>> Young women are looking for it and young men need to come to the commitment party.

Could it be that commitment means different things to men and women?
My understanding is that more than 70% of marriage breakups are initiated by the woman. The reality does not match the dream and for many it never will. Commitment involves sticking in there, not running because you think life should be better and maybe will be somewhere else. Anything else is convenience not committment.

There are a lot of variations on the way people handle this, one of those realities is the thousands of dad's reduced to the role of contact parent and struggling to make ends in the face of an ex who walked out because life was not all she thought it should be and who is milking the system for everything she can get and using residency to do so.

There are other realities, most of them should not be keeping men away from committment.

Whilst I enjoyed much of what Daniel has to say it appears to me that he has chosen to ignore the realities which surround the modern family and some of the valid reasons why men of any age should tread with caution before entering into an open ended contract.

Talk by women about committment will mean more to me when women start treating commitment less like convenience.

I first read some of this article in a newspaper, and I thought it one of the worst displays of male bashing and stereotyping I have read in recent times.

I believe most of the article is made up. Nowhere does the author reference anything to any study, but makes an endless series of derogatory remarks about young men. This is concerning as I believe that male bashing and male stereotyping is now being carried out on males at a younger and younger age, and it is also occurring to boys. as well.

From the article “Mere Men” at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548898574.html

“Males are increasingly portrayed in the media as either incompetent, repressed or villains.”

“John Marsden, the best selling adolescent fiction writer, and author of the non-fiction books Secret Men’s Business and The Boy You Brought Home, says teenage boys are also among the most maligned group in our society. “They are more maligned than any other age group and gender. The media portrays them as either drug-crazed, illiterate, unemployable, suicidal, failing at school, sex criminals or vandals. So adults tend to treat them more suspiciously and that causes them (unconsciously) to become angry or frustrated or alienated.”

If any line is this article is true, it could be easily expanded to include both genders.

For Example:-
“It didn’t make my decision to have children until my girlfriend was pregnant any easier. But the reason many young men end their relationships after the crash is because society does not prepare them for it.”

This can very easily become:-
“I didn’t make our decision to have children until she became pregnant any easier. But the reason many young men and women end their relationships after the crash is because society does not prepare them for it.”

So how much of this article can be accepted as being true, or how much is just generalised, un-substantiated male bashing and stereotyping?

I think the latter.

Mr Daniel Donahoo is another of the 'new age journalist' who has lost foothold on the road called journalism and wandering in the bush serving interests that appear to appeal to his senses.

Allow me to explain the above.

Journalism is discussion of subject after full in-depth reading and investigation in full context of subject matter. After all that is what the readers of Age are paying for, someone else to do this job and provide the information in clarity and succinctly.

If one looks at the article it does not mention major determinants
- like' obey authority' we are drilled with as kids
- changed Schools education of now learning with decreased formal assessment and grading
- increased divorce that most children grow up in separation and trauma of it
- the family court common practice to harm the father-child care and relationship and other negative effects like CSA,
- multiplying number of statue laws that keep diminishing liberty
- individuals acting as justices failing their oath to office based on 'natural law of using our common sense of right and wrong to situation, which is universal among the animal kingdom.
- diminishing of maleness by the media and government bodies

And the list goes on. As we belong to the animal kingdom, reproduction is encouraged in environment of stability and prosperity, which we do not have. Most of us spend our day running around for someone else's benefit to earn a living to live and are having difficulty succeeding.

Which young male knowing the above would be 'encouraged' to marry and have a child. The facts speak for themselves. Decreasing marriage rate and women having more children as single parents. We created the mess we live in by act or by omission.

Now a article including some of the above would have made a interesting read. Instead Donohoo article comes across as a five minute job over coffee or could be somebody else's intent he just put his name to.

Journalism needs to find its honor, depth and value again, resisting external influences.

Sam

Ok. So, I'll break the promise I made to myself not to respond to online debates. But - gee you guys are hard to please.

Sam, I won't go into the journalism vs opinion writing issue again. Needless to say that the piece is biased and I intended it to be so. This is not honourable pure investiagtive journalism. Yes that is lacking in the world, but this is an argumentative essay. I think that is why they call this place online opinion - not online journalism.

I agree with much of what you blokes have to say. The article is critical of a society that sterotypes and advertisers to men negative images of themselves.

"And society must stop stereotyping young men and start entrusting them with responsibility." (paragraph 9)

But, the piece is also interested in young men not crying 'poor me' and supporting them to take control of the situation.

At the end of the day I sense that men like you are interested in keeping the battle raging. We can all role out statistics, experts comments and government reports and make them suit our argument - how else do we get such diverse opinion.

Yes, the issue is more grey and more sophisticated than the 700-800 words an opinion article allows, but for gods sake take it for what it is.

An attempt to quit the name calling and for men and women to start working on relationships together. There is a hell of a lot of unnecessery pain going on in this world and if men and women swallowed some pride and didn't argue with every single word of every argument we might make some more significant ground than we currently are making.

I'm really not interested in male bashing. But, it appears that many who contribute to these forums are interested in opinion writer bashing.

cheers.

Daniel,

There is an enormous amount of discrimination occurring against males, particularly in regards to such things as Family Law. If young males knew of what is likely to happen to them if they marry, then I believe none ever would.

The average marriage lasts 10 – 12 yrs, at the end of which, the husband will normally loose nearly all savings, and the majority of fathers with children will then only see their children every second weekend or less.

These statistics are very real, and it is totally remarkable that men still get married at all.

There is the well founded belief, that much of this negativity towards males originates in the press, and it particularly comes from feminist journalists. Enormous amounts of letter and e-mails have been sent by many different people in the past to Editors complaining about it, but rarely are any published.

Organisations such as the Advertising Standards Bureau and the Sex Discrimination Commission have been regularly contacted, but no action taken regards the maligning of males in advertising, the media, and even by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner herself.

So far as women are concerned, I have heard nothing from women’s groups except a continuation of the same un-referenced, stereotypic “opinions” about males, similar to what you portray.

So if you don’t like negative comments about your generalised, highly anecdotal, un-referenced and un-researched male maligning article, know that articles like yours are more than likely to be part of the problem.

Also see :-
“Separated dads fight long odds”
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=675&docId=l:258901397&topicId=13929&start=4&topics=single

“Goward joins 'blame dad' brigade on custody” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/28/1059244556494.html?oneclick=true

"More men take exception to sexist ads" http://www.theage.com.au/news/TV--Radio/More-men-take-exception-to-sexist-ads/2005/01/02/1104601244047.html?oneclick=true

"Researching Fathers – Back to Basics" http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth5.html

"Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family" http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

"Postseparation Fathering: What Does Australian Research Tell Us?" http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth03.html

"Feminist utopia, Social nightmare" http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0119roberts.html

Daniel,

At your age my dream was no different. Needless to say, I was disappointed. The men above, are talking from real life experience, and they make some very good points you are yet to recognize.

“Our society needs to start selling the positives of being a father and a husband”. How exactly do you propose we do that, after seeing our feeble efforts so far on OLO? What makes you so confident, after half of us before you, have failed? If I was to claim that your chances of success are not so much determined by how hard YOU try, but by how your partner feels on that fateful day (that, and the prevailing legislation), would it dishearten?

We all support your dream, and hope you get your chance to “change the world”. Until then, we’ll party hard ;-)

Daniel, I agree that your piece is not intended as male-bashing (these boys are so sensitive!!) and that there are a lot of sharks hanging around the comments page - myself included of course. I think that the piece is great and you've really put your heart out there in this first-person account. Which is still a form of journalism.

True that marketing the brand of a 'single life' is driven by some outright profiteering but it says something about the wants of society at large. Marketing doesn't come from thin air but mostly from careful research of wants and needs. Which leads me to what I really wanted to say, that as much as I valued your piece it still gave me a bit of a feeling that we're heading back into that mindset of stereotyping and attacking men and women who choose not to have children. Not all happiness is found in coupling and plenty of people have found single-dom a more satisfying existence, with the flexibility and connectedness of a wider social circle afforded by not having children. Have a baby for the economy? What about stay-single or child-less for the economy?

Audrey -

I have been interviewed on radio along the lines of what is wrong with being single.

My answer is nothing and I have many friends who are enjoying life in a partnership or single without kids. I am not advocating a return to 1950s style family values. But, I am interested in presenting the option to young men that you can be in a relationship and have children if you want and it can be a fabulous thing.

I understand the push from men who have ended up in terrible situations and been through the wringer in the Family Court. My own contact on a personal level with child protection, the family court and supporting relationships in meltdown have not been positive and I can understand jaded and cynical viewpoints.

I also accept that according to the AIFS by 2016 there will be more singles and childless couples than couples with kids. I believe this is a result of the rise of individualism in our society. The rise of an attitude in western culture that 'I' am the most important person in the world - and everyone else comes second. This attitude creates the explosion of viewpoints that say 'what about me - you are not doing what is in my best interest'. This is not unusual considering everyone else is actually just doing what is in their best interests.

Despite the recent outpouring of cash to charity and the global bak-patting about how generous we all are the fact is the fundamental core of a liberal capiltalist society remains. We are still selfish.

So, I don't argue to demean anyone's chosen lifestyle. I argue that we need to move back to community, back to attitudes that allow us to compromise and accept we won't get 100% of what we want. We must share the decision-making. As part of this argument I choose to sometimes promote the creation of new male-female partnerships and promote the idea of family as the basic unit of community.

Thanks for the encouragement. And alllowing me to elaborate on my point.

cheers

Daniel Donahoo,
“jaded and cynical viewpoints”

Maybe you believe that ignorance is bliss, so I will try and make it more clear.

Presently the average marriage last 12 yrs, and de-facto relationships normally last less. (Ie some studies suggest 5 yrs on average). Now at the end of this, the female will normally be awarded 60% – 85% of assets, such that the male is left with virtually nothing.

If there are children involved, the mother will have custody nearly 90% of the time, and the MAJORITY of fathers will have 80/20 contact or less (ie every second weekend or less).

75% of non-custodial fathers want more parenting time with their children, but it becomes almost impossible for many, and now 30% of non-custodial fathers never see their children again (no face to face contact at all).

This is not happening to a small minority. It is happening to 1,000 husbands per week, and has been happening for many, many years.

It is currently the greatest (but most hidden and suppressed) social problem in Australia, but research on it has been minimal. Why? Good question, and a very relevant one. Is it because feminists now control Social Science, and fathers have no great value to feminists?

I have been provided you with a number of links to relevant pieces of information on the real life for fathers in our society. Those links were found in about 30 minutes, and you could have easily found them yourself if you were that interested.

There is no doubt in my mind that you have not looked at them, but if you have been married for say 6 yrs, you have on average 6 years to go.

So during the next 6 yrs, you and your organisation can study and research what is going to happen to you, and then you could write an article on that, or talk about it on radio.

Or maybe you think that hard, cold facts just get in the way of a good opinion or viewpoint.

You made some great points in the article, Daniel, and I don't believe you were doing any male-bashing. Timkins and Sam took it all too personally and I'm sorry to read that they're so bitter with the world.

ruby, I did not read the article as "male bashing" either.

In fairness though it should be acknowledged that Daniel made a very specific challenge to young men and made a very specific suggestion about the advice of men who have learned from experience.

As someone who is working his way thru the wringer I am still struggling with the answer to the question that pops up occasionally "Would you recommend marriage to young men". To some extent I side with Daniel's ideals. To do so without paying real attention to the problems that exist when it all goes wrong is foolhardy. I don't hear a lot of guys who have suffered under the current system being advocates for the single life. I do hear them calling for change to the horrific systems in place at the moment and suggesting that men need to think very carefully before sticking their neck on the block. Some stay single and advise others to do so, others try to take more care in the choice of new partners.

If Timkins and Sam are bitter maybe they have reason to be so. I don't know their stories but I do know enough stories to know that there are many people being really hurt and lightly dismissing their pain does not make the problem go away. Ponder the pain of having a child removed from your life (and in many cases without suggestion of abuse or negelect).

This is not about having a nose out of joint or being overly sensitive, it is about abuse of human rights and the destruction of lives on a massive scale and the unwillingness of many in our community to address the issues with any level of concern or honesty.

I agree with you Timkins.

When the odds are so stacked against men the wonder is that so many do still get married not the number that don't.

The thing that's tiring about this debate is that criticism always seems to be directed at men. Why didn't the article tackle what women could do better too? Surely that would have been more credible.

Also, why is it completely acceptable to deride men in any way you like but politically incorrect to criticise women at all?

For all the 'toing' and 'frowing' the bottom line is really that society values women much more than men. Maybe when young men feel society values them, then perhaps they'll start to put some value back into society.

Most young blokes run away from pregnant girlfriends for the simple reason that they are not ready to be fathers. At the risk of sounding sexist, girls are generally raised with a real expectation of getting married and having children. Having children is a life goal to a lot of girls. This is generally not true of boys. Most boys will envisage getting married and having a family but at 18, 20 or even 25 it usually isn’t something they’re actively seeking. The idea of a very young man being scared off by the prospect of marriage breakdown, separation from his children, and the financial and emotional battering he may take is putting an old head on young shoulders.

I didn’t get married until I was 35. Five years later I’ve got two beautiful kids that I love more than anything in the world. I would like to think that I’m a good father to them and a good husband to my wife. I just know that if I’d started the family thing at 25 I would have been a terrible husband and father. I had a very responsible job and certainly wasn’t anymore immature than any normal 25 year old but I know I wouldn’t have had the dedication, or inclination quite frankly, to give a wife or child what they needed.

If anyone, male or female, ever came to me for advice as to whether or not to get married, I’d tell them not to bother until you are ready to have kids.

And as for the article being an exercise in “male bashing” - I suppose we all see our demons around every corner.

Bozie,

I think you're forgetting the very real impact family breakdown has on young people.

Many people believe family breakdown can be as traumatising as a death in the family and from experience I'd tent to agree.

In one instance close to me a man was going through a divorce. His wife was threatening to take him to the cleaners. He believed that after 30 years of marriage (and a lifetime of hard work) she was entitled to half, but as he was approaching 60 years of age he just simply wasn't going to lose (as threatened) everything in life and have to start again. He did threaten suicide but thankfully that never eventuated, however he did suffer two heart attacks.

Unfortunately, in another case close to me the husband did commit suicide. They had three boys, the youngest was 13. The eldest found the body. It tore the family to shreds. The boys seemed to blame their mother because she had initiated the divorce (I don't know what her demands were). They didn't speak to her for years. The boys went through a terrible time, the youngest turned to drugs (for a while) and now all live in different countries to their mother. Happily though, they have been trying to rebuild their relationship over the past few years.

Perhaps I've been unlucky to come across situations like this but unfortunately I don't think these stories are that uncommon. All these feminists are constantly pushing for anti-male policies but are too silly to see that they hurt everybody not just men.

And as for putting an old head on young shoulders....well, maybe you should speak to more 13 year olds.

A count can be done on the contents of the article to produce a summary:-

Statements–67
Statements verified by reliable research-0
Statements negative towards young men–24
Statements positive towards young men-0
Statements negative towards men–4
Statements positive towards men-0
Statements negative towards young women–0
Statements positive towards young women-1
Statements by the author that are negative about himself–1
Statements by the author that are positive about himself-10
Statements negative towards marriage / parenting–2
Statements positive towards marriage / parenting-8

Article summary:-
The article makes many statements about parenting, marriage, young men and modern fatherhood that are not verified by any recent reliable study research. No statement is referenced to any research source. There are many statements that are negative about young men, and none that are positive. Few statements are made about young women. The author describes himself in positive or glowing terms, with minimal negative references. The only male that is described positively is the author himself. The article advocates commitment to marriage for young men, and positively portrays marriage and parenting, but makes minimal mention of negative emotional and financial costs that are now statistically probable with the majority of marriages under the current Family Law system.

There are innumerable articles that have been published about parenting, that either do not include the father, or malign or negatively portray the father without any substantiation. It is interesting how this is now so accepted that it is not even questioned, but automatically treated as being true because it is stated in the media.

With the current education system where there are very few adult male teachers in the primary schools, the Family Law system that has taken so many fathers away from boys and male youths, and the heavy negative portrayal of males in the media, then I would think that young men have enough obstacles ahead of them already without articles such as this adding to it.

Maybe it is best to start fixing up some of these obstacles, before lecturing, criticising or dumping on young men or males in general.

Timkins seems to enjoy having found a forum where he can bag the whole world and single out a writer to proclaim that his marriage will fail, like he does with this author. Shame he’s able to do that without having to disclose his own identity, unlike the writers attempting to make sense out of social relationships through their own experiences. And that’s what this article is. It’s not male-bashing, but then, Timkins can find a male-bashing statement in a shopping list.

Timkins, I note in the Susie O’Brien article referenced by you, the word ‘fathers’ was mentioned 14 times, and the word ‘mothers’ only rated 5 mentions. In your 7 links, the word ‘mother’ is not mentioned once. How can we take you seriously when you’re obviously biased against mothers? Oh, what? You’re writing about fathers, not mothers? Oh, right then. Guess Daniel Donahoo is writing about his own experience and experiences of his peer group, before and in the early stages of a relationship, not experiences of men after they’ve separated. While you’re very sensitive about men’s experiences being invalidated, you’re happy to invalidate many other men’s experiences.

Perhaps you missed the article's criticism of the inherent culture that trivialises men’s relationships, demeans men’s ability to develop a healthy self-image, and encourages damaging behaviours, such as drinking to excess. Or that popular culture encourages an adversarial approach to the opposite sex, and relationships in general. Isn’t this something you bang on about?

Here’s an idea, why don’t you put your name to an article, on this website, where you yourself address all your issues, rather than spend a phenomenal amount of time (296 posts over 2 months) bagging anyone who writes from a perspective – and on a topic - that differs from yours?

It’s a pity you’re so unpleasant (and disturbingly obsessed), because many of your points are extremely valid and addressing them is vital. The point is, this article wasn’t attempting to address your issues.

Timkins, you’ll never change the world this way. Do something constructive before you drown in your own bitterness.

Daniel

Young women are looking for it and young men need to come to the commitment party.
But its a women's prerogative to change her mind, at least its women and children first.

Newsflash
Daniel's wife 'feels' that she needs to kick Daniel to the curb.
Distraught with kids in tow she visits community services.
Being fearful she gets an intervention order.
Daniel's homeless and can't see his children.
A quarter of his gross wage, a third of his net income gone.
After a month
His application for contact with his kids in the family court is given a date.
Being fearful the wife refuses counselling.
Three months have passed and Daniel has lost his kids.
After six months and the hearing, Daniel gets fortnightly weekend contact.
Daniel becomes an ineffectual father and is socially isolated
This lasts for the average 8 years.


It's her party and you will cry if she wants to: Daniel's commitment to family is an option for his wife in Australia's Family Law Courts. Being young hopeful and naive is endearing, but the worst reasonable defended outcome is the reality when good will breaks down in a marraige.
For most women having a child is a choice, even if they don't choose to get pregnant. Men should be satisfied they are genuinely involved in these choices as indicative of the character of the relationship.
Daniel has made some worrying choices, but may genuinely have been involved in those choices and could be articulating this feeling as a heart felt opinion very poorly. More likely Daniel is driving down the road its a sunny day life is good, he doesn't expect to be blindsided by that truck.

max

Tracy,

You speak of validation. If single motherhood is solely validated by bastardisation of men, then Timkins is perfectly entitled to come to the defence of those men and fathers so impacted – even if he sometimes gets the context slightly wrong, even if what he says is unpleasant, even if he repeats himself.

Timkins is mimicking hard-core feminism. It worked once, and it’s results are visible all around us, every day. Perhaps you need to be a man and a victim of it, to be able to detect it with such sensitivity, and despise it with such intensity.

Seeker, thanks for your comments.
I don’t know where single motherhood came into it. My point was attempting to mirror Timkins’ inability to recognise that a writer has a right (and a word limit to consider) to address a singular issue without having to branch into the spectrum of all possibly related topics. This is why I recommend Timkins writes his own piece to express these issues in more detail.
Timkins is *absolutely and perfectly entitled* to come to the defence of men and fathers wronged by the impact of feminazism, relationship breakdown and the family courts. Again, this is why he should be addressing these issues in separate pieces, published under his actual name so that other interested parties can engage with the breadth of his personal and/or professional experience.
It would be far more helpful for him to do so in a forum where everyone was talking about the same thing. It is obviously frustrating for him, and frustrating for all others attempting to participate in this forum, for the same issues to be relentlessly brought up, regardless of the issue. However, while he is perfectly entitled to advocate for men, it is unacceptable for him personally attack the writer – and Timkins demeans his very valid points by ‘serial posting’, and telling the writer his marriage will fail. (Continued below)

“Perhaps you need to be a man and a victim of it, to be able to detect it with such sensitivity, and despise it with such intensity.”

You’re perfectly right. I will never be in Timkins’ shoes, and I’m extremely grateful for that. But conversely, perhaps you need to be a young man or woman brainwashed by the media that you must be young, single, beautiful, childless, affluent, popular, drug-using, partying hard, commitment-free, travelled, with a successful career, with an exciting sex life, a string of partners, using and promoting all the ‘cool’ brands and socially engaged every night to be personally “fulfilled”, to understand the frustration with the promotion of negative stereotypes about commitment.

Because from my own experience (and obviously from the writer’s own experience too), this form of pressure is also a form of social abuse, and prevents many men and women from pursuing committed relationships.

From my own experience, I slavishly pursued and achieved all of the above because of social pressure telling me I would only be fulfilled by this. In other words, I had all the ingredients for fulfilment by pop culture standards. But it didn't create the final promise. And for many young people, it doesn't. When I became pregnant to my partner, unexpectedly, I found that no amount of fulfilment I’d ever experienced, came close to what I finally had.

Certainly my experience is not universal. Certainly many relationships end badly, and with disastrous consequences. Certainly this must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

But is this a reason to immediately halt all human interactions and cease the reproduction of children? Is it a reason to engage in relentless blame apportioning and vitriolic attacks? Or is it an opportunity to discuss where things are going wrong, and how we can start to fix it to ensure that another generation of men aren’t wronged in the same way?

Max
“Daniel is driving down the road its a sunny day life is good, he doesn't expect to be blindsided by that truck.” (??!!)
Perhaps you need to talk to someone. That’s just weird.

Tracy,
you make a major issue of wanting Timkins to publish under his own name. As I have previously mentioned I do not know his story but can think of a few reasons why he might not.
- Publication of detail relating to Family Law matters which allows
the identification of individuals has some legal restrictions.
If he posts here using his real name then by inference the
identity of an ex partner and kids can be determined by anyone
with an interest to do so.
There are some good reasons for those restrictions but it does
have a fairly serious impact on raising community awareness of
the realities of the situation.
- Timkins may not want his kids to be aware of some of the details
of what has happened between himself and their mother. Many of us
try hard to isolate kids from the conflict. How easy would it be
for someone who knows both Timkins and his kids to pass on the
contents of any post in which he is identified.
- Publishing in a way which lets him be identified may come to the
attention of the former partner and provoke further conflict.
Anger and bitterness contribute to the level of conflict in family
law issues.
- Timkins could find himself on the pointy end of a defamation
action. From my understanding a comment does not have to be false
to be regarded as defaming someone nor is it easy to prove
the truth about occurences from within a home situation.

It could be extremely foolish and possibly illegal for Timkins to allow himself to be identified in an article involving the kind of issues for which he is so keen to raise the profile.

Tracy, you sweetie

Do you believe in magicians who pluck things out of the air?

The author has thrown a series of un-substantiated, negative statements at young men without referring to any reliable research. Basically these comments were just plucked out of the air. A possible reason:- minimal research has been carried out on fathers to establish much fact, (eg from AIFS http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth5.html ) I wonder why fathers haven’t been included in previous research into families?

I have read many articles similar to this. Perhaps the authors are used to writing in newspapers or magazines, (or being on the radio), where the public has minimal chance of objection?

Your comments about myself are also plucked out of the air, as you know nothing about me. But non-specific comments such as “you drown in your own bitterness”, show a reluctance to establish fact before making generalised negative remarks about males, (who are not allowed to do the same to women of course, or they will be labelled misogynistic or something).

In your posts, you have only said negative comments about me and other males. Perhaps you wish some type of harm or injury for me, other men, and young men also. I haven’t seen you make such negative comments about women?

Find the statistics that show fatherhood is all joy, both before AND after the divorce, as divorce is now statistically likely for fathers, and on average they have 12 yrs of marriage, including Daniel.

12 Yrs is not enough to raise children, so being a father after the divorce is now an important part of fatherhood. (NB. the statistics I have provided in previous posts are not my statistics, but come from the ASB or AIFS).

I would be interested to know more about what you regard as being “vital” or “need to be addressed”, but not fully elaborated on.

Or perhaps you think it impolite for a male to ask females questions, but instead they should “now” only accept whatever a female tells them to do or believe, “or else” (would this be a part of the problem?)

Hang on for a second here - both TracyA and Daniel - lets not start equating the choice to be unpartnered and childless with raw selfishness. I thought we had moved on from that world where only couples were happy and only children can lead to true fulfilment. Plenty of wonderful things in life can happen without children and fulfilling relationships come in many shapes and sizes.

And sure advertising works on the 'beautiful people' principle to sell a single life, but so does couple-dom. Magazines are just as full of perfect couples with perfect children making everyone not in a perfect relationship and childless feel like rubbish. You may have found being single unfulfilling, but that's not reason to treat single people as though they're a virus or scourge of society.

TracyA - "perhaps you need to be a young man or woman brainwashed by the media that you must be young, single, beautiful, childless, affluent, popular, drug-using, partying hard, commitment-free, travelled, with a successful career, with an exciting sex life, a string of partners, using and promoting all the ‘cool’ brands and socially engaged every night to be personally “fulfilled”,"

Removing the drugs, cool brands and string of partners, I hope everyone gets to have a little bit of this freedom somewhere in their life... that's what being young is all about! And then we just grow up. I would encourage my son or daughter to have fun and not commit too early throughout their youth.

Robert,
Timkins need not discuss his own relationship. He is comfortable writing about factual assertions and observations, so he can write about the experiences of many other men who are unfairly dealt with by family law. Unfortunately, he cannot do much more to raise the profile of the issues he is so passionate about by continuing to write anonymously. Mostly, reputable publications will only publish under a writer’s real name.

Timkins, darling.
God. What to do with my remaining 253 words? OK. Basically,
It’s called an *opinion* piece. You may not agree with the writer. That’s OK.

All I know of you are your views through numerous website posts. You make comments on the writers of these articles without knowing anything about their lives either. It goes both ways.
While on average, a marriage may only last 12 years, some couples are married for two days only, and others are married for 60 years. That skews the statistics somewhat, doesn’t it?
You ask my concerns: negative media images of men; men denied access from their children; dads left with little social support after divorce; too many children raised without adequate contact from fathers; popular culture telling young women to usurp men and vice versa. I have other issues, but I must move on.
Have a go at writing in the public arena. The issue really needs people advocating for better outcomes for men.
Just do me a favour: if someone’s having a nice life, don’t burst their bubble by telling them it’ll end in tears. Some relationships *do* flourish.

Audrey
Remind me where I inferred that single people were a ‘virus or a scourge of society’? Spend some time immersed in youth culture: a committed relationship is an *option* which is not frequently promoted for young people. And I disagree that popular youth culture is just as full of ‘perfect couples with perfect children’. While fulfilment is found in all manner of places, the point is that 'single and free' is promoted as the Holy Grail, when relationships are fundamental to our wellbeing as human beings.

i thought daniel's piece was about the attitudes of young men to parenting - not the family court. did i misunderstand?

i'm a divorced father myself, i have a good relationship with my former wife. we separated amicably - we talked abiut our problems,a nd tried a variety of things before deciding that while being husband and wife was not working, we were both committed to parenting our child, and to working together as friends.

as a lawyer with some experience of the family court (from many perspectives), i have seen many occasions where an applicant or respondent has had very legitimate reasons to fear their former spouse (and not just women fearing men). and many more where each was simply being nasty to one another.

taking responsiblity for your choices, and your feelings, is the message i get from daniel's piece. and as a former criminal law lawyer, i heartily agree with the general thrust of his argument: individuals need to take responsibility for their thoughts, feelings and actions; and society could be doing a lot more to help them do just that.

if you leave decision-making to others, why should you be expecting them to put your interests ahead of anyone else's? screaming and yelling 'coz you feel hard done by is childish (exactly the thing daniel is talking about). stop and ask yourself what you can do to make things better/easier before you get all het up over how unfair someone else has been.

some people do get 'screwed by the system' - but that does not absolve anyone from responsibility for themselves [unless they have a relevant disability, but that is a different matter].

TracyA - actually, I spend every day immersed in youth culture, teaching undergraduates at a university and currently living in a pastoral-care for youth situation. Alas I must share my wrinkles with 17 to 20 year olds daily. I would have to weigh in by saying, anecdotally, that youth these days seem much more mature at handling their relationships than I ever was at that far-ago time. Possibly because they commit to someone serious a little later and feel comfortable sharing more with a circle of friends and colleagues. They're also more likely to have both male and female best-friends, thereby possibly understanding eachother's gender a lot better than the generation before, and before that. Giving them a more balanced and respectful view of eachother when they get around to partnering/children.

And, sure single-ness is marketed to, but so is coupling. Eg, the excessive cross-promotion of Valentines Day each year. Being single because an advert tells you to be so, is pathetic. Young people are a bit smarter than that and want just like everyone else to belong to something, and close friendship with a small cohort allows that for them these days. What's so wrong with that?

maelorin,
most of us campaigning for change in family law recognise that there are cases like yours. Congratulations. Unfortunately for some it does not matter how much care we take to try and do it right other factors come into it.

Daniel's piece included a clear challenge to young men and a dismissal of the views of those who have experienced the pitfalls of the current system. There is a relevance for discussion suggesting that to ignore the potential costs has some associated risks.

I suspect that a factor other than being nasty which is significant but not well understood by those on above average incomes (laywers/judges/politicians) is the impact child residency can have on the income of a parent with few employment skills or a lack of desire to support themselves. CSA have an online calculator and FAO have tables available to get an estimate of just those bits. What I have not seen is a calculator for the Single Parents pension. In one case known to me the mother is getting about $450 a week tax free from the above sources (on top of investment income and wages from working one day a week). She may also be getting rent assistance but I don't know that. The parents share parenting about 53/47% (an issue costing everybody a lot of money as the mother seeks the usual 80/20 arrangements).

There appears to be a complete lack of the concept of responsibility for actions in the whole family law arena. Benefits are the same for the person who is abandoned with the kids as for the person who makes it almost impossible for the other parent to have substantial involvement in their kids lives. Creating a situation which makes shared care impossible appears to have no clear link to being the parent who see's less of the kids.

Maelorin

Your thoughts on responsibilities of the individual are interesting. However society has responsibilities also, and there are pre-marriage education programs available to help prepare couples for possible marriage (and in some countries they are mandatory). This is to try and avoid conflict or possible divorce, which is not only of great emotional and financial cost to the parents and their children, but it also has a cost to the community.

Because divorce is so common, it would be irresponsible for society not to give full information about the likely consequences of divorce to the couple before they marry.

As fathers will most likely be the non-custodial parent after a divorce, (88 % of the time), then it should be told to the intended groom how they will have to pay child support to the mother and this may occur until the child is 21 in some cases. But the father is likely to have minimal say in how that money is spent, have minimal say in how the child will be raised, and in 30% of cases, the father may not actually see the child at all.

In effect, the child will be taken from the father as a part of fatherhood. They should also be told how little concern will be shown by society regards this, and even in many articles on parenting, fathers are no longer mentioned, and there are a number of recent examples of this in OLO. They should also be told how expensive Family Law systems are to get more contact with the child or more say in the child’s life.

None of this Daniel did is his article, and because of this, young men could enter into marriage being totally unaware of it, although they have a very significant chance of it happening to them. Allowing young men to enter into marriage being totally un-aware and un-prepared is not responsible of society.

With the shear number of divorces (1,000 per week, each year) it also becomes impossible to believe that all these men were no good as husbands or fathers.

Audrey,

It’s fantastic that you’re among a group of mature young adults. However, you must be aware that everyone matures at different rates, and some are more vulnerable to peer pressure and marketing than others.

Your comment, ‘being single because an advert tells you to be so, is pathetic’ is pretty insensitive, considering you’re talking about young people at a really vulnerable stage of their lives. If you have low self-esteem, if you have come from an abusive environment, and especially if you’re in a socially isolated situation, you do whatever it takes to get yourself a ‘cohort’, regardless of whether or not that ‘cohort’ is supportive. And I’d say that a large number of young men are still uneasy about ‘sharing’ their emotions with friends and colleagues.

In labelling people ‘pathetic’ whose attitudes and behaviours are affected by brand promotion and advertising, you’re referring to a large portion of the population.

Most people buy the brands they do because, however subversively, an advert has told them to do so. And many people do this, to belong to something bigger than themselves. When you consider advertising budgets (such as Nike’s $500 million advertising spend in 1997 alone), you’ve got pretty intense effort going into convincing people to do something just ‘because an advert tells them so’.

There’s nothing wrong with *not* being involved in a romantic relationship when you’re young. I’m not sure why you’re asserting that I’ve said this. My point is to *understand* why you make the life decisions you do, and that even if ‘commitment’ isn’t on your five-year-plan, it might fit with what you’ve been seeking to ‘belong’ to. And I was more referring to young adults in and beyond their mid to late-20s.

Timkins,
You’re right: we do need to inform men and women of all this. And pre-marriage counselling should be strongly encouraged. But with a word limit of 600 words when writing of your own experience, it’s impossible to address all possible outcomes of marriage. You just wouldn’t get the piece published. It would necessitate a completely different piece, which should be done.

Tracy,

You have mentioned the impact that media, advertising etc has on people, and I tend to agree that it can have a significant impact on the way people think.

Now to get some female thoughts on this, (sweet, gentle female thoughts of course), it has been thought that media that is very negative towards males can eventually turn women away from men, as it gives women negative attitudes towards men, husbands, marriage, fathers etc.

I have heard men say that no matter what they did they could not make their wives happy, as those wives seemed totally convinced that they were unhappy.

A theory regards this is that women’s media is brainwashing women into believing that their lives are unhappy and unfulfilled, and this can occur particularly in women’s magazines which sell 100,000’s copies, and appear to be addictive reading for many women.. (Male magazines sell very few copies in comparison).
http://www.magazines.org.au/driver.asp?page=circulation+%26+readership/key+circulation+facts.

The articles in these magazines are normally written to a formula to try and convince women that they are unhappy and being victimised, and the articles will often infer that “it’s all men’s fault”. See http://www.nationalreview.com/books/kob200404190926.asp

It’s a huge industry, but it is essentially an industry trying to make women feel unhappy, insecure, and often with negative feelings about males.

Of concern is that this type of media is extending down to young girls, and we now have magazines such as “TotalGirl” at http://www.totalgirl.com.au/ and also “Girl TV” http://www.totalgirl.com.au/transient/girl_tv/GIRLTV_terms.html

“TotalGirl” and “Girl TV” are children’s media with minimal male content, or males that appear are treated like a source of entertainment or as a type of fashion accessory. As can be seen on the front cover (and the web-site) of “TotalGirl” it also has a sub-title of “No Boys Allowed”, which is like a subconscious message to young girls that males are no good or unnecessary. So young girls are now getting anti-male messages from a very young age.

So what do you think about media that often portrays males negatively, and what affect would that have on women perspectives towards men, husbands, marriage, fathers etc.

maelorin,

I had to laugh when I read the first part of your post. In the second paragraph you wrote you had an amicable divorce and then in the third you say you're a lawyer. This just proves your ex wife isn't stupid; it does nothing for the rest of us who aren't lawyers.

I agree with Daniel and yourself that individuals need to take responsibility for their actions. But I fear that when you say 'individuals' you mean 'men'. From his piece, I'm sure Daniel does.

It seems you're also calling men who get 'screwed by the system', 'childish' (incredible arrogance from a lawyer who is part of the 'system'), because they complain about it. Well, isn't this just all the craze - another feminist calling men childish! What do you hope to achieve by name calling like this? Do you think slinging about derogatory terms is going to solve anything? It sounds like you're the one who needs to do the growing up.

Even if “house and garden” is not maelorin’s bread and butter he is defending the system as a lawyer. His call for men to grow up, could be interpreted as one of “fess up and pay up”, because the law does not allow for any other outcomes. Your children are your ex’s to do as she pleases, so don’t make it any worse and risk losing fortnightly contact, because once again, there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.

Seeker,
It is interesting that wherever there has been a similar Family Law system, it has created similar results on society and on children.

The results of studies in the UK at http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php
are very similar to the results of studies carried out in the US at http://www.fatherhood.org/fatherfacts_t10.asp

If a Social Scientist in Australia ever did similar studies into the wide scale removal of fathers from families and their children in this country, I think they would find very similar results to society in Australia also.

It is also very interesting that Family Law personnel have not seen such reports or study results before, or if I they have, then they have rarely made mention of it.

Perhaps if Daniel wants to recruit more fathers into this present system, he should take a good look at the system.

If he wants to make a whole series of maligning, unsubstainated, made-up type comments about young men and fathers, then perhaps he should read the article “Undoing the damage of male-bashing, one daughter at a time” By Kathleen Parker at http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_7073.shtml

But I somehow think there will not be much interest by people at shown by Ozprospect.

Timkins,

Very interesting links, thanks. The description of women’s magazines is pretty spot-on. It is a huge industry making megabucks out of making women fearful, unhappy and insecure – as does the media generally. It panders to individual desire, instant gratification, the belief that ‘I deserve everything’: ‘I need’, ‘I want’. Women’s magazines contribute to women’s dissatisfaction – married, or not.

I agree that the media can be very negative towards males. I haven’t noticed too many recently (I try to avoid ads), but I remember a spate of ‘dumb man’ ads around a few years ago. But in fairness, I have to say that ‘dumb women’ are fairly well-represented in western media too. But generally, the media’s images of men are pretty uninspiring. As the mother of two boys, it concerns me greatly.

Younger, I was 'addicted ' to women’s magazines. The messages I received were that ‘depending’ on a man was frowned upon. All ‘relationships’ should be treated with caution. You should never be vulnerable. Commit, and lose your independence. Be on guard… Was this the media I chose to engage with, or something broader? I don’t know.

I’ve noticed a strong trend towards ‘metrosexualising’ men: they should be more interested in fashion, make-up, cooking and home decorating. Is this aimed improving negative media images, an attack on traditional ‘masculinity’, or have advertisers realised they can make more money from men if they can only make them as insecure as they’ve made us? Probably the latter.

I agree advertisers’ targeting of young kids is an awful concern. Parents have to fight harder than ever to create a base of self-esteem so our kids need not search for identity through their consumption.

I believe our incessant need for stimulation is at the root of this problem. And the reality of marriage with its significant compromises and subjugation of personal desires is at odds with our individualist mindset.

But certainly marriages suffer from a media that encourages us to compete rather than cooperate, and to constantly search for the ‘new’ as the remedy for dissatisfaction in life.

Tracy
worthy points, well expressed ! It seems to me that in all this we are missing something very special and that is the solidarity we experience through extended family. I would not like to see grandma and uncle all living on our doorstep, but perhaps a few doors away would be good :) the relief we can obtain through extended family relationships is AMAZING. I married into a race where every 2nd person who passed me in the town claimed to be my relly, which was ok. I really felt at home. In later years I see how crucial this all is to keeping your sanity during times of crisis. We begin the brainwashing technique for 'INDIVIDUAL'ism very early, we put babies in a separate room and ignore them till they cry themselves to sleep. Asians will usually have an infant with them for around 6 to 12 months in bed or same room, breast feeding is so convenient, baby develops a strong sense of security and family bonding. I just mention these things by way of complementing Tracy's post about the emphasis on 'me me me' that is characteristic of womens and mens magazines these days. The bible describes the Church as "one body with many members" if one member is hurt, the rest of the body can help it. Families can and should be the same.

Fatherhood, and motherhood, are so much nicer when we have our network of extended family. Even though the number of people who can speak my wifes language in Australia can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands, we still have the support of o'seas extended family and feel their presence daily.

Boaz, I agree with your sentiments, so nice to have an opinion from you without quotes from your bible. I agree that the fragmentation of the extended family in western culture is an appalling loss, creating isolation and alienation for many people.

In pre industrial times, in village life the extended family spread further than mere blood relations to child minding by elderly men and women who could no longer work the fields - no doubt much wisdom was passed along as well.

I am not so naive to believe that this simpler time was a utopia - far from it. However, there is something to learn from it and a more inclusive, cooperative society is something to aim for, may be then our young men would feel that they are a part of something worthy rather than playing the part of the rebellious outsider as media prefers to portray male youth.
Regards.

Tracy A - very well put.

The trend towards 'metrosexualising' men may well have a significant impact on problems in relationships. I don't know what emphasis is put on 'blokising' (how would you spell that) women. I suspect most men live more comfortably with a woman who can get her hands dirty in the garden, just as most women probably prefer a guy who is not scared to use an iron. Society appears to still be working through some of those issues - with a lot of chaos along the way.

How much of the current unhappiness by women towards men is because many men don't do the 'metrosexual' thing well?

Marriage/relationships need to be a mix of warts and all along with working to meet a partners needs rather than glossy images and demands for change. Maybe then we will all be a lot happier.

I tend to think the term “metro-sexual male” is actually a media invention, and it is a part of a system of selling “male bashing” whereby any social problem is to be blamed on a male. A male must now be “metro-sexual” or he is not in the race, but it is an artificial concept. The term “metro-sexual female” is rarely seen, and I think that hormones dictate that there cannot be such a thing as a “metro-sexual male” or a “metro-sexual female”. These are artificial terms applied by the media.

The media is VERY powerful and growing. There were very few magazines, TV stations, radio stations, web-sites, etc now as there were even 20 yrs ago. Most of this media is fiction, or at best “infotainment”, where it is a mixture of information (or fact) and entertainment (or fiction). Unfortunately, I think the balance of media is now entertainment (or fiction), and it is also addictive, mesmerising and brainwashing.

The statements contained in this article are not fact, and it would easily find its way into “fiction” type media.

The media industry is very protective of what it is doing as it has enormous financial and political interests to protect.

I could relate what was done with just one magazine to have it alter its content. Numerous organisations and individuals were contacted over many months but to no avail. People within the media industry completely disregarded complaint, while those outside of the media industry were totally agreeable with the complaints about that magazine. At the end of it all, that magazine continues, it is targeted towards young children, and it has increased its circulation and has now branched out into TV.

So the best thing a parent can do is to limit media for their children as much as possible, if not “Turn it off”, and take back the child.

It is not necessary for a child or an adult to be assailed by so much media, and they can disperse with magazines, and they can even leave the TV off (after they go through withdrawals of course).

Wow! Ringtail has a heart!

Tracy A, I really appreciate your contribution. Perhaps one needs to be mother to sons, or father to daughters, to become fearful of the politics.

Hi Timkins,

Very pertinent. Donahoo makes an argument based upon only one motivation. Another possible motivation, certainly not comprehensive but I hope thought-provoking:

A young man chats to his mate over a beer. "I want to get married and have kids by the time I'm 25."

"Why, mate? Haven't you heard the divorce rate topped 50% this year?"

"Yeah I know, but I will make sure that won't happen, and even if it does, I wouldn't be the one at fault, so she would be the one who lost everything."

"Think again mate. Remember Tony? He caught his missus in bed with his best mate. She still got the lot: house, car, kids, super, and he spent a fortune in lawyers just to see his kids."

"Yeah, but my marriage will be different."

"What about Jack then? He can't even pay for a beer. His missus has him up to the eyeballs in Child Support, and the debt survives bankruptcy!"

"I didn't know that... but it won't apply to me, I know I will find a girl who will love me no matter what."

"Yeah ok, ok. Like Trev. He found a beautiful girl, then she had kids and decided she didn't need him any more. Gone, mate, just like that."

"I thought he misbehaved."

"Nah mate, he didn't. Fact is, you have no legal protection if your missus wants to leave, and you're more than likely to lose the lot."

"How do you know that? Now you're starting to make me worry."

"Cause it happened to Tony, it happened to Jack and it happened to Trev. And guess what? It happened to me too."

"Gee mate, I'm sorry."

"It's ok, I was lucky enough not to have kids before it happened. I wouldn't ever have kids or get married again. It's not worth the risk."

"I'll have to think about that, hey?"

If women are having trouble finding good men, maybe they need to lobby the government to make marriage more secure?

Everyone talks about young men taking "personal responsibility". Let's consider:

1. Family Law 1975: no-fault divorce.

2. 40% of boys (and girls) will go to bed tonight without their father in the house.

3. Most women do not like, and shouldn't take, much of the traditional "role" of fathering of boys. See below.

4. Virtually all reputable studies point to a decay of boys' ability and attitude in fatherless households.

5. Mothers can and do, wittingly or not, exclude fathers from their boys' lives.

6. Children have "rights" in the Family Court, reinforced in school. At 18, they abruptly lose these "rights". Parents have no legal rights to their children. The court has deemed that resident parents (87% female) have rights by virtue of the children's "rights".

For 30 years, fatherless boys have seen single mothers abuse single fathers or viceversa, the freedom of singledom, the erosion of marriage... and have become, in some cases, self-centred little monsters.

An infinitessimal example: few mothers, assumedly, would enjoy their young boys jumping on their chest. Mothers who do roughhouse could cause their boys to disrespect their future female partners.

Yet fathers frequently roughhouse. As a part of the training of young aggressive (NB I say not violent) boys, this allows the dad to teach boys when "enough is enough". This is just one tiny example of numerous critical development issues which fathers can provide best, allowing for boys to temper their behaviour and learn how to become responsible and self-giving.

Selfish young men and women are in no small measure due to shaky Family Law damaging families for 30 years, and the offshoots, taken up by other laws, leaders, media and advertising. They tell children how very important they are and how unimportant others are, and that relationships are likely to be miserable and short-lived.

Government must lead the way in taking intact childed marriages and relationships seriously, backing people who also take them seriously, penalising people who don't, including those who erode them from the inside through abuse, neglect or needless abandonment.

Seeker,

I often look at my own parents’ marriage of 36 years (still going), and the hell they went through in rough patches, and wonder how on earth they made it through…

Is it that my father and his parents were WWII refugees and, having lost all family back home, he felt compelled to make sure our family stuck together? Was it that my mother, whose father was a violent alcoholic and mother endured many bouts of deep depression and ECT, understood that marriage was bloody hard work, whatever your circumstances?

It inspires me that, at age 60, my dad has attended an anger management group for three years now. He says just talking to other men who have been victimised and wronged by a culture of blaming men, has “freed him” from abuse he suffered as a child.

I wonder whether having been raised in an era of seemingly-infinite wealth, and told we should get whatever we want, our resentment simmers when one part of our lives isn’t going to plan. Many of us feel we deserve instant luxury, constant happiness, and relationships where we get whatever we want. It’s a disposable culture where people and relationships have become expendable in the pursuit of personal fulfilment, and entertainment at our fingertips has fostered a culture of short-attention-span living.

We should reject a media that seeks to divide and conquer, and instead groom our kids in a sophisticated understanding of the media’s role in manufacturing desire, manipulating self-esteem, exaggerating self-importance, and encouraging snap decision-making as a solution to life’s problems.

We all need to remain aware that the media doesn’t care one way or another whether it degrades people, just so long as it sells. Everyone must get vocal in telling broadcasting authorities that the exploitation of men, women, children, elderly people, ethnic minorities - is unacceptable - because our silence indicates our acceptance of these tactics.

Our kids need to be told there is reward in delayed gratification and in nurturing, rather than defeating, other human beings. That way, they may survive adulthood with their self-esteem, and relationship, intact.

I would agree with that Andyman,

This article lecture young males to get married, but the way the Family Law system currently is, lecturing young males to get married is like lecturing young men to go over the wall and face machine gun fire. Some may believe that they won’t be hit, and some won’t, but statistically the vast majority will, and there is minimal to help them afterwards.

There are becoming fewer women in time that would be eligible for marriage. Feminists must be avoided at all costs. I have read much feminist literature, and rarely will the word “love” be included in that literature. It does not seem to be in a feminist’s dictionary, and it is more than likely that during a marriage to a feminist, she will be constantly trying to destroy her husband as much as possible while keeping him alive so that more punishment can be inflicted. They don’t believe in love, and most don’t like children either, so having children won’t make them any happier

If the woman has spent most of her life addicted to women’s media (and there is an enormous amount of it), then it is highly likely that she will not be able to make the transition from a world where everything has to be “fun”, “games”, “quizzes” and “gossip” to a marriage environment. Unfortunately this type of media is now extending down to girls of primary school age, and I have seen no attempts by women’s organisation to limit that media. Any attempts by males to limit it is normally regarded as “misogynistic”, or not giving women “voice” etc.

All I have to say Daniel is you have a very naieve and simple way of thinking, life, relationships and every other thing that we undertake is a little more complex than you just state have a good day and I hope your relationship goes well and is indeed simple look a bit further than your back yard.

Andyaman very insightful, speciall that GEM of a statement "Fathers roughouse with boys, teaching them when enuf is enuf".. ! excellent.
Just one of many of the valuable lessons which are part of our rapidly decaying culture, and another one of those things which was 'not anticipated' by the actions listed by you above it, e.g. the no fault divorce etc. I keep harking back to anthropology, and how various case studies can show us the DANGERs of tinkering with important aspects of our culture. The consequences are seldom realized nor seen for a generation. Have a look at "Steel Axes for Stone age Australians" for how loss of male self image caused the complete social and cultural and physical destruction of a whole tribe in Cape York. Simple through the introduction of a steel axe by well meaning whites to the aboriginal group in question.

Another valuable point was the lack of mention of LOVE in feminist literature. How critical and crucial is THIS. But wait, there's more!
We do need to recapture love, romance, care, committment, but the one thing in my opinion we need even more than this is the 'spiritual framework' which becomes the glue and the modus operandi of all of that. Billy Graham (evangelist) packed the MCG with over 130,000 people in 1959, no bigger crowd even for a grand final has ever been seen there. With all the meetings held, a quarter of the Australian population attended. That says something about the prevailing heritage of the day.
This weekend, his son Franklin is going to be at Telstra Dome, for Festival Victoria. (18th,19,20th) Its free, why not all come along and see something of that framework which will hold us all together in the storms of life.

BOAZDavid,

If we argue natural laws, we can ask, "We've had fathers in families for millenia. Why the indefensible (from a natural POV) view that mums can pick up all the slack?" Or, just ask any single mum how busy she is with the kids...

From a sociological viewpoint, we can ask, "Why do so many children seek out fathers, even sperm donors? Why do fatherless kids commit more crime and suicide more?" (Stats from every recent applicable government study.)

If we ask, "What do people want?" there's the growing desire for 50/50 care after divorce (80% or more), the desire of children for paternal identity, the regret of separated people who have said (30% in one study) "We could have worked things out with more time." What a poke in the eye for faultless divorce!

Healthwise, what about the child's right to access to genetically similar materials or to medical history that will facilitate treatment of a genetic disease? Or the 4,100 CSA clients who died last year?

Whichever way we want to look at it, people are craving stability but consume a steady diet of "why I should be unhappy". Children want male heritage and fatherly support. We all want to be healthy. And kids are better off with both parents in the home.

Those who would deny the importance of fathers, and the necessity of shoring up marriages, might consider the following before replying:

"If the Law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts are against you, argue the Law; if both are against you, call the other lawyer names."

That is, before they take the wearisome old Feminist tactic of calling me names or making unconfirmed statements. That would just make them look silly.

My ex's stated belief... "I suppose someone will have to teach them to shave."

It is this dismissive, derogatory abuse of the value of fatherhood which is damaging boys (and girls) daily.

Some marriages; because of physical or genuine emotional abuse, neglect, unfaithfulness or joint consent; should end. Most should not. 50% divorce rate? Insane!

family law practice is fraught with highly emotional clients. even more so than my old criminal law clients.

our culture chose to head down an individualistic path decades ago. the number of people who have difficulty accepting personal responsibility for the way they deal with things that go wrong in their lives has staggered me. the culture of blame is self-destructive.

relationship breakdowns are one of the biggest sources of violence in our society: perhaps the biggest. (i don't have comparative figures in front of me).

with an increasing trend towards relying on 'the law' to resolve our problems rather than more personal mechanisms, a system that is not supposed to resolve emotional issues is being held accountable for the emotional resolution of problems.

the law is not a counselling service. it is a human institution that arose out of a need to regulate transactions between people - particularly property. it can never be perfect. someone always loses. there are only so many options. none will ever fit every problem. that is why we still have common law. the more precisely we try to define human relationships, the more complex and convoluted - and broken - the outcome.

in short: everyone is responsible for *their* part in the processes of relationship breakdown. anything left to someoneelse to resolve will always dissatisfy. the third party is not the one *feeling* the pain directly.

no one is perfect: be they mother, father, judge, lawyers, whatever. and no single thing/approach will/can solve all problems.

Daniel,
Good to hear young men speaking their truth.
I agree and we are setting up a number of pilot programmes to

1. mentor expectant dads with dads 12 month further down the track
2. Skil up new dads
3. create fatherhood festivals in communities around Australia
wher the role of fathers is celebrrated, questioned and stories shared
see our website www.fatherhoodfestival.com and www.fatherhood.com.au
4. researching creating high school programs for boys on subject like

consensual parenting and why father?
5. create awarneness raising products like the Fatherhood CD (with John Butler, Xavie Rudd etc..)
so all in all it comes down to vision, commitment, time and money.

We have the commitment and vision.

we have set up a charity to work on the other 2 aspects
feel free to contact me on this issue

at info@fatherhood.com.au
highest regards
Colin George