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.