jardine,

A while ago there was this meme going around where a woman would say to her husband, 'you're HEARING me but not LISTENING'. To translate this for us poor males who say what we mean, this meant, you're hearing me but I'm not getting my way'.

Leftists employ a similar use of language. As you picked up, 'complex' in Left-talk actually does have a very complex meaning (for us simple minded straight talking males). It means, 'I have no logical reason for my position; it is based on ideology and my feeling that I have done something good rather than actually doing something good'.

So then if you expand welfare and create a cycle of dependence (with all the social implications) then you can still feel good about yourself. You can 'feel' that you have helped the disadvantaged rather than being the big bad 'man' who takes decisions which people may not like but will be in everyone's long term best interests (that would be as opposed to the best interests of the child i.e. the interests of the mother).

Remote indigeneous communities are at the extreme end of this spectrum (the Left has done so much damage to aboriginals).

It is no coincidence that as the franchise was expanded from a narrow set of gentrified males to all males and SHORTLY after all females the political spectrum swung to the left. Much of that was fair and understandable. But it's also no surprise that women tend to vote Labor in slightly higher numbers than men. Labor, of course, is the party of re-distribution.

All you amateur anthropologists should surely realise that tribes are highly regulated groups often with very supressive rules and laws. Some of you obviously don't.

As a society, the 'Australian Tribe' of predominately Causasian people of Anglo or Euro descent was once bound by a set of common values which kept people in a relatively well ordered existance - for better or worse. Generally this worked for the greater good. People flouting these values usually suffered 'applied disapproval' from the compliant herd. For instance - it was expected that children would be born in wedlock and barring exceptional circumstances be raised by both parents. A Mothers role was nurturer, Fathers the provider. If you went against this value, social condemnation was severe - not only for the mother but also the child labeled a bastard. Children born thus were more often than not, adopted within the family circle (ie passed off as the child of the grandmother) or externally. All in all, the status quo was usually maintained.

This aspect of 'tribalism' has now been replaced by 'individualism', far greater freedom of choices and a relaxation of old rules of conduct. What some people don't seem to understand is that with increasing personal freedom comes increased personal RESPONSIBILITY.

OK - this will no doubt be labeled sexist but short of rape, it really is the final decision of the female whether or not to proceed with intercourse. This does not absolve the male, I merely maintain her responsibility in this matter is greater - especially in the context of a casual or uncommitted relationship. She, after all, is the one who will be left with a bellyful, birth and child in the event of conception. The male may chose to be involved - or not. After all the notion of 'facing the music' aka taking ownership of the consequences of one's behaviour is so outdated and it's no longer a societal expectation.

Continued ..

How has this, in part, come about? Because Governments, advised by Social Engineers decided to take on the responsibility of supporting children outside the two parent unit while the same people advocated self expression, free love, no fault divorce and generally a rejection of many of the values based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

So without actually looking for statistics I'm sure no-one will bother to argue that the number of children: a)born out of wedlock b) born to mothers without a committed partner c) born into families where there is one or more half siblings d)living with a step-parent e)suffering either poverty, neglect, abuse, disadvantage or combination of some or all of these has increased dramatically in the past 40 years and continues to grow. And with this the number of societal problems.

Not only has Government policy supported this trend, it has developed it into a monster demanding constantly to be fed.

Yes - as a Society we MUST support the weak and vulnerable. Children don't ask to be born. On the other hand - the incentives for women to have babies without partners must be curtailed. The incentives for couples to stay together should be increased. Under 18s, CHILDREN, having babies should have care but not custody of the child nor recieve any money from the State. That should be managed by a parent or guardian. If the CHILD is unable or incapable, the infant should be adopted - in its best interests. Instead of congratulating the 19 year old and her BF of 2 months on her pregnancy they should be censured. In other words the pendulum needs to slip back towards that area where people are expected to act responsibly and face their responsibilities.

I absolutely guarantee there would be far fewer 'deadbeat' Dads AND Mums or kids getting into all sorts of strife. Welfare would be for the widows and widowers, the parents whose relationships broke down through no fault of their own or despite best efforts and while providing adequate support, would concentrate on helping families achieve independance. Wouldn't THAT be nice!!

Divine_msn, there is a lot in what you say. But governments act when we the electorate push them into it — unless there is an external crisis. I don't see much sign of the electorate doing more than moan about this issue, do you?

"Despots and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law . . . economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics." Ludwig von Mises.

Don
Your comment is invalidated by the fallacy of conceptual realism that invalidates all your comments on this subject. "We" are not a decision-making entity. In fact, our system of government provides no evidence whatsoever that even a majority of the electorate favour any given act of government, let alone "society": http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/ The truth is the opposite of your assumption, which you have made because you have erroneously confounded society with the State, and the State with society.

divine,
An excellent post. It reflects the 'best interests of society' rather than the 'best interests of the child' which in reality means 'the best interests of the mother and bugger society, males and the kids'.

don,
The electorate would love to do more than moan about it. In fact many groups do. however, they are drowned out by mostly government funded single interest groups. Pressure groups served a useful purpose when they first came about in the 60s and 70s but since then they have morphed into a malicious blight on society. They are willing to lie and distort facts or the truth in order to fulfil their agenda at whatever cost to the rest of the community. I would say it is not 'democracy' that is the problem but rather democracy has been hijacked (and I would include some business groups here too.

Let's hope that the first thing Abbott does is de-fund all these sectional interests.