RObert - if you haven't already seen it, an excellent essay on the Family Court entitled, "Kangaroo Court" Family Law in Australia, is in the current (# 17) issue of Quarterly Essay written by historian John Hirst. Not knowing too much about the machinations of the Family Court I decided to have a look. The travesties illustrated are literally heartbreaking. The essay is well worth a look and shows a glimpse of one aspect of what it means to be a man in Australia.

Tony

Again:
Domestic Violence is Gendered Violence
Domestic violence is not just about physical violence. It takes many forms –physical, sexual, verbal, financial and emotional. These forms of abusive and manipulative behaviours are about maintaining power and control of women by male abusers. (Mullender and Morley 1994). The key component of the dynamics of domestic violence are the concepts of gender and power: Men as a social group have greater power than women and violence is an important way by which men maintain their dominant position. (Laing)
Consistently research shows us that in the majority of cases,
men are the perpetrators of domestic violence. (Flood)
The fathers’ groups persistently claim that the Court is ‘biased’ against them.[51] But their claims had (and have) no empirical support: the literature and the available studies show that the Family Court makes orders (in contested cases) in favour of fathers at twice the rate of those made by consent.[52] The fathers’ anecdotes that so captured the attention of the politicians (and I should emphasise that this is a non-party political issue: the legislation was introduced by the previous Labor Government) invoked the discourses of ‘victimhood’ and ‘formal equality’
Moreover, there have been some very serious outcomes that endanger children and their carers.[56]Law Reform by Frozen Chook, Graycar MULR 2000

Unfortunately, the field of family law has become less a terrain of debate and more a battlefield, with landmines (such as the recent child support proposals) going off in every direction. For every anecdote or story that has swayed a politician, family law and policy researchers could provide not only alternative anecdotes but also research data that contradict that story.[93] Yet, just like the stories of lesbians and single heterosexual women scandalously having children with impunity (as opposed to with men), the stories of frozen chooks influence the politicians. Stories about the women who actually use fertility services, data about the real life poverty of children and the women who care for them, and about the violence that characterises many of the relationships from which they are trying to escape, all remain unheard.[94] Law Refrom by Frozen Chook, Graycar MULR 2000

John Hirst's assertion that the Family Court is offensive to families is so off the mark it is remarkable and terrible in conclusions.
In the rush to respond to the anecdotes of father's greivances, children are the greatest victims in Family Court.
It is a deplorable fact that children are routinely placed in contact with abusive parents, mostly male.
It is a unpardonable sin that in Australia today, children are abused and have been killed on court ordered contact. This is because the rhetoric coming out of the “father’s” side of the debate has the ears of the politicians, and dangerously uniformed speakers. Such is the case with John Hirst.

Happy,
I’m not sure what you are on about. You seem to want to quote people such as Graycar and Flood (who both seem to turn a blind eye to abuse perpetrated by females) and then say that other people such as Hirst should have no say.

So much for democracy or freedom of speech, and it is now becoming essential for males in particular to demand their rights to be heard in areas such as family law, as much about families in Australia cannot continue. In their present shape, Australian families are non-sustainable.

I think you should also have a good look at how many DV studies are put together, (eg “Thomas also skewers the current "research base" for domestic violence, noting that much of the purported "research" into domestic violence is characterized by critical flaws; on an intellectual level, these problems included deep-seated prejudices against males based on many researchers’ feminist-based assumptions about the inherently violent nature of males, the unacceptability of all male violence (even it is for self-defense) against females, and the presumptively defensive or insignificant nature of violence by women toward their male victims. Data about female perpetrators of child abuse are apparently overlooked” http://www.safe4all.org/essays/thomas_james ) NB this is from a DV site.

It is totally remarkable that men have tolerated so much that has been thrown at them in the press and in academia, but that tolerance is no longer a “strength”, because unless males do something about this wide spread discrimination and bias, then families are doomed for a start.

If you have not one positive word to say about males, then you too can try and live in a world that has no male involvement (EG where there is nothing built, invented, or produced by a male). That may help you to take a more objective or wide ranging look at the male gender, as I have noted time and again, those who have nothing positive to say about males still have no hesitation in using all the things produced by males.

So, Timkins, you have alot to say about how men are constantly put down by women all the time about absolutely everything and that men make ALL the contributions to society and women just whine about it and they have control of the media and universities and yet you can't say one positive thing about women.

Can U?

Zena
You seem to be trying to wave about the “misogynist” card, which has as much credibility as the “domestic violence” card, or the “patriarchy” card.

I believe your original post has also been edited, possibly because it was offensive.

To answer your question:- There are many women I admire, and generally these are strong minded women who are not easily swayed by propaganda or indoctrination, and can look at an issue from different perspectives.

It would be important to note that in my postings, I attempt to substantiate what I say by references to many other sources, and I would think that between 50% - 75% of those other sources are written by women who do show strong minds, and there can be more references written by such women if you like:-

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_02_24_05hm.html,
http://www.bgnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/25/421f30b5e14c1,
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6353,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152553,00.html,
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/End-of-the-stereotype/2005/04/10/1113071851393.html?oneclick=true,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12628394%255E32522,00.html
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9302/articles/vlahos.html)

If I was somehow anti-female, or if I did not think that all those women I have referenced (now or in the past) did not have good qualities, then obviously I would not be referencing them. But generally I don’t like to see lies, deceit, or biased studies about anyone, male or female.

You are also free at any time to carry out the experiment of not using anything built, invented, or produced by a male. By carrying out that experiment you may get a new perspective on males, or what it means to be a man.