“When mothers are partnered the shared demands of earning and family care mean more choices around the division of labour between the couple.”

I would agree with that, and a family with a mother and a father normally means more choices and opportunities for all concerned:- for the mother, the father and the children. Such families are normally wealthier and happier.

The present rate of single parent families is mostly because of divorce and separation, with some studies indicating that at least 40% of couples latter regretting that they divorced or separated in the first place.

Feminists have been of minimal help, as they have long advocated the replacement of marriage with de facto or ad hoc relationships, resulting in increased rates of poverty, child abuse, STD’s, DV etc. In effect, marriage has been replaced by a whole range of often unsolvable social and economic problems.

Trying to accommodate so many single parent families is proving unviable, so maybe society should go back to basics, put feminism to one side, and revisit marriage.

Regardless of what we might wish the rates of marriage to be in our society, we are faced with the fact of single parents.

But, if a child's environment is insufficiently resourced socially or economically it faces an uphill battle. That applies for issue of large families or small, and for single parents of whatever ilk.

When economic fundamentalism impacts negatively upon the time, loving attention, and adequate care which is necessary for grooming childrens' development - the results become harshly manifest in the educational establishments.

Don Aitkin's recent article on education follows the nature/nurture theme from there

Timkins
You do need to understand that it was not feminists who set about creating high divorce rates and destroying the family as you know and love it.

It was ordinarly women who realised that they should not have to accept a life in which there is no chance of happiness or fulfilment for them.

There happen to be a lot of very unpleasant and badly behaved men out there and the fact that women lose income and all sorts of other benefits when leaving a marriage should indicate to you, that divorce is not a lifestyle choice made by women hoodwinked by feminist propaganda.

Do you think women should have to go back to accepting violence and abuse in silence for the sake of the marriage. Perhaps it is men who need to change so that marriage provides satisfaction for both parties?

Compelling sole parent pensioners to return to work is discriminatory on 3 levels:

1 - against children from separated marriages, in terms of parenting
2 - against parents who are doing it on their own, in favour of parents who are married to a high income earning partner and get FTB-B
3 - against custodial parents in favour of non-custodial parents, who face no such compulsion even though so many are apparently unemployed.

I fully support increasing opportunities for sole parents to achieve economic security. On divorce or separation, custodial parents' responsibilities for the day to day physical and emotional care presently provide very limited opportunities to 'move on' in terms of getting decent jobs, repartnering, etc. In stark contrast to a non-custodial parent.

Apparently, most non-custodial parents are unemployed or very low income earners(40% of Child support payers pay $22 a month in Child support). So, WHY is the Government not targeting them, rather than (or at least as well as) the custodial parents who are in fact already working raising kids (benefiting the children and society, and severely limiting their own prospects as a consequence)?

What is that 40% of non-custodial parents doing with their time, and in terms of meeting their responsibilities to their children? What example are they setting to their children, by not being employed? Or alternatively, by fixing the books to hide their income and their responsibilities?

Why are they allowed to just walk away from their responsibilities to provide for their children financially and set them good examples, while the custodial parents are labeled bludgers who are setting poor examples to their children, and have to take the whole can - caring for kids and 'paid' work? With little community support for them to do so?

I find this extraordinary.

Mollydukes seems to think that most divorces are caused by the violence of men. Well they're not. Alot of men are violent pigs but most divorces are not because of violence.

If a couple with children wishes to divorce why is it up to the government to make sure they can do this with as little change to their lifestyles as possible? Surely if you're big and mature enough to break up a family you can recognise that some lifestyle changes are inevitable. Such as the non-custodial parent will have reduced time with their children and the custodial parent will have to go to work to provide for their family. Why is it so inhuman to expect single parents to work?

Two parents in a household makes life easier. One parent makes life harder. There's nothing that the government can or should do about it.

Dear oh dear, "Timkins" is banging on about the evil feminists who spoiled his marriage again. How boring, guess I'll tune him out again - which is a bit of a shame really, since he occasionally has a good idea.