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.