’s Warwick Marsh, until contacted by the Star Observer.

He agreed that it clearly breached the licensing agreement.

“The image is mine, and there are strict rules regarding the use of stock photography for campaigns like this,” he said.

“It’s a very strong political message to send, and as the models on the image might not agree with the statements made in the campaign, this would not be considered legal use of the images.”

Arcurs said he’d contacted his legal representatives to follow up on the improper use of the image."

An article by Dr Baskerville provides some disturbing insights into the social policy objectives of our feminist dominated Government in particular with regard to fathers.
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_16_03_2_baskerville.pdf

Ms Gillard is socially engineering CEDAW - The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (not men) - which codifies a 1970’s radical feminist "anti-family" ideology as official doctrine & tool for dismantling the Australian patriarchy.

Releasing those aged provisions in 21st-century Australia is strange at best, and at worst they could seriously compromise the privacy, well-being, and basic freedoms of all Australians. Indeed CEDAW implemented as law effectively gives feminist organizations a license to litigate, re-educate, re-socialize and even persecute their fellow citizens, including women, into compliance.

It calls for the eradication of “any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms”(Art.10c) and especially those gender stereotypes that associate women with care giving and motherhood.

page 8 "CEDAW prohibits making distinctions between the roles of mother and father, and teaching a traditional understanding of the family"...

Schools teach our children they can get along just as well with two mothers or two fathers, and any attempt to show otherwise is considered discrimination against women. Religious references erased from textbooks and chaplains removed.
Australian Passports degenderise parents as parent1 and parent2.

Careerism becomes the primary family policy.(CEDAW Art.11[2][e]) requires the State (taxpayers) to fund the establishment and development of a network of child-care facilities and necessary supporting social services.

Gillard's Family Violence (sole custody) amendments to the Family Law Act are designed to increase divorce while making it impossible for fathers to share in the care of their children after separation.

Feminist Guidelines are manufactured that demand primary attachment of children to mothers and exclude fathers from having overnights with their children under 4.

$2BN has been allocated to social workers & 19-40% pay increases to carers for the collectivization of child rearing and institutionalized child care of pre-school children of divorced/single mothers as they are forced back into the workforce after paid maternity leave. Stay at home mums are discriminated against.