Robert, I feel for you. Taking marriage vows seriously is one of the reasons many people, both men and women give for not giving up on a marriage at the first few signs of violence. Then suddenly you find yourself in a pretty awful situation. I know I did.

What everybody who goes before the courts needs to remember is that our Common Law is adverserial. The judge doesn't now Arthur from Martha, does know that a breakup that requires the court is acrimonious, that, if not both, at least one party hates the other's guts and wants validation that they are right and the other wrong and figures that at least one side if not both wants the other to suffer and lose big time. The judge knows that both of you want to win. Tell the judge only about yourself and how you are going to support your children.

Foxy, I agree that society is complicit in condoning all kinds of violence. Real and implied. Starting with that it is acceptable to not just smack children, but to actually beat them. It's the first lesson learned, that as long as you are bigger and stronger you can force another to do something.

And another of my big hates is the "Wait till your father comes home/hears about this". What a disgusting message. It is wrong on so many fronts. The main being that men are to be afraid of and have permission to be violent.

And anybody else get shocked sometimes by the language or threats, in public, that is directed at children? You can only wonder what happens behind closed doors. I wish there was a campaign on how other adults could diffuse this without a parent 'losing face', but being made aware this is not acceptable.

Children are not a different species, they are human adults in training. It is Child see, Adult do. It is as simple as that really.

yvonne,

Most divorces are initiated by women so they must feel pretty secure in the knowledge that they will get a good hearing at the Family court. Men on the other hand are trapped in unhappy marriages because they know they will lose everything if it goes to court.

"And another of my big hates is the "Wait till your father comes home/hears about this". What a disgusting message. It is wrong on so many fronts. The main being that men are to be afraid of and have permission to be violent."

You need to move past 50s stereotypes. Men haven't been like that for decades. There are plenty of violent women around too. Not just physically but psychologically too. Women will psychologically destroy their opponent, often without mercy. Often it will be passive aggressive, even by doing things as simple as excluding other women.

What rubbish Dane.

The family laws say that property and child custody is now supposed to be 50/50.

However, my sister just got divorced (no kids) and she got only 30% of the marital assets because she was too scared of him to fight the matter.
So it doesn't always go the woman's way at all!

dane "You need to move past 50s stereotypes. Men haven't been like that for decades"

I think you completely missed Yvonnes point. It's a line that was certainly in use during my time as a parent of a young child. I hated it to, a no win scenario as a parent trying hard to work with the other and not wanting to be alienated from the child.

R0bert

Robert,
The line was valid but some time ago. In many families it is the mother who is the disciplinarian not the father. It has been a long time since the father was seen as head of the family. Thats not say there are no families where men are 'old fashioned' but the tired old 50s stereotype is just no longer valid. I know many couples where the females makes all the important decisions. Feminists will never admit it but we are really a matriarchy with a few token males in senior positions. For a patriarchy you need to go to the middle east, africa or asia.

This is just another area where Feminism fails, this idea that "that was then, this is now", it's pure BS, a fantasy.
In the "olden days" the head of the household was the person who had all the LEGAL responsibilities and it was usually the husband or oldest male member of the family.
So even if the man was the most timid, henpecked creature who handed over his paypacket each week and had no control over the family finances he was still solely responsible for any debts or fines his wife might accrue and he could end up in prison if he couldn't come up with the money.
Feminists promote this idea of all men of past eras being these strutting, barrel chested figures with handlebar moustaches who'd have women swooning and fawning over them and submitting to their every whim.
As with everything in Feminist land it's a fantasy, you can read accounts of what it was like to work in a factory, in a mine or on the land 100 years ago, about how the physically smaller and less robust men would basically fall through the front door at night and have to be bathed, spoon fed and put to bed by their wives and daughters. I read one interview with a woman who described her father who was a frail, skinny man being so tired at the end of his shift in a foundry he would be unable to speak, they'd have to strip and bath him, sometimes spoon feed him his dinner and put him to bed, then it was up at dawn to do the whole thing again.