exellent

It becomes difficult to form an opinion regards some social issue when there are gender biased viewpoints being put forward. This article starts with the following “There is no doubt that women find it hard to mix paid work in with their mothering”.

A less gender-biased, and perhaps more accurate statement would be “There is no doubt that fathers and mothers find it hard to mix paid work in with their parenting”.

Because the article starts in such a gender-biased way it becomes difficult to regard the rest of the article seriously. Should all attention, money, or resources just be given to mothers?

I don’t think so.

Timkins -

I agree with your call for more resources for parents all round. But, your assumption that a writer can cover all bases within an opinion article means you are unfair in your call for Tracey to be less gender biased.

This is a well articulated piece that hooks a current poltical situation with a broader issue of importance to many women.

I think we first need to call on men to start addressing their own actions and attitudes before we ask for more resources.

Studies are demonstarting men have still very poor take up rates for family friendly work conditions. Men might be right on the rhetoric, but on the whole are not even making use of the policy as it currently stands.

For a more detailed opinion:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2947

cheers,

I agree with all three writers that this is an area of concern for everyone. The article however was written by a woman regarding a particular problem and how it impacts upon her and her friends and colleagues who are also women. She has children, so do they. Women who have children are called mothers. Not fathers. I agree with Daniel's comments to Timkins who I feel is being rather unfair. This piece is underpinned by the writer's own particular experiences which are those of a mother. That isn't a demonstration of bias but of fact. To even up the balance Timkins, perhaps you could write a piece concerning the same subject and how it has impacted upon you and other fathers? I think that the more mothers/fathers, men/women relate their personal experiences of general problems the more we can gain understanding, tolerance and connectedness between the genders.

In a non-biased society, a writer should be considering both genders, and not just one. I have seen literally hundreds of articles similar to this one, and normally it leads to biased and distorted opinions being formed. Eventually someone who may be in need is overlooked.

It should not be a case of one writer writing an article about one gender, and then another writer having to write an article about the other gender, so as to present the other gender’s viewpoint. That can go on forever.

The writer should have researched “both” mothers and fathers, and written an article on “both” to avoid distorted opinions being formed. That is called journalistic integrity, and I agree with journalistic integrity.

Timkins -

That would be fine if writer's for onlineopinion.com.au were journalists. Very few actually are.

While opinion writing should attempt to address a variety of aspects of an argument, most people writing them are not trying to give a balanced view. If you want a balanced view, perhaps you should read the Guardian Weekly website.

An opinion writer is under no obligation to address the broadest possible issues. Actually, the more specific the argument the better the piece usually is.

You obviously have strong views about the need to represent fathers in the debate about parenting and families. I do to. I find the most constructive thing to do is to keep presenting the issues I feel are important, rather than criticising someone else for not presenting a viewpoint I think should be presented.

cheers.

Daniel,

I have strong views about fairness and democracy and non-biased reporting in the media. I don’t care who writes a media article as long as it is fair to all concerned.

In the case of this article, the writer wants the reader to believe that working mothers are in need of some type of extra attention or resources, but resources are not infinite. Is an average mother in greater need than a father, or an elderly person, or a person who is physically or mentally handicapped, or a child? Many of these people would not be capable of writing articles in support of themselves, and so their voice is not heard.

In the case of fathers, their voice has not been heard in social science issues for many years, as most social science research has not taken them into much consideration when carrying out its research. This was finally acknowledged last year by the AIFS in a staff paper titled “ “Researching Fathers :- Back to Basics”

Quote
“Fathers are overlooked in many areas of research. In the divorce literature, for instance, much of what we know about fathers comes from talking with mothers. The same is true of fertility research, and of research about caring for children. Yet we know that men and women often have quite different views and experiences.”

“In recent years, increasing research attention is being paid to fathers. In Australia, small pockets of research exist but the gaps in our knowledge remain large and fundamental.”
End of Quote

The AIFS and various other research organisations are only just starting to properly research fathers, but who knows if the voice of other groups in society (such as the elderly etc )have not been adequately heard either.

Writters such as Tracey Crisp could easily have done more research, and if she had journalistic integrity, then she should have made much more of an attempt at writing a non-biased article. If writers don’t want to do this, then they should only post their articles onto web-sites that advertise themselves as being blatantly biased in some way, or they should make quite unequivocally clear to the reader, that their article is going to be biased, and not try and hide that bias.

If you want more honesty in the world, then having more honesty in the media would be a very good place to start.

Timkins, ****GENERALLY**** speaking women are the primary care givers to children. *****GENERALLY**** speaking it's women who stay at home to look after the baby, for the first few months at least (preferably so, as men can't breast feed, no ****GENERALLY**** required).

I've never had a conversation with a man angsting over whether he should stay home with the child or continue working or how his future career prospects have been affected now he has children. ****GENERALLY**** speaking it is the woman who is faced with these issues. If you are a man in this position then I would have thought you would have been sympathetic with the article, instead of worrying about symantics. The problem most men face in this situation is more emotional than practical. I know in my own situation (We have 2 children)I felt that I had no say in a matter that would have a direct effect upon my children. (Mind you it never entered my mind for me to stay home and mind the kids).

It's a bit much to have a chop at the female author speaking from a female perspective about a subject that affects relatively few men, but the vast majority of women.

Having said that I'm glad to see you've finally found some common ground with the feminists. You both seem to share a distinct hatred of "gender bias".

Dear Timkins -

Again. You make very relevant points in regards to the lack of research around men as fathers and their role in families. I agree with much of what you say.

My personal view is the continual men vs women approach to such issues is usless and believe a 'partnership movement' is a much more productive social model.

But, you still missed my point.

Tracy's piece is not an article. It is an opinion piece. It is supposed to argue a point, not present all the arguments and issues. Opinions are biased. Read other pieces on this site, you'll find few that do not have bias in them.

You can disagree with Tracy's argument - but you can not ask her to be less biased? She is arguing her point, not reporting on an issue.

Yes, some are more informative than others. But, if it is news and facts you desire - continue reading the AIFS website and similar publications.

cheers,

Tracey Crisp's article is great BECAUSE it is honest. And it reflects the choices of this generation. How anyone can malign this author (ie Timkins) for presenting an relevant issue from a first person perspective is beyond me. But Timkins of all your rants, I believe you have made an important point and incredibly, I agree with you on one aspect ... Germaine Greer talked at length of the nature of domesticity or the myth of 'women's work' and what a con it was. Used as a reference point was the story of the bloke who challenged the claim that all housework was women's work back in the 60s because of his disbelief that it could expand to fill the available day and be considered unpaid labour. So he spent a week at home and cleaned. In half the average time. So I challenge you Timkins and all the other men who staunchly disagree that child-rearing is only women's work, to spend a week, a month, a year! at home whilst forgoing your career, and take the place of the primary carer, and then write to women and tell them how much you easier you have found it. Debunk the myth first hand.

On your point about there not being enough male-related research on this issue, well, as a researcher, I can vouch that it's more a matter of not being able to find a big enough sample of men who stay at home as primary or part-time carers. They're all working on their careers.

Tracy, you say, "I’ll always know it wasn’t my decision to have children which stopped me from becoming leader of the ALP."

Your life is not over yet, although with the craft box and the gingerbread, it might sometimes be hard to imagine a future without the responsibilities of children. But that time will arrive, and when it does, I hope that you reconsider your mother's dream that one day you will be leader of the ALP. Don't only strive to be the first woman leader, Tracey, be the first grandmother to lead this country!

Take a good look at some of the younger party hacks who are currently occupying seats in parliament, and tell me that you could not do better, as an older and more experienced woman who has done the hard yakka both in the domestic sphere and at the coalface.

Women live longer than men, so you have more time to work at winning a seat, and climbing to the top. Start now, Tracey, so are ready at the birth of your first grandchild to make your run.

Daniel,

I am fully aware of the spin of the article, and there are literally hundreds of similar articles being churned out right now for various publications or media sites. When so many similar articles are being produced that show a narrow and biased view-point, it is called propaganda, and it becomes a form of public brain-washing.

Should it be allowed?. With journalist integrity, no.

Cranky and Audrey,
Feminism is based almost entirely on gender bias and propaganda. The greatest opponents of feminism in the US are now women. There are very large women’s groups that are strongly opposed to the feminist movement because they have seen the damage it has done to families, to society and to women themselves. For just one example see
http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5435&department=BLI&categoryid=commentary

I will be asking for you to thoroughly read this example article in the provided link,(that was written by a well qualified woman), to get a full understanding of feminism and what it has done to societies. I also will be asking you to not be making any further insinuations regards myself, or be purposely misinterpreting what I have said.

Audrey
You have been given the opportunity of giving suggested solutions to problems such as the problems of IVF and adoption in another forum. Nothing was given, but you have taken the time to make a long series of insinuations regards myself, and attempt to misinterpret what I have said. This only highlights a common aspect of feminism, which is to vilify someone while at the same time expecting that person to provide solutions to problems

Timkins, I have made no insinuations regarding yourself. I don't know you. I have just provided you with a solution. Where is yours? .... Furthermore, I refuse to respond to any of your 'demands' until you start reading the rejoinders that people present to you. What are you anyway, the dictator of a small country or something?

"I also will be asking you to not be making any further insinuations regards myself, or be purposely misinterpreting what I have said." Har, har, pot calling the kettle black.

I agree with you Timkins that we need to start talking about "mothers and fathers". We need to acknowledge the partnership that exists between a couple and the mutual decision they have to make about caring for their children. That could be the mother staying at home or the father staying at home, or both of them working while their children are in childcare.

We have to start talking about the decisions of a "mother and father" so that couples discuss their options. That way, hopefully people will stop whinging about the sacrifices "I" make and start realizing the contribution "we" both make to child raising.

Tracey -

Keep an eye on this new attempt by politicians to weigh into the debate about rights to terminate pregnancies. Picture a family of aspirationals in the electorate of Werriwa. Mum may have taken the economic decision to end the third pregnancy. Now daughter #1 is 12, just started at private school. They are mortgaged out to the horizon, and they want only to see young miss in a prestigious profession. Between now and when she leaves home, the lass will have numerous occasions to slip up, and find herself pregnant. I do not think this family wants to have an cardinal, a senator or the HIC looking onto their kitchen table while they can have the private option to end an unwanted and very inconvenient pregnancy.

If the PM lets Abbott & Pell drag this one out for more than two days, Beazley only needs to reassure his support for the status quo.

Ahhh... the media hacks just love to forment contrived social divisions. They are so tediously predictable. Yet again its undertones of that hackneyed old gender snore. Thankfully for them, the internet is keeping their views in the public domain, what with the en masse abandonment of mainstream press. But not thankfully for the rest of us, whose consciousness is kept firmly weighed down by their limited perceptual dross.

Its hardly a mystery that politics is very conservative. And that families form a huge demographic in our society. l haven't seen a single, childless man become leader of a political party in recent times. In fact its a bugbear of mine that the PR hacks thrust a politician's family out front on the campaign trail. Who cares about them? Its not like we are voting for them. Maybe people like to see the greatness 'behind' the great. Although l doubt greatness lurks in the shadows and in the backrooms. Nah... l think its just because we are a family oriented society, we are conservative, we like to see something we can relate to and we like all the PR spun personality that a family man/woman invokes in our minds when we tick and number boxes every 3 or 4 years.

To Audrey, your quote...

So I challenge you Timkins and all the other men who staunchly disagree that child-rearing is only women's work, to spend a week, a month, a year! at home whilst forgoing your career, and take the place of the primary carer, and then write to women and tell them how much you easier you have found it. Debunk the myth first hand.

l know at least one man who is the homemaker. He also earns top dollar in his home based business. In his opinion its a cakewalk. Little fella is in school now and its a cakewalk floating on a breeze. The only time it gets difficult is when his partner gets home from works and she chews him out for whatever greivance she's mulled over during the day. And when his son is on school holidaze. He doesn't go around creating housework and filling an 8 hour day with 1 or 2 hrs of domestic duties. Otherwise, with childcare, grandparents, cleaning services its a breeze. Oh, and he doesn't hesitate to let her know how easy it is. He wont let her off the hook tho. If she wants to quit work, she better figure out a way to pay her own way, seeing as we're equal and all that.

l suspect that, contrary to what many women say, the last thing in the world that many of them would want is for him to become a home maker and for her to return to the sole destroying empty promises of career and wage slavery. For most men who grew up in the last 40 yrs, we know what it takes to maintain a household and look after ourselves as we've been doing it. Sure its not at the same lofty and retentive standard of the superior sex, but its good enough for us.

Trade215,

Please make sure of your facts before making your generalised assertions regards myself.

I look after a child for many weeks at a time and enjoy it. I also find no problems at all in such things as housework. Look carefully through all my previous posts in various topics before making your assertions, particularly my two previous posts to this.

Trade215,
Sorry if I thought that you were only being scarastic of myself.

Do you want fries with that?As if children were the optional extra.If you ask any leader after a few years in office would they trade their position for their children; and guess what the answer will be.There is a price for everything and being a leader isn't necessarily all that flash. Ambition is directly proportional to our own insecurity.

Timkin

my response was to Audrey.

part of the problem we have created between the roles of parenting and career can be found in the phenomenon of the commodification of the child andthe distorted perception we have of parenting. These days if we have children it had better be a good one or someones got to be held accountable, alternatively if we have any doubts about the quality of the product, or the timing of the delivery for that matter, it can be jettisoned quite readily.

As predictable as the shot of a set of twins or triplets being splashed across the front page of our newspapers on the first day of school every year is the article by an economist advising us of the real cost, down to the last cent, of raisng a child. So within the realm of choice and cost the intrinsic value of children is some what lost. The term "our" children has assumed propriatorial dimensions. More and more we are seeking some immediate and tangible return on our investment.

Accordingly we need to be there - all the time - we ferry them to music and dance class; we take them to swimming lessons and tennis. We seek increasingly expensive and intensive modes of education. We subject them to direct and indirect pressures to deliver results in education and employment. We feel driven to do these things as it is, or so we believe , in thier best interests. Contemporary parenting has become a distorted and dysfunctional relationship between them and us. We are driven to drive and confuse it with nurturing - and of course we are the best to nurture.

Historically however parents were often the last to to much at all with children. While it is a crude distinction if you had the resources someone else cared for the children for a fee (not too dissimilar than today). If you were not well resourced someone else cared for the children because they were there when you were labouring in the fields or where ever - wet nurses, grandmothers aunts uncles elder sisters any one - parents were part of an equation of care. To assume we are the best is the hieght of arrogance.

But not today. Today we want to be there at the helm. We also want to make choices without consequences. We have a right to children. We have a right to a job - at the same time. And sadly while we struggle to reconcile this problem, apart from a little bit of guilt and envy that we might suffer, the real losers are the little economic units we seem to want to bring into this world in a very controlled and calculated fashion.

Arjay, Inkeemagee
In the case of Gillard not getting the job of leader of the opposition, the author of the article tries to infer that this was because she was single and childless. If that was a factor, then I think it would have been one factor amongst many. Should she get the job “only” because she is single and childless? Of course not, because she needs many other qualifications besides this.

Howard is an unattractive man, but an extremely good and experienced political strategist. Gillard is a charming and intelligent woman, but wouldn’t stand much of a chance against Howard who is also being supported by the Bush government and the neocons. In another time she might have gotten the job, or if Beazley can straighten out the Labor party, then he could help pave the way for her in the future.

However the article is typical of so many that are churned out, in that it is written to a formula. The formula is to try and make women feel insecure in some way (anyway will do) because they are female. There are numerous magazines filled with such articles and eventually they do make women feel insecure. The biased nature of these articles and the formula they are written to is ultimately very destructive for women.

SLIDING DOORS scenario - Miss JG marries in 1970, has 3 children and parents them excellently in every way. In 1985 their father floats away with THE HOMEWRECKER. Between 1985 and 2005 this other JG wrings herself out trying to stay employed (on account of being out of the work loop) and now aged 56 and arthritic, does regular battle with Centrelink who refuse to believe that NOBODY wants to employ JG.

Having provided this country with 3 taxpaying citizens, it has now thrown me on the scrap heap like the Old Man did. I warn all young women to avoid breeding.

… and then there is the revolting mirror scenario.

Ms Perfect breeds 3 children (one of them I’m not even sure is mine), gets taken care of for a good few years while her poor husband with a young family works his arse off, but none of it counts because he doesn’t do enough housework, or doesn’t earn enough money, or he’s not home long enough (you name it). Since the kids are now at school, Ms Perfect decides to kick start her career while still young. The problem is, her money is her money only, and there are some randy young dudes out there trying to impress her, and so she figures, well, I want more, I want it all …

So for the past few years, her ex on high income and high taxes, runs two households, educates all his children while having two of them in residence himself, struggles to keep it all together, has no idea what fatherhood means any more, or whether any of his children really appreciate him, is worried sick about what all this means for his son (the only one that possibly appreciates it all), and now has reduced to this – offers gender politics commentary on OLO (and still no-one listens ;-)

Ms Perfect still does very little, but at the same time considers herself both a victim, and better then most. Go figure …

My commiserations. If there had been no children . . . . .
Ms J Gillard is sensible clever and correct. Breeding is the cause of the angst. Travel light, move fast.

'Having provided this country with 3 taxpaying citizens, it has now thrown me on the scrap...'

Yep, breeding more cogs for the machine entitles you to something.

Scenario three (for Brownie and Seeker) .. later generation couple, lived out the home-maker/bread-winner partnership for the better part of 35 years, children all grown up, homemaker decides to go back to work and breadwinner decides to retire. The values of their generation meant that was just what you did. Homemaker finds starting out in modern workforce ruthless, age-ist and exhausting at her late age and wishes she'd learnt these lessons when she was younger and had the energy. Breadwinner finds tinkering around the house demoralising, un-fulfilling and totally alien and wishes he'd learnt more home-skills when he knew how to change. Both complain separately to now-adult daughter about how miserable and confused they are and how screwed up they believe such rigid societal roles to be. Both encourage daughter to settle only for nice, interesting man (or woman, they're quite 'hip' you know) who will equally share work, child and home duties. Daughter has to point out that in her experience, these men don't seem to exist.

Seeker, people are listening. Exchange phone numbers with Brownie.

Audrey,
Looking at the latest survey results from the nationwide HILDA survey and others, the most common scenario is :- Woman expects man to be the breadwinner. Woman believes home and children are an extension of herself, and seeks them as a type of "power base".

However looking at certain publications which are being churned out, then they describe it as you have described, which is basically “women good (but victimised by men) - men bad (and oppress women)"

Still waiting for you to give just one possible solution to just one of the many problems involving IVF.

Audrey, interesting that your scenario three daughter believes “these men don't seem to exist”. Their mother may have to put into practice that ‘hipness’ you mention she possesses ;-)

Sharing my address on OLO? Don’t think so. Ms Perfect was more than enough for one lifetime. THE HOMEWRECKER could probably take lessons ;-)

Timkins, some things about you remind me of Ms Perfect. She would never give an inch, even if that meant losing a mile. You are of course right in your last post, but whom would you expect to argue with that?

Yes, there are problems with IVF. For starters, taxpayers should not pay for it. But it is also a solution of last resort I would think, and perhaps its clients quickly become aware of all its shortcomings. How do you feel about transparency of donors? Surely that is a good idea. And how about DNA certification of both parents on the birth certificate? Now let’s talk about Family Court and Child Support ;-)

Hi Seeker,
I don't like to see so much Miss-Information presented in the media.

The issue of IVF could be discussed in the other forum, but if you read through this article carefully, you will notice the author repeatedly uses the words "I" , "Mother", and "Children" throughout the article.

These words could be strung together, or perhaps the author intended that these words would be sub-consciously strung together by the reader, like a form of sub-conscious brainwashing. It becomes similar to repeated use of the term “women and children” in an article. This is commonly done in many articles that are written to a formula. Repeat the term “women and children” often enough in an article, and the reader begins to think that children can only associate or belong to women (and not men also)

Within the article, the word father is not used, and the author does not mention “her” children’s father at all. Just herself and her children.

So what has become of the father?. What father?. The children no longer have a father, only a mother.

Tracey Crisp argued that Julia Gillard was damned for not having children, and she would have been damned if she did. . . . .And may I suggest 'and so are we all'. One section of government NEEDS us to breed blue collar workers of the future, at the same time that another section of government hypocritically decries Single Teenage Mothers.

Brownie,
What do you think single teenage women are. Some type of breeders?

And what do you think fathers are. Irrelevant donors and paypackets only?

Timkins,

I was actually going to settle for Miss Information after the debacle that was Ms Perfect. Now that you express reservation, I have reconsidered.

Wish me luck with Miss Diagnosed!

Seeker

'...how about DNA certification of both parents on the birth certificate?...'

l like that idea in principle but wounder about the practical ramifications. Its a great way to verify paternity. However the idea of everyone being effectively DNA finger printed and that information then existing in government data bases is a bit too Brave New World/1984/Gataga for my taste. Maybe that information could be used to establish paternity and then discarded/removed from government control.

However, l suspect that the enforced accountability would make it rather politically unpalpable to various vested interests in the status quo. Not sure that the politicians and treasury number crunchers would be too enamoured of the financial consequences for the already bankrupt house of cards that is the State. If DNA verification of paternity was established it would go a long way to sorting out this huge mess and people might actually be a bit more sexually responsible.

Mr Timkins, in response to your first remark, a clip from the London Times of Feb 6 follows, with indicates that it is true in Britain at least:
What this means in practice is that the early breeders turn to the state. Teenage mothers who go on to own property are unusual.

“We are talking here about single mothers, because few women under the age of 22 are giving birth while in settled relationships,” said Jill Kirby of the Centre for Policy Studies, author of a recent pamphlet, The Price of Parenthood.

More than 90% of births to mothers aged under 20 were outside marriage in 2003, the latest year for which figures are available.

Britain’s “natural” population increase, excluding immigration, measured by the number of births less annual deaths, has averaged 78,000 per year in the past decade; in 2003 the increase was 83,215. Without the 120,000-a-year births to young unmarried mothers, however, Britain’s population would be in decline

Timkins, in response to your second remark to me, and I do not see what I said to provoke it -
The father of my 3 children was a student when we met, I worked an office job in the day and waitressed at night to support us both, and when we bought our first home 1974 in Brighton Vic., I provided the entire deposit myself. I have never viewed men as 'paypackets'as my ex-husband has never actually received a salary, being a professional musician.

Brownie,
I don’t want to get into an argument, but you will notice that the author of the article never mentions fathers at all in her article. Only "herself" as a mother or a parent, and this is typical of most articles that are written to a certain recipe or formula. The author obviously regards fathers as being irrelevant.

In your post you seem to regard single teenage mothers as being a necessity. They are a significant % of mothers in our society, although I don’t believe that teenage single mothers are a necessity to increase the birth rate

WOMENS WORK and MENS WORK
Well that is as much of a myth as people want to make it. Its just a plain reality of how u run a footy team or a marraige. You use your gifts and abilities to cope as best you can with the environment u are surrounded by. When u all go camping (if anyone does) and there is a tent to pictch and fire wood to get and clearing around the selected area, and food to setup etc, it make simple common sense to divide such work according to relative strength. There is nothing wrong culturally with the concept of Male/female roles. They should be as equitable as possible thats all. Last time I checked, when 2 people try to do the same task, it doesn't go down that well. So, why not have agreed boundaries. Washing, She can sort and throw them in the machine, he can hang them up. She or He can cook, the other can washup or.. why not do it together. Or basically however you want to divide it.
I did hear on ABC of a some research which declared the vast majority of women would PREFER to be at home and avoid the stress of trying to manage work AND young kids, and if there is no desperate financial need which would dictate otherwise, why can she not use that time to enhance her own education, explore home based business etc etc.. which generally would be much more fulfilling than working for some boss. c'mon u mob.Oh.. and if anyone things I'm talking like an idiot, its because all I've said is based on Biblical principles. Did it sound like it up to the point where I actually said that ? :)

Boaz.
I too have seen a number of studies that indicate that the majority of women prefer not to work in the work place much at all. I’ve also read of studies showing the avg housewife in the US, spends 5 hrs per day watching TV. Obviously taking a break from their oppressive housework.

However these types of issues don’t get heard about much. Maybe “certain” people don’t want to talk about them, like abortion or IVF.

Maybe Tracey Crisp could give some comments on how she sees the division of work between a father and a mother (without relying on some type of biased social science research).

She didn’t mention fathers in her article, only talked about herself. Maybe she doesn’t think fathers are all that important

trade215,

A birth certificate purports to certify the birth of a child and names its mother and father. It is not an adoption document as such. I would just like to see it do the job it was designed to do, by using the available technology of the time, without being overly concerned about some sinister, futuristic, conspiracy theory.

Children have the right to an accurate record of their birth. Fathers also deserve to know. Too often, fathers only begin to suspect something is wrong at the time of marriage break up. If new information only comes to light at that time (not too strange, for it is often the cause), and they wish to contest paternity, the courts will most often say – tough luck – you are only doing this now because of the break up. The father is deemed to have been aware and has adopted the child. How wrong is that?

I agree with you that the state could legislate to report on the DNA results, then discard all records. Personally, I would rather the state had my full DNA records and that of my children, if that was the only way to ensure the above scenario does not happen. I, along with most men, would find it impossible to voluntarily request a DNA test be done at the birth of my children. Especially, if I thought we were happily married, and had no reason to suspect infidelity.

But then, we’re only talking about fatherhood here, and perhaps as you say, there are interests in keeping the status quo. For me, that alone, would be more concerning then government storing DNA records.

Tim... ^5 yes.. absoloutely.

Seeker.. the much bigger problem here in my humble opinion is that a child is a human being who needs a strong sense of identity.
I may have many failings, but one think I sense in my heart of hearts beyond most others, is that a child needs a balanced identity of mum and dad. The thought of a child coming into this world without that just to satisfy some craving by people for 'THEIR' fulfillment, boggles the mind. The thought which enters my mind rather forcefully is that when said child grows up and has been also craving that full sense of identity, and sense of ultimate belonging, and finds out that they were brought into this world for selfish reasons, and the biological dad or mum has been 'structurally' denied them.. makes me think of a few horror movie themes.

Boaz,Seeker,Trade,

To me it seems likely that children are born with a natural instinct for both a mother and a father, and large scale attempts at social engineering to remove fathers are always likely to fail in the longer term because of that natural instinct.

- Feminist indoctrination machines eventually fail to convince children and younger people to believe that males are no good.

- Attempts by family law systems to remove fathers from families are now failing in most countries.

- Attempts by single women to do away with fathers by having IVF are failing because the children eventually want to know who their father is.

- Attempts by media organisations to eliminate fathers from media articles (like what was done by the author of this article) eventually fail because most readers still want to know about the fathers.

So the human natural instinct to have a father and a mother is overcoming all attempts at man-made social engineering.

I definitely believe that both the mother and the fathers name should be on the birth certificate, which means that the father can have a DNA test done so that he is fully certain of whether or not he is the father of the child. The mother just nominating whatever male she chooses to be the father is not good enough, as eventually the child will want to know who it's natural father is.

Mark Cleary a Melbourne editor and writer: from The Age today -
"These days when I hear parents, particularly fathers, gushing over how beautiful and wondrous being a parent is, I must admit I am slightly sickened. For one thing, most of these men find it so "wondrous" because all they really have to do is tousle their kids' hair when they get home from work and read a story before bed.
I know this because I used to be one of these fathers. Ah, back then, parenthood was a magical time.
The truth is, parenthood is an incredibly mind-numbing, energy-sapping and, for the most part, banal experience. Yes, I love my children; but I really have no choice - loving your children is hardwired into most parents. It's just nature's way of ensuring the propagation of the species. The child is usually loved even before it's born.
So I think the myth has to be exploded. If you enjoy cleaning up the same mess you just cleaned up five minutes earlier; if you enjoy answering the same question 12 times in a row; and if you aren't particularly fond of leaving the house - parenthood might just be for you.
But please, don't go around perpetuating the myth that it is a rich, fulfilling and rewarding experience.

Brownie
it can be a struggle.. yes. But its not a myth that it is richly rewarding and fulfilling.

Brownie,
The article in the Age was just “junk media”. The writer contradicted himself a number of times, and the article has no meaning. There are hundreds of such articles churned out daily. They are a colossal waste of trees.