Hi Seeker,
It may have been very interesting if Leslie Cannold had written a book titled “What, No Baby: why women and men have lost the freedom to be parents and how they can get it back” as this may have introduced the topic of “parental responsibility” vs “parental rights”.

Parental responsibility being that the state or government determines what constitutes the best interest of the child, and sets those terms. The parents have no real rights, and become like un-paid child minders. The child is basically owned by the state.

Of course the destruction of the nuclear family by divorce etc and the raising of children through community or by the state, has always been a feminist desire.

EG
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" Dr. Mary Jo Bane.

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children...."
Linda Gordon

Calls for more divorce are still occurring by feminists, but the loss of the nuclear family, and the loss of fathers, has many ethical questions.

I haven’t read the book ” What, No Baby: why women have lost the freedom to mother and how they can get it back”, but I can only assume that fathers are not considered relevant, because they are not incorporated into the title. This appears to be in line with long-term feminist ideology

Leslie Cannold titled the article "Sticking up for the 'georgeous men'" so she was not intending to man-bash as Seeker and Timkins suggest. Her article was in RESPONSE to several published recently pointing the finger at women for being selfish and not having enough children, so I think its a little bit unfair to cut her down for talking about it from a woman's point of view, when she is actually trying to get a man's point of view included in the debate (however much it is still written highlighting her perspective as a woman).

I do think it is amazing in this day and age that it isn't accepted that parenthood - or not becoming parents - is a joint effort and joint decision. The fact that the men still can't get equal amount of paternity leave to spend time with their child as women get maternity leave is OBVIOUSLY completely unfair and shouldn't even need debate.

I have no children, nor an interest in having them, but I long ago resigned myself that my taxes would go towards subsidising schools and family courts and so forth that have nothing to do with my life, so Seeker's little whinge that he pays higher tax as a man seems a little petty. How is it men are DOUBLY entitled? Surely you counter your own argument of equal rights for men...

Seeker did make a very good point that governments should provide better tax incentives to businesses and young families to enable them to afford to have children is a good point.

I have read articles in the Sydney Morning Herald (though I am too lazy to find the link) where government representitives call people selfish for not wanting to have children to support the aging population. This sort of comment is completely unproductive. Those who don't want will just respond "Yes I am, so why would you think telling me make me care?" and loads who do can't afford to. I know several people my age (29) who would love to have a family and can't afford to. If the government is that worried about it then they should provide significant incentives to businesses to help them be able to support their employees when family needs must be placed above work committments, and significant tax breaks to enable parents to afford to take on the responsibility of providing for children.

Hi Jci,
Basically the author did carry out a "Sin of Omission" as detailed in a previous post. That is a fact, and another "Sin of Omission" was also carried out by the author by writing a book titled “What, No Baby: why women have lost the freedom to mother and how they can get it back””

That book omitted fathers as a parent, and by excluding fathers, it makes fathers look as though they are second-class parents, which is part of the overall problem. (eg. Quite a lot of industry also looks at fathers as just workers only, and not as a parent also)

So, to help fix some of the problems of gender bias in society, and the belief by quite large sections of society that fathers are not important as parents, it becomes constructive to highlight such things as Errors of Fact, Errors of Interpretation, Sins of Omission etc in media articles. Failure to do so simply perpetuates the problems.

This has been tested out in other places, and found to be the best procedure to follow. Simply allowing bias to occur in the media does not stop the bias.

Timkins and Seeker are succeeding in creating tired and boring discussions here at Online Opinion.

The constant bashing of the same old point and refusal to engage with valid and intelligent debate is a demonstration of the insiginificant impact of the men's movement.

Timkins argues on the surface, and obviously does not have the capacity to engage with some of the more progressive thinkers in Australia. His misreading of the Leslie Cannold argument because of his blinkered views and obsessive disregard for feminism is a typical case in point.

If he actually bothered listening to her argument he would realise she is arguing for a partnership between men and women to solve the problems that face us all in our lives. An argument no dissimilar to Timkins himself. So what if the book doesn't have men in the title. It's the title. There are another 70,000 words in the book - one that you obviously haven't even read.

Seeker and Timkins - get over yourselves, you are not that important and your opinions are repetitive and not helpful to furthering the diccussion and the debate regarding men, women, family and parenting.

We want less divison and more co-operation, which is something you are obviously unwilling to particiapte in. The 'poor me' mentality of men of your calibre makes me frustrated and disappointed in my gender.

I'd request others not bother engaging with them - you are wasting your time.

Aha, thank you so much, Anti Timkins and Seeker Drivel. Most of us are BORED TO DEATH with these two idiots who swarm over every forum, with their psychotic castration fears and their selfish anti-women maunderings, their knobby-headed inability to get the point of the authors' essays, and their lack of any sense of humour whatsoever. Roll on our fearless liberator!

Hi Anti Timkins and Seeker Drivel,

When Leslie Cannold writes a book (or even an article) titled “What, No Baby: why women and men have lost the freedom to be parents and how they can get it back”, then I will believe everything you wrote.