Bringing up children is quite expensive and if someone only wants to save money then it is best for them not to have children. However this eventually becomes very expensive for society.

I would agree that the incentives for men to have children are not that great considering the statistics relating to relationship breakdown, child contact, child support etc.

About 1,000,000 children in Australia have been effectively removed from their fathers over the last few decades, but the recent announcement from Kay Patterson, the Minister for Families and Community Services should really start to ring some alarm bells.

"I have consistently said that children are better off in a household where parents have a job. Not only do they have more disposable income and access to security in retirement through contributions to superannuation, they also increase their self-esteem.” http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/minister1.nsf/content/work_first_16may05.htm

This statement needs much thought.

“where parents have a job.” This means both parents, so what happens to the children? They will be brought up in day care centres, then in pre-school, then in primary school, then in secondary school, then in tertiary education, and then finally turned out into the labour market to be just like their parents.

So we have seen enormous numbers of fathers removed from their children under the “no fault” divorce system, and then the fathers made to pay child support based on their “capacity to earn”. In the future there will also be enormous numbers of mothers effectively removed from their children, so that they can earn also.

Like so many fathers, the mothers will not know their children, and the children will be raised by the state.

We hve become fat, soft and lazy. Complaining how 'so hard' it is today to make ends meet. And yet our parents did it, with the following:
1. single incomes
2. breadwinner working two jobs
3. twice as many children
4. 50-65% mortgages versus 95% borrowings today
5. high inflation, and
6. without lattes, restaurants, 2nd cars, designer labels for adults and children, a storage room full of barely used toys for the kids, mobile phones, mp3 players, computers, playstations, home entertainment systems, wide screen plasma tvs and a mountain of other consumable crap.

And yet, we have it oh so difficult today. Yeah right... soft heads and an entitlement attitudes breeds such victims of 'hardship'. Victims of choice and the hardship of a life time chasing our tales to fill our houses with more useless stuff.

This article reads like another one of those 'we gotta breed to feed the machine' articles. Produce more worker bees so we can keep this sinking social welfare ship afloat. Reaks of a deeply cynical and utilitarian view towards bringing human beings into the world.

I am concerned that this article, and many comments in the various forums, seem to suggest that both men and women enter into marriage (and serious de-facto relationships) with the idea that it will break down. This is not my experiance. While many relationships do break up, everyone I know who has married, or intends to marry, or is in a serious relationship, assumes that it will last a lifetime. And while divorce is on the rise, still more people are staying married than not.

Thus, 'lowering the risk to men to have children' seems a little unneeded. Yes, some people are scared of committment. But many others are not.

That said, i do support the idea that more of the core costs of raising children (medical, education etc) should be covered by the state. Children are, afterall, a social benefit. None of us would be here without people deciding to have children!

Laurie – agree with your sentiment entirely.

As one who has been twice married twice divorced and with 2 children from the first one, I never entered either arrangement with any other intention of it being a “life commitment”.
If one is thinking it might not be “for life” then the person one is considering marrying –is the wrong person – so better pullout before the children arrive and save everyone a lot of pain.

What we get down to with this article is really in the final line

“Society should be willing to bear a lot more of the financial risk.”

At the risk of being seen as uncouth and vulgar may I be indulged (just this once) and say – “what a load of B*llocks”.

We have moved up and away from the idea that society is the “infinite provider of a social safety net” – not because it is necessarily wrong but the “price” it commands and the repression of individual choice which results is worse than the vagaries of self sufficiency.

I remain father of my daughters, tied by blood and genes. No one else exercised a greater sense of care and concern for their welfare than I and their natural mother, just as I did not consider the welfare of children not my own as any sort of “priority”.
So cut the crap, society does not care – society provides for the lowest common denominator nothing more and nothing better – I wanted better for my children – and hopefully they got it.

Life is a risk – risks surround us and psent themselves at every turn. Remove the risk and you will spend your life working to pay the insurance premiums – with nothing left to “enjoy”.

Laurie, the people who marry (including starting a long-term relationship) are not the group my article is discussing. It's hardly surprising that such people do not expect the relationship to fail, since if they did, they'd presumably not have embarked on it.

The problem group consists of those who do not marry, and in partcular those who are deterred from doing so because of the downstream financial risk of doing so.

To Timkins et al, this is not about welfare, either now, or in the future. A future retiree's income, whether as a government handouts, or superannuation, is only worth as much as it can buy. If you want medical care, your house painting, your car reparing, or whatever, then you have to pay people who haven't retired to do the work. Those people will be today's children. If there are not enough of them, then the price will go up accordingly.

The essential premise of my article is that society needs more children for its future economic health. If you disagree with that, then the rest of the article is irrelevant.

If more children are required, then we have to determine what steps might be taken to bring that about. The usual strategies are potentially available: threats, promises, persuasion, and inducements.

Of these, threats don't form part of our society, even if credible examples could be thought of. Promises (by politicians) would be laughed at. Persuasion will likely fall on deaf ears. This leaves inducements.

If there are men who would otherwise be willing to have children, but are being scared off by the risks, and it seems clear enough that there are, then the obvious inducement is a reduction of risk.

There's no point in arguing that people should be prepared to have children without extra money provided by society. This is a value judgement, but even if it were objectively true, it wouldn't change my conclusion in the slightest.

Sylvia.

Hi Sylvia,
I’m not certain whether society needs more and more children, as eventually it will run out of resources. What society does need is a sustainable way of life, and eventually society has to decide what relationships are best for a sustainable existence.

From my personal research, it leads me to believe that long term marriage is the best option for such a sustainable way of life. De facto relationships are often short lived, often lead to welfare, and are not very satisfactory for children.

So “inducements” for long term marriage would be a place to start, and I have thought of what would happen if there were tax incentives for couples to stay married for the longer term (Eg the longer a couple is married, the less tax they pay). If someone does the sums, I think such a system would prove very economic for society.

However the system we presently have does not induce many men to be fathers I believe. There are many barriers and few rewards. In the future I think that there will be many barriers for women to become mothers also, particularly if they are required to work from shortly after the child is born.

For the children, they will not have much of a life if they spend so much time being raised by the state, and hardly knowing their parents. In the past many children have hardly known their fathers, (normally through separation), but this can become the case for their mothers also.

There is a simple solution to a lot of the financial problems of couples having children.Let couples with children income split, so that the parent who brings in the single income shares the income with his/her partener.Their tax liability would be less than halved in many cases.This would encourage women of real genetic ability to have children.The state need not compensate.

Arjay,

Well put. I’ve been agonising for an hour to articulate my thoughts in a single paragraph, and it turns out you’ve already done it.

Many would argue that what you propose is a concession and a subsidy. It just shows how funked up we’ve become.

Three things come to mind...

1. what the government 'gives' it must first take away... all good as long as my hand reaches into your pocket and not yours into mine.
2. if we need more worker bees we dont have to breed them we can import them... immigration
3. human beings are not worker bees, nor fodder to be brought into this world for such cynical reasons as feeding the system.
4. people couldnt give a rats arse about breeding humans to support the misguided economic rationalisations of the politically motivated. We bring life into this world for personal reasons that are a world away from number crunching the perceived social welfare 'problem' of the future.

Put down the cup... there's no storm breweing here.

Arjay,
The system of income splitting for couples may work, but there would be a problem with de facto relationships or cohabitation. Undoubtedly the taxation department would eventually want a piece of paper proving that the couple were actually living together as a couple, and not just sharing accommodation. But that piece of paper would become like a marriage certificate anyway, so the couple would become formally married.

Although about 30% of children are now born outside of marriage, relationships such as de facto relationships, cohabitation etc have not been studied much in Australia I believe. But I have seen studies in the US suggesting that cohabitation lasts only 18 months on average, with many more potential problems occurring during that type of relationship than in marriage, and obviously 18 mths is not long enough for a father and a mother to raise a child.

I have also seen US studies suggesting that each divorce costs society about US $30,000, as well as the individual costs to the man and woman. The costs of separation in a de facto relationship are probably similar, so there appears to be economic benefits to be had for society if the average marriage or de facto relationship can last as long as possible.

Feminists in the US are now beginning to understand that the more de facto relationships a mother has, the worse off she eventually becomes, emotionally, financially, and physically. The same would be for fathers and their children, and far fewer children are generally born in de facto relationships than in marriage.

Seeker ,thanks for the the compliment.They are rare in my line of work.

Timkins,we have paid the lazy and incompetant people to have children at the tax payers expense for too long.Really intelligent women over the last 30yrs have had fewer children so they can pay more taxes for those indolent non achievers to suck off the public purse.We are diluting the genetic pool and creating mediocrity.

I propose that only those who live in stable relationship for five years be able to income split.Instead of their taxes paying for the indolent,their income can pay for intelligent prodigy.Politically incorrect,but it will produce positive outcomes.

Arjay,
The 5 yr period sounds good, as it would encourage longer-term relationships. Children will eventually come along, and they are more likely to be born to parents in a more stable environment.

Systems such as the $3,000 Baby Bonus just encourages the production of babies, and do not encourage fathers and mothers to be parents in a long-term relationship. I think society eventually pays a heavy cost for men and women to have a series of short-term relationships.

On the income splitting aspect, I think it rather unlikely that people are going to stay together merely because it gives them a financial benefit. After all, splitting up almost invariably involves costs, yet people do it anyway.

This is not to say that I'm opposed to income splitting. Indeed, I'd take it further, and suggest that incomes should be split not just with a spouse, but with the children as well. Essentially, it makes little sense to tax incomes on their cash amount without regard to the number of people that the income has to support.

The income splitting proposal also does nothing to address the problem of people, and in particular men, being deterred from getting into relationships, or at least having children, because of the risks involved if the relationship fails.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

You are correct in that income splitting is only part of the answer, but it is hard to argue that it is not a step in the right direction. Great article BTW.

Income splitting would reduce government’s stranglehold on welfare provision. With your extensions, it should adequately take family size into account, so that a single person earning $80k, and one with 4 dependants, earning the same amount, are not viewed equally on our progressive income tax scale.

Outside of income splitting, and especially post divorce, men should not be expected to finance 2 or more households. The arbitrary, income based rates of child support, are inadequate mechanisms for promoting parental responsibility, especially with no fault divorce, especially with fathers left with inadequate rights of access and decision making about their children’s futures.

The current system promotes divorce in some cases. Men and children deserve better, and it is no wonder that men feel overwhelmed by risks assigned to them. More men like myself, would consider resumption of family life post divorce, if only the risks could be reduced to more reasonable levels. More young men would feel comfortable with taking on such responsibility and making the necessary investment, if partnering errors were not deemed theirs alone.

Sylivia,
I would agree with Seeker. More financial incentives to begin a family and to keep the family established would be a step in the right direction.

I think that there has been too little reliable research into marriage, divorce, de facto relationships etc in Australia, but from what I have seen from other countries, marriage is much better than de facto relationships, and the more wealth in a marriage, the less likelihood there will be divorce. Income splitting could help to establish more wealth in a marriage,(even for low income earners), which then has a positive domino effect.

I also think it important to have incentives and programs that aim to establish long term relationships between couples. Once these relationships are established, the children will then naturally come along in those relationships.

But I think that government has shown minimal concern about trying to establish long term relationships between couples. There are minimal tax incentives, and there has been almost no reform of family law, which must act as a very great disincentive for many men to want to start a family, or to begin again if the first relationship breaks down.

There is almost no equality in Family Law, (and I have had Family Law solicitors tell me this straight out). Family Law is a totally archaic, anti-family system that certain people make money out of, but overall it has a very negative affect on society. One of these negative affects has been an eventual lack of children.

OR.......

Society could 'repent' of the many illusory and shallow and selfish values which cause the breakdown of so many marraiges.

It could re-examine the concept of 'family' and see if other cultures and dare I say it, the scriptures have anything to teach us today about family.

It could reflect on the best aspects of those days when marraiges stayed together, and see if anything of value has been thrown out with the bathwater.

I'm reminded of "You have sown much, but reaped little"

Sylvia,I agree with David.The biggest factor that destroys marriage is the shallowness of the image of "The Perfect Woman" which many men fail to out grow and become disillusioned when their post pregnant wife no longer has the ideal physical attributes.

Many women become paranoid trying to maintain the illusion of youthful sexuality,and the real relationship of understanding our common humanity fails to develop.

Both sexes should try to look their best,for their spouses,but should also be prepared for the really difficult unrewarding hard yards that will see them both develop into mature,responsible and realistic beings.

Boaz,
The idea of values seems good in theory, but unfortunately it all has to do with money at present, and the woman controls the relationship almost completely.

Statistically:- if he has minimal money, he is unlikely to marry or be a father. The more he earns, the more satisfied she is likely to be. The more he earns, the more children he is likely to have. The more he earns, the longer the marriage is likely to last.

70% of divorces are initiated by the woman, and she will take from him as much as possible and then attempt to bleed him dry through child support. Over 60% of mothers in couples have jobs, yet over 90% of child support payers are fathers. Work that out for “gender equality”. She takes the children (and does not want 50/50) so he must pay her child support, and she can also receive innumerable government subsidies if she has the children.

After 30 yrs of feminism, values such as family and love may be on the list somewhere, but money is definitely at the top.

There can be government programs to help educate people in the value of long term marriage etc, but it think that there has to be something more tangible, such as reforms to law and to taxation.

As can be seen in recent news releases regards research into stem cells and embryos, the development of the artificial womb is ongoing, if not inexorable. There will have to be big rethinks in family and motherhood then.

Wishing things were different doesn't help much. Nor does telling people that they should change their attitudes. These are really just excuses for doing nothing concrete about the problem.

There is a danger that people are longing for a return to the perfect marriages of the past. Except it was never like that. More people stayed together because of social pressure and financial constraints, not necessarily because of a blissful married life.

Some people stayed together 'for the sake of the children'. It is not safe to assume that it better for them. Growing up in a family where the relationship between the parents is strained is unlikely to help promote the emotional equilibrium of a child.

Ideally, every child would be brought up in a relaxed family environment with two parents who love each other. That ideal is not available to everyone, and it is sometimes better for the children if the parents separate.

Sylvia.

Sylivia
There are marriages that fail, but marriage remains the best general system for children.

For example from “Marriage and its Alternatives: Opportunity versus Risk” at http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/dd-09-03.pdf

“No, marriage does not provide a guarantee of a healthy normal well-adjusted child but it does provide the best odds for that outcome, the best opportunity with the lowest risk of failure.”

Alternatives to marriage such as single female parent families or a series of de facto relationships are generally many times worse in rates of child poverty, child abuse, STD’s, DV, abortion etc.

Money is now the biggest factor in marriage and divorce, and it will only be overcome by reform in areas such as family law or tax.

However there would be another important factor in fatherhood, which is the devaluing of men and fathers that has been occurring in feminist propaganda and in the media. It is noticeable in media, (including OLO), that there is hardly a single positive comment ever made about the male gender, with almost every type of negative comment being made. Such negativity about men eventually leads to the perception that men are unnecessary or optional extras only in families.

This perception of fathers can be overcome, and there are even some feminists who now mention fathers when talking about families, (which is a start). But the money aspects of fathers, family and relationship breakdown will only be overcome by reform processes that will have to come from government.

Failing that, there are other alternatives for fatherhood including the adoption of children, or the artificial womb when it is developed. The latter is not that far away and may become the final evolution of fatherhood.

Well Sylvia ,why don't we have a HSC course on"Choosing Your Partener and Making Your Marriage Last"?

It might give many some insight on the most important decision of their lives.Divorce is the single most important factor in creating poverty,and the growth of dysfunctional children.The post war generations have to be the most ego-centric,self indulgent and ill disciplined generations ever to have drawn breath.

They are now reaping the fruits of their excesses.

People are not generally noted for being receptive to advice as to their romantic interests. Parents have certainly long known that expressing views on the choices made by their children is an exercise in futility. An HSC course would be equally ineffective.

We don't really have a say in whom we find attractive. That's been decided for us by evolution; it has nothing to do with providing us with happy marriages, and everything to do with maximising the number of offspring.

Throw society's notions of fairness and contraception into the mix, and it's hardly surprising that the birth rate has dropped.

If an HSC course were successful in the sense of properly educating people on the realities of relationships and the functioning of human drives, then I suspect that the result would simply be even fewer marriages.

Sylvia.

At the risk of having everyone label me and therefore view my further comments on all & sundry for evermore with bias...

As a father (one wife!) of six children aged 8 months to 14 years, on a single income under $55k, I was, strangely enough, asked yesterday & today by different people as to why I chose to have 6 children (and if any more were on the way!)

Logically, my life - materially - would be much better if I was unattached and continued not to smoke, drink or worry about fashion clothes - as I see these as key factors in attaining/ maintaining my family's current lifestyle - however, my CD collection would be huge!

My wife may well have been a very successful financial wizard and so she would have been better off, along with the taxoffice too!

So why did we 'choose' children? Certainly not for the general economic wellbeing of society or to overpopulate and denude earth?

Put simply, we did what comes naturally. Be it biological or anthropological conditioning, children are the natural result of sex and hopefully sex in a loving, rather than, 'anything goes' atmosphere.

Whilst non-judgemental about contraception, drug use to regulate my sexual behaviour is as unnatural to me as unilateral marital celebacy and 2.7 children families!

In terms of how the government treats my family, I am actively discouraged (by the tax system) to be in a high wage (high stress) position in accord with my experience & training. I 'dumbed' down my wage to ensure that we had the means (courtesy of family assistance etc) to provide a full time carer for our children (ie my wife - her preference to stay at home with the children) and I would almost be tempted to follow my neighbours example of semi-retiring by having multiple sole parent wives, but my religious tradition differs on this point.

We often joke that we hope at least one of the children remains anti-euthanasia...I wouldn't like to deny life at either end of the spectrum based on economies or convenience.

Sylvia,I propose a course that would be part of the English curriculum with no overt reference to marriage.It would be an exploration in constructive human relationships.Teenagers could explore their emotional complexities through literature.I would have thought that discovering a bit more about yourself might enhance your relationships with others.You seem to think is is not worth trying;that we are pre-programmed chemistry driven beings with no self determination!Using your logic ,we should abandon the study of maths because it is too complex and we will never fully grasp it.

Left wing feminists ,I have no time for but just hopping on the bandwagon of "The Poor Oppresed Male" is as equally devisive.

Your off handed dismissal of my views reflects a closed mind and thus I should add the quality shallowness, that is also an affliction of the post ww2 generations.

The sadness of men without wives and women without children ... woe is us .

So Sylvia, what exactly do we get if we vote NLP? Do we men, optionally, get to keep our clothes?

I’ve never found anything in life that I’d rather spend my money on than my children and family. In my opinion the joy that children bring far outweighs any risks involved. Any man who lets fear of marriage breakdown stop him from getting married or having a family either has the wrong woman or is still not ready for the commitment.

Ensuring that the government (i.e. taxpayers) bear more of the burden for family breakdowns will only ensure more family breakdowns. The government should be making it more difficult for selfish parents to destroy families. If I break a contract or agreement in my business dealings without a valid reason I will be penalised by the law. Why shouldn’t it be the same for breaking a marriage contract when there is often a lot more at stake than just money?

If people were forced to take marriage more seriously maybe we wouldn’t have to put as much time, effort and money into dealing with the aftermath of marriage breakdown.

Timkins "There are marriages that fail, but marriage remains the best general system for children."

True however - do children benefit best from a pair of parents who remain miserable and married or a pair of parents who face a reality of separation, however both remaining as parents to their children?

Don't rush to find the answer - it took me 3 years of anguish to decide.

IMHO, ultimately, the best environment for children is to have the best relationship and unconditional love from both their parents in an atmosphere free of parental angst and rows. If that means separated / divorced parents then so be it.

Agree with Col on this.

I'm divorced, two kids and despite the break up of my marriage I wouldn't have missed out on the joy of my kids for anything. My ex has custody, as an ambo my hours are not compatible for school hours. I have a good relationship with my ex (after a lot of hard work) and I respect her and her ability to care for our children.

I could've gone down the path of bitterness, but my love for my children ensured that I maintained some semblance of commonsense and worked towards creating an environment where my children know they are loved even though (as parents) my ex and I live apart.

Given that Costello wants us to have a kid for the economy (chilling no?) then the government should put its money where its mouth is and provide the infrastructure ie, child care, education, health and a clean environment for our children to grow in.

Seeker,

The NLP, being a state party, cannot offer anything to do with families, which are a federal matter.

For that reason, I wrote the article as a private individual, not as a representative of the party. The comment that I'm a member of the NLP was added by the editor, and is a simple statement of fact.

The party's central focus is in any case not about the ownership (or keeping) of clothes (I assume you meant the shirt off your back), but the obligation to wear them in every public context.

Sylvia.

Col
We’ve had the “no fault” divorce system now for about 30 yrs, and divorce has become so easy that you can fill out the divorce forms on the Internet.

However society should be asking whether or not people are getting divorced because they “can”, or because they “should”.

There are many people who get re-married and divorced again, but I have seen estimates from marriage counsellors that up to 70% of marriages were retrievable, but the couples got divorced because they “could” (not necessarily because they "should").

The propaganda from certain sections of society has been that marriage is confining for women and men are no good (eg “A woman need a man like a fish needs a bicycle”), and society should also be asking how much of a negative affect that propaganda has had. That section of society also wanted de facto relationships rather than marriage, but de facto relationships have now been found to be generally much worse than marriages, particularly for children.

The sheer statistics also show that the whole system of divorce or separation is heavily biased against the father, but overall, each time someone goes through a divorce or separation they loose, and the children eventually loose also.

So it is best to re-educate people into the benefits of long term marriage, and reform government and legal systems.

Failing that, men can start to think laterally if they want to become fathers, and figure out ways of becoming a father without so many risks involved to them or their children.

Timkins your posts regarding the-raw-deal-men-always-get-as-a-result-of-feminists-who-want-to-rid-the-world-of-men, lead me to believe that you dislike being a father.

Many men who post to this forum are divorced, most of whom state that they love their kids and are doing the best then can for them.

I appreciate the concern you express for children, however the ideal family to which you suscribe never really existed. Women have always worked, in the fields, in laundries, taverns etc; their children were either clinging to their hips while they planted seeds or cared for by extended families who may or may not have been related.

The world is not going to turn back to the 50's myth of the nuclear family where hubby was lord and provider and the little woman kept the home fires burning. Nor should it. My children are confident socially as a result of child care centres and the support of not only their biological parents, but the extended families of new partners. We are creating new families and if we can drop the bitterness, move forward to create a solid foundation for all our children.

Of course society should bear more of the cost - we are, after all, society.

A rebuttable presumption of shared parenting enshrined in law will provide men the greatest safety to father children. This alone will achieve social benefits such a drop in divorce rates, a rise in child support, and a reduction in welfare payments.

Also establish a second and voluntary optional marriage contract, one for people who want a stronger legal commitment.

Historical statements by radical feminists and the National Organization for Women

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (National NOW Times, January, 1988).

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" (radical feminist leader Sheila Cronan).

3. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971).

4. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).

5. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981.

6. "The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race," p. 67).

silversurfer, 100% with you on the first couple of points. The idea of the strength of a marriage contract being more clearly defined up front is one I have explored previously. Given the potential consequences when it goes bad it would be nice to have more options.

As for quoting feminist authors - it is scary what some have had to say and is probably useful to build understanding of where some of them are/were coming from. On the other hand I would hate to see comments by the worst of male biggots treated as representative of my position. There are guys who want women to be subserviant rather than equal partners in life. There are guys who are to gender relations what the KKK or Black power are to race relations, hopefully most of those who seek a fair deal for fathers in family law reject the extremists just as most feminists reject extremist feminist views (I hope they do). I remain of the view that we need constructive dialog with moderate feminists, recognition of legitimate claims etc and a striving towards a fairer world. Hopefully the extremists will be sidelined by their own extremism if we keep the dialog going amongst the sane.

Ambo,
I have noted your continuous attempts to stereotype myself (even though you know very little about myself), and I will repeat these words again each time you do it.

I try and look at the bigger picture and look at non-anecdotal data.

About 1 in 3 children will go through the divorce or separation of their parents, and subsequently over 75% of the divorced fathers will only see their children every second weekend or less. 30% of those fathers will rarely have face to face contact with their children in the future, and all this means that those children will rarely see other members of their extended family also.

There are now 1 million of such children in Australia.

Any ideas that families are mainly “patriarchal” is a propaganda myth, with data showing that about 25% of families are actually “matriarchal”, with another 50% being “democratic”, but of course this does not take into account the number of single female parent families now in society, all of which are “matriarchal”.

Any idea that all these divorces are because of “abuse” of the woman by the man is also a propaganda myth, with only 25% of divorced women reporting abuse as a reason for their divorce.

All of the above is a part of the bigger picture.

Your post appears to be mainly an attempt to sterotype myself, but I would like to know more of your details about how “society should bear more of the cost”, because I think society is doing that already.

Silver Surfer
I agree with the 50/50 system, and the “covenant marriage” process should be further investigated. It seems to be gaining popularity in some places.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6766358/

Robert,
From my understanding, many women in the US are now rejecting the term “feminism”. They now identify themselves as being “pro-female”, and often “pro-marriage”, but they will not call themselves “feminist”. Some are highly anti-feminist. See “Ladies against Feminism” http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/ I think this is because they now see how unsustainable the feminist’s version of society actually is.

Timkins, you don't need Ambo or anyone else to stereotype you as a misogynist - you do a brilliant job of that yourself nearly every time you post here.

Also, given that you take every opportunity to criticise 'social science', why is it that you frequently use very dodgy social research to back up your spurious claims?

You are correct in one thing: we don't know very much about you other than what is revealed by your participation here. And that is more than enough for us to characterise you as both misogynist and ignorant about social research. I truly hope that you are a more capable person in other areas of your life.

Timkins, I have not heard of a movement away from the term feminist by those who support the core objectives but then I have not spent much time following that kind of aspect. Until such an approach becomes widespread it still remains counterproductive to launch broadside attacks on feminists just as broadside attacks on fathers do not convince us of the error of our ways (consider the respect that you hold for the views of Pru Goward). The site you refered me too did not appear to be one which is likley to strike a chord with non christians and the 50's look to the family picture/drawing did not help.

I really think that you will have a better response if you back off the broadranging attacks and get into friendly discussion. There are feminists on this site who will listen if treated with respect and respond in kind. Some people will still get into personal attacks rather than debate the issue but I suspect that they are a minority.

How do men and women work together to produce a better environment for our kids to grow up in which also values the lives of the parents and their dreams, goals and responsibilities?

R0bert, I'm quite happy to accept your comparison of radical feminist with the worst of male bigots but I don't know a single guy who wants women to be subservient rather than equal partners in life - this seems like a myth.

I am all for gender reconciliation, yet you underestimate the profound and pervasive inroads that radical feminist ideology and its practitioners have made into the social/legal institutions and policy that determine the safety of Fatherhood and security of the family. The current situation is desperately alarming, and is continually driven by aggressive gender-separatist advocates.

Many, many people have protested the hijacking of the women's movement by separatists and the damage done to our culture, and our children.

Even Erin Pizzey, the founder of domestic violence shelters in the UK 25 years ago and first to write a book about domestic violence, had to flee her country because of feminist terrorist attacks against her (her wording). Eventually her good DV work was hijacked by the separatists. She was brave enough to report publicly, from her considerable experience, that " women can be as violent as men".

The recent onslaught of DV promotion (witch hunt), reminds us that we are not facing well meaning but mistaken individuals who have simply overlooked the wealth of data that defies current gender biased slant on DV policy. We face a propaganda machine that has pulled out all stops to rush Australia headlong into a separatist blockade on social reform and family restoration.

Hello Sylvia,I'm waiting for some intelligent rebutal of my last post.Prove me wrong.Lay bare my most presumptuous foibles."Do you dare ,do you dare,disturb my puny verse?" Gee I love T.S Elliot.

Arjay,

You indulged in an ad hominem argument. I felt no need to respond to it then, and nor do I know.

Sylvia.

Surely Sylvia,you've studied the"Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock"
T.S Elliot found aspiration in the lowest and most dire of our human condition.These were times of the "Great Depresion" ,yet our whimpering ,simpering modern generation need to consult some specialist to cope with their own self indulgent,hedonestic affluence.

Why are we so dysfunctional in such relative abundance,when people of the Great Depression coped so well in such dire need?

Couldn't respond sooner - rules of forum.

Timkins read my post, I stated; “I infer from your posts” that you do not appear to be very happy as a father. As garra said you manage to stereotype yourself. If being a parent gives you joy and satisfaction as it does me, then I am yet to see you say so. BTW you are equally guilty of name calling – if you want to continue to hand it out, then you have to take it as well.

You talk about the big picture. All I find in your posts are internet links to bolster your view of feminism and stats you manipulate to further your beliefs –not the big picture just the view of an embittered man.

If more familles have a female head this still doesn’t make for a matriarchal society – men are still very much in the ascendancy politically and in big business world wide.

My ex and my current partner would both describe themselves as feminists in that they believe in equal opportunity. They also believe in relationships with men – not against men. They don’t want world domination, as you seem to infer, ad nauseum. For your information feminists are not one single homogenised group; there are as many differing views among feminists as there are people. You may not have noticed, Timkins but not all men agree w/each other, many male posters to this forum, including myself do not agree w/your narrow view of feminism.

The feminist quotes from s/surfer are extremist, out of context and out of date. As Robert says, he wouldn’t like to be represented by some of the extreme misogynists’ quotes.

As for society as I previously stated (read my post) we ARE society it behoves us to care for ourselves. That starts with the individual and connects through to business and politics – we, as human beings construct it all. It is up to us to reconstruct a workable society where our children are cared for and given the chance to grow up unencumbered by bitterness and prejudice.

Robert,
In previous posts I have put forward (or agreed with) a number of ways to advance fatherhood, and to help create a more sustainable society.

For example:- Reform to family law and taxation, less negativity about males in the media, education programs about the benefits of long term marriage, 50/50 parenting in the case of separation, covenant marriages etc.

Unfortunately most of these things have already been attempted in Australia or in other countries, but opposed by the feminist movement. In return they have proposed not much more than a continuation of what we presently have, and what we presently have is obviously non-sustainable.

[NB. I call them feminists, because they call themselves feminists. If they were to call themselves andropyndrists, I would have to call them andropyndrists as well]

The web-site link I provided for “Ladies against Feminism” could be classified as “ conservation”, but if it is researched or investigated far enough it will usually be found that the women and men who are most satisfied with their lives are normally conservative, family orientated, and with a religious background. Feminist doctrine is the antithesis of all that, (and you probably know what “best interest of the child” actually means in the feminist handbook).

Ambo,
I have noted your continuous attempts to stereotype myself (even though you know very little about myself), and I will repeat these words again each time you do it.

But apart from attempting to stereotype myself, you have not put forward any suggested ways to advance fatherhood, and to help create a more sustainable society. Similarly you have not provided any further details of how “society should bear more of the cost”.

And the feminist quotes from Silver Surfer are not out of date by any means, as works from these so-called “radical” feminists are still quoted by feminists today, and a feminist admiringly quoted a “radical” anti-male and anti-family feminist recently in OLO, with absolutely no objection from any woman on this forum (but perhaps I will be labelled misogynist or something similar, for stating what is a fact.)

There are always (at least) two sides to every story but the grossly misleading propaganda of the misandrist gender feminists only tells HALF of the WHOLE TRUTH in it's self-serving demonization of Fathers and men.

The true facts prove that Spousal Violence and Child Abuse are gender neutral yet the multi billion $$ DV industry promotes the false stereotyping of Male Abusers and Female Victims to perpetuate it's distorted advantage.

Until we recognize violent and abusive behavior as the gender neutral phenomenon that it is, we will never accurately profile the true abuser or the genuine victim.

Children need BOTH parents and they clearly do better in an intact heterosexual nuclear marriage than in any of the other family dynamics available.

The gender feminists attack the nuclear family to pave the way for the normalization of same-sex gay and lesbian families. I am not homophobic but am unashamedly heterosexual and I believe that children fare much better in a balanced family with a male and a female parent than they do with two mommies or two daddies (even if one is bitch and one is butch)

All evidence proves that the Sole Custody model is a fervent breeding ground for Parental Alienation and produces children who are self-centered but with low self-esteem, and are prone to substance abuse, welfare dependence, truancy as well as a whole host of other anti-social ills.

A rebuttable presumption of Equal Time Shared Parenting and a more equitable financial settlement would dramatically reduce the divorce rate and save a lot of unnecessary trauma.

Timkins – you are talking about two separate and distinct things –

1 The issue and incidence of divorce.

2 The relative treatment of males versus females in treatments handed out and bias expressed by the family court and Child Support Agency.

To the former, the matter is a fact of life and a far better outcome for parents and children than patents who force their children to watch as they usually destroy one another.

To the latter, the uneven and biased standards of duty and responsibility exercised by the family law court is a disgrace. Thank God that idiot Nichols has been pensioned off and away from doing more harm. When men are threatened by their estranged wives and the wives forearmed with the knowledge they will get the fettered support of the court because they are “female” – that is a disgrace. When the CSA works to screw the father and overturn legal agreements for want to interfere and exercise their power – that too is a disgrace.

Those might be the two reasons for this thread to some extent – they are also the parts of this debate that remains in need of fixing - the bit about treating people equally - and not a bias based on gender

Timkins - you're right I don't know you I can only make inferences from the repetitive nature of your posts. You have yet to say anything positive about feminists yet you constantly carp about anything that is even slightly derogatory about men. We're not perfect - we do need to look hard at ourselves if we are to evolve in a positive direction.

"But apart from attempting to stereotype myself, you have not put forward any suggested ways to advance fatherhood, and to help create a more sustainable society. Similarly you have not provided any further details of how “society should bear more of the cost”."

Again Timkins read my post: "As for society as I previously stated (read my post) we ARE society it behoves us to care for ourselves. That starts with the individual and connects through to business and politics – we, as human beings construct it all. It is up to us to reconstruct a workable society where our children are cared for and given the chance to grow up unencumbered by bitterness and prejudice."

Your fear of feminism is divisive and alienating you from many who would agree with some of your views.

To quote RObert "I really think that you will have a better response if you back off the broadranging attacks and get into friendly discussion. There are feminists on this site who will listen if treated with respect and respond in kind."

Has it never occurred to you that women are just as fearful of starting a family as are young men? For similar reasons. Women will never achieve the same amount of power (as men)while they limit their careers in order to care for their children. They also sacrifice much and have just as much to lose as men do in divorce.

Col,
There could be different issues, but eventually they combine I think, and if there is too much divorce or separation, then it begins to devalue marriage, commitment, loyalty and even child rearing.

Of some hope on the horizon is the system of covenant marriage. This can be a legal system and is being used in some states in the US

There is a general description of covenant marriage at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6766358/

“In general, covenant marriage laws lay ground rules that limit reasons for divorce to spousal or child abuse, imprisonment for a felony and infidelity. And before most divorces can be filed, couples are usually required to seek counselling during a mandatory waiting period that can, in some cases, last up to two years.”

So the covenant marriage system is similar to a pre-nuptial agreement, but identifies more of the emotional issues in the marriage, and legally holds both parties to their marriage vows. Some would say it is a return to no-fault divorce, but not entirely, as it emphasises counselling as a means to reduce problems which occur in any marriage.

I tend to think too many people jump ship too quickly without fully working out their problems, and if people are doing this too often then it becomes very expensive for society, and very cruel on any children involved.

Ambo,
“I have noted your continuous attempts to stereotype myself (even though you know very little about myself), and I will repeat these words again each time you do it.”

If your so keen on your feminism, you can fully research it, and you will find that it is based on Marist philosophies which included the splitting up of families and the elimination of marriage. Marxists thought this would be good for the state, but everywhere it has been tried it has proven disastrous. However many of the prominent feminists who have written the feminist propaganda and indoctrination books have still declared themselves Marxist.

There is a major difference between feminism and humanism. They are not the same, but you can do the research for yourself.

I agree wholeheartedly with RObert that not all contemporary feminist are of the radical ilk, spawn from 60s style ideology - this totalitarian movement , as Timkin reminds us, finds its roots in Marxism. And I am happy to discuss mutual equal treatment of both men and women, with reasonable minded people.

Robert hopes that "most feminists reject extremist feminist views". Yet I find that only a few women even question their position, or acknowledge that the women's movement is so fractured between the political cronies of gender separatism and the more contemporary equity feminists.

I have met many woman, claiming to be a feminist, that have little knowledge of feminist history or its anti-family manifesto. Dumbed-downed feminism is increasingly a pop culture crowd pleaser - not a rational or personal decision.

We are teetering on the edge of a paradigm shift in gender politics. Feminist must ask themselves if they subscribe to equity feminism or gender separatism. The public must ask feminist politicians, CEO's, and other leaders and policy makers, to confirm their position on separatism and equality. This accountability is particularly important in the arena of Family policy and law, and health - duty of care would suggest that such conflict of interest were made public. Litigation against government institutions based on gender discrimination has already begun and will grow exponentially.

In regard to the subject of Sylvia's article I will reiterate my stance - gender separatist are blockading social reform and family restoration.

I am a humanist/feminist, however, I don't know any 'gender separatists'. And I do get around. In my job I meet lots of people but haven't met any 'gender separatists' anywhere, not even the lezzie couple I landscaped a back garden for recently - they had heaps of friends of both sexes and omigawd many of their friends were het as well!).

I don't approve of extremists of either sex and I think that was the point ambo and robert were trying to make. Really boys, as a percentage of population feminist extremists don't really amass to so many you have to be so excessively paranoid.

Guys get out more, meet people - its fun.

Ringtail, you hit the nail on the head, 'you have not met gender separtists'... thats because they are a vocal minORITY but they tend to be elitist and fill positions in Universities, and try to INfluence many, and public policy as well. You don't see them, but they are there. They are probably one of the most destructive forces in our community, but the damage won't be seen for some time yet.
Our concern is not about the average feminist, its about the influential (extremist) ones.

Silversurfer

I don't know if I've seen such an agreeable post from someone for a long time ! Your point about the origins of feminism (and the anti-family aspects of it) and gender separatism being in Marxism is well taken and underlined. Glad to hear someone other than myself wheeling that barrow.

I suppose I'm not particulary surprised by some of the reactions to my article, though I remain saddened by them.

The article consisted of three elements:

1) It posits the existence of a problem - not enough babies.

2) It presents a hypothesis as to the cause of the problem - men are responding to a perceived financial risk.

3) It proposes a solution - reduce the risk.

There are no suggestions that men, or women, or society, is to blame. No questions about the validity or otherwise of marriage. No allegations that children are better off with one parent, or two, of none.

It is entirely free of value judgements. It should have generated no more emotion than the observation that you need to take an umbrella if you go out in the rain and don't want to get wet.

But, as I said, I'm not surprised that it did.

Sylvia Else

Timkins “There could be different issues, but eventually they combine I think, and if there is too much divorce or separation, then it begins to devalue marriage, commitment, loyalty and even child rearing.”

I think easiest to say we will have to agree to disagree –

I do not know your circumstances but I do know mine and I know removing the emotional pain and emptiness of a loveless marriage is worth the financial decimation this man received at the hands of the family court - no “level playing field” there.

That aside, in generations past, access to divorce was limited to the affluent few (royalty). I do not think our fore fathers and mothers actually had any greater success rate in finding a compatible, reliable and loving life partner – they just did not have access to the processes of “disentanglement” which we have today and thus a lot more lived and eventually died (to escape) an unhappy and miserable “compromise”.

Like I have said previously – anyone who enters “marriage” without the sense of “total commitment” or “absolute loyalty” for their prospective partner is basically anticipating marriage and possible production of progeny with the wrong person. Because even when you have “total commitment” and “absolute loyalty” there is no guarantee - it still can and does go wrong.

And when it does go wrong - better to recognise it and resolve it - if that means divorce - then good - but do it with dignity and some respect for the other party (who one once loved).

Sylvia,

Apart from financial risks, men also risk losing their children through legal and social bias against them, and often through no fault of their own. This at least partly explains why the debate has gone the way it has.

I cautiously welcome your suggestions for risk reduction for fathers, but at the same time, worry that after almost having seen my last child to “adulthood”, I would be further subsidising the fickleness of others.

Rather than reducing personal responsibility to the lowest common denominator, shouldn’t we tighten it instead? Just enough to discourage the frolickers and those nasty Marxists ;-)

Sylvia, the major financial risks involved in Fatherhood are beget by the legal risks, and the legal risks are beget by political manoeuvring (social engineering).

Some contributors have supported ideas for substantial risk reduction:

- rebuttable presumption of shared parenting
- a covenant marriage option
- expose and resist gender separatist blockade to social reform and family restoration

Offcourse secure employment will always help to promote family stability too.

Therefore I would change your central thesis from "Society should be willing to bear a lot more of the financial risk" to "Society should be willing to reduce the financial risk" - that is through similar family protection methods, as above.

There's no point using legal and social policy to tear the guts out of family security and then demanding that tax payers fork out the funds to do a patch job on the broken pieces! That is not sustainable economically or communally.

I'm sorry, but I have to say that your attempt to maintain an economic rationalist stance in the face of pervasive social meddling (engineering) and resulting family upheaval is simply NOT 'value free'. It strikes me as more … 'evasive'.

While we're at it, society should also be willing to reduce the risk of the traumatic human right violation associated with state endorsed child abduction and parental alienation. The children, as well as the fathers could benefit from that one… and think of the savings gained from reduced Ritalin intake amongst boys.

Sylvia,
I agree with SilverSurfer. There have been a range of potential solutions put forward that can reduce the “risk”, but it is noticed that most of these require very little if any government spending.

Many require changes to government legislation, but unfortunately when such proposals are point to government, someone will say that it will be taking away women’s “choice”, so society either stagnates or goes backwards, and eventually no one (men, women or children) have much “choice” regards anything.

Our society cannot go backwards much further. Marriage is at a record low, there is a growing number of single person households, too few children are being born, and society can no longer afford the welfare payments.

This is despite the many billions of dollars already spent by government departments such as the Department of Family and Community Services. That becomes the sad part.

There are two separate aspects to a risk.

The first is the probability of an event occuring. In the context of my article, it is the probability that there will be a relationship break up after children are born. The potential ways of reducing the probability are reducing the proportion of relationships that are ill-advised in the first place, and providing assistance to preserve relationships that are in trouble.

The second aspect of a risk is the damage done by an event when it occurs. We're talking here about the cost to the father of child support paid to the mother. This aspect can be reduced either at the expense of the mother, or at the expense of society.

I'm quite sceptical of the extent to which marriages can be saved when they get into trouble. No doubt some can, but unless a significant majority can be saved, that aspect of the risk is not much changed in the minds of prospective fathers. Taking care not to get into illl-advised relationships in the first place is of course what men are doing if they delay having children.

On the child support front, while I do have some misgivings about the functioning of the child support formular in some areas of its application, I don't think I'd favour a general reduction in child support levels received by custodial parents.

So I end up with the same conclusion - society needs to spend some money on this.

Sylvia Else

Sylvia, I would very much like to see a significant reduction in all types of child support where the payee has chosen their situation rather than having it thrust upon them - eg refusing to cooperate with shared parenting, moving away from the other parent etc.

Obviously there is a need to deal with the situations when this occurs because of a genuine risk of violence to the payee or children by the other parent or where the other parent is unwilling to care for their kids.

The current system fails to take into account the reasons why a parent is carrying the burden of prime care.

A parents lifestyle choices are no more societies responsibility than they are with an intact family nor should they be the responsibility of the other parent. I have no control over my ex's employment choices nor her decision to relocate to a place which has made shared care unworkable, why should the tax payer or I have to give her additional support as a consequence?

Child support is treated as a suppliment to welfare by some and this should never be the case.

Sylvia.
Your argument is that government (or the tax payer) should spend more, but the government has already spent billions, for society to go backwards. In 1970 there were about 100,000 single parent families, but by 2000 there were close to 800,000, and I doubt very much whether the general level of happiness in society has increased much since 1970.

During this time taxes have increased, and government has spent billions – to go backwards, and it is now at the stage where taxes can’t increase much more, nor can divorce, nor the low rate of childbirth. But assuming that taxes could be raised even further, it is very suspect that spending even more government money will improve society, or make it go backwards even further still.

There is also a lot of data showing that de facto relationships are not as good for society as marriage, so if government spends more money it should be spending it to encourage longer term marriage. If the government just gives money to individuals, they can go and have a series of de facto relationships, which eventually makes it worse for them, and eventually worse for society.

As Robert has pointed out, the present system of child support enables the mother lots of “choice” as she can spend it anyway she wants, relocate to another town, deny the father contact etc. However it does not give much “choice” to anyone else, particularly for the father who is treated like a type of criminal. The government paying the mother child support is not likely to change any of that.

The whole system is now a total mess, (and it has been exactly the same wherever these anti-family and anti-marriage Marxist type philosophies have been tried), but it is highly unlikely that spending even more government money will improve the situation, although some simple changes to legislation probably would.

So that is where society is at:- spend even more money, or start thinking about changes to legislation.

Why do people insist that anyone who makes a pragmatic assessment of the risks of marital breakdown is in effect 'doomed to becoming a divorce statistc?' The connection is patently illogical. One does not equal, nor even predict the other.

l put my seat belt on when in the car. l have motor vehicle insurance. l have health insurance. l watch what other drivers are doing and l drive defensively. After all, the consequences of an accident can be quite onerous.

Does that mean l inadvertantly intend to be in an accident. That my careful and considered behaviour is a predictor of a future accident. That l will inevitably become a road accident statistic?

It make for spurious logical fallacy.

Sylvia,
how can you be saddened or disappointed by what some posters are saying here regarding gender politics as a primary cause of the perceived risk? You seem to only want to address the cough rather than whats causing the cold. That is how these people see it and rather than a possible contemplation of their perceived cause of the problem regarding risk, you make the value judgment that it sadens you.

'It should have generated no more emotion than the observation that you need to take an umbrella if you go out in the rain and don't want to get wet.' ... well if someone tries stop me from taking the umbrella or pokes holes in it before l head out, its hard not to get a bit emotional.

My personal reservations about marriage stem from the weakness of the marital contract. It fails to offer basic protection in the event of a breach or default, which to my understanding is one of the most essential aspects of contract law and civil interactions between contracting parties. These pragmatic concerns tend to be very quickly rubbished in the name of romance and worderful yet nebulous concepts like love. Marriage is a serious undertaking. It deserves nothing less than sensible and rational contemplation prior to the commitment. It is also an institution that is built purely on pragmatism. The love and romance angle is just spin and l suspect it gets top billing these days because it has devolved very little practical importance for people and for many has become about pursuing the romantic fairytale. Afterall, you can just live in sin. One does not require marriage to be and stay in love. Nor to commit to each other, as the nearly even chance of divorce proves.

Essentially the thing is founded on some major flaws, which until addressed will just get worse. Personally, lm hopeful and optimistic but l wont ignore the realities just to avoid being shamed and guilt tripped because l dont attach a romantic ideal to marriage.

Sylvia, I concede that the tax payer should foot the bill for child support payments, given the current anti-Father Family Court regime. But not because of the reasons that you present. I concede because it will cost the taxpayer almost one third less to simply pay the custodial parent directly out of government funds - that is until shared parenting becomes the norm.

The PIR Independent Research Group report "Child Support the Financial Cost to the Taxpayer" (September 2004) confirms that the CSA is a financial failure - "a costly endeavor with no tangible benefits for children or their parents".

Children of separated parents now receive less per child than prior to the creation of the $240 million a year CSA bureaucracy with its 3,000 staff.

For every dollar the CSA collects it costs $5.58 in administration costs, welfare and lost taxation revenue.

The cost of the scheme in administration, increased welfare and lost productivity was estimated at $5,000 million for 2002/03.

The number of payers earning less than half the national average wage is 45%.

70% of all the unemployed males in Australia over the age of 20 are child support payers.

At least 39% of CSA payers are either unemployed, sporadically employed or on disability pensions.

An estimated 80% of payees are reliant on social welfare.

I find that your article reveals great insight into men's issues. I just don't think more money will fix a broken system. Better to address the causes.

Has anyone considered consulting men!

Hear! hear!

sylvia ,a trend that concerns and puzzles me is why women now initiate divorce on a 4 to 1 basis compared to men . and how can women talk about "lack of comittment" to marriage by potential male partners, with their lack of "commitment" that makes itself apparent a few years on into their marriage, or are they in it just for the kids and or the money ? please explain ??

sorry for the cynicsm .

OK men, straw poll.

1. Of those of you who are fathers do you regret it?

2. If you aren't a father why not?

PS: Boaz what makes you think I am no longer affiliated with a university?

"but they (extremist feminists) tend to be elitist and fill positions in Universities, and try to INfluence many, and public policy as well. You don't see them, but they are there. They are probably one of the most destructive forces in our community, but the damage won't be seen for some time yet."

If you believe that then I know a really nice rock in the middle of Australia you could be interested in purchasing.

Seriously though, Boaz I am far more afraid of male leaders like Bush than I am about a few mad feminists. And also... a good friend of mine was stalked by a couple of men in black shirts, she was so frightened she took her children and moved interstate. I am missing my friend and angry at these bitter men.

Ringtrail
The men address the pervasive political and economic issues.
The women deflect.

The community comes out in hoards when a whale is beached, but over 5 men commit suicide a day and its 'ho-hum'.

Lets ask again "Is being a father worth the risk?"

In 2003 Larry Anthony ordered an inquiry into the CSA cover-up of suicide figures. For years concerned groups have demanded that the CSA release figures on their clients who have committed suicide – estimated 3 a day. The CSA continues to use the defence that they do not collect such figures. This is hardly adequate exercise of their duty of care! Is there any other government body that has been accused of having so many client deaths and has refused to collate the true figures?"

Trevor Sutton, Assistant General Manager of the CSA repeats the rhetoric that "there is no reputable data that proves the proposition that child support is a contributing factor in suicide amongst men". Of-course, while the CSA refuses to investigate their own records, the opportunity to attain 'reputable' data will never come.

In fact, there IS research (1999 Central Coast Health Promotion Unit) that factored the CSA very clearly as an organisation that is detrimental to men in crisis. Expert opinion also links 3 of the 5 daily male suicides to family separation (1998 Baume and others)

- at least 70% suicides are associated with relationship break-ups
- men were 9 times more likely to suicides following break-up than women.

After years of lobbying, the government recently assigned 42 Million dollars to a National Suicide Prevention Strategy. A large portion of this went to the CSA, as Trevor Sutton informs me … to identify and support clients at risk of self harm. Doesn't this acknowledge that there IS a suicide issue amongst CSA clients!

This face saving exercise will cost Australia many lives, for the same organisation awarded precious suicide prevention funding shows no commitment to investigate its own client suicide numbers.

Is it any wonder that we are loath to assign more funds to such a failed and oppressive system!

Kartiya

You ask about the issue of commitment, and comment about the 4 to 1 rate of wife initiated divorces. I haven't checked the statistics, so I'll accept what you say.

I think the tendency to blame, or make accusations of hypocrisy, comes form the belief that people have free will when it comes to making their decisions. I really think a lot of the free will is an illusion. People tend not to realise how their decisions are constrained by matters completely outside their control.

To give a simple example, I don't eat mangos. Is this a decision I've made in complete freedom? Well, no, not really. The truth is I don't like mangos. There's something about their tast that I find objectionable. Other people do like mangos, and eat them.

So how much freedom do I really have here? I could force myself to eat a mango, but I'm not going to do while I don't like them. Can I make myself like them? I don't see how.

It's the same with relationships. One can make conscious decisions, but only within the framework set up by mechanisms occuring below the conscious level, over which we have no control. If one meets someone, one will not fall deeply in love with them unless one finds them attractive. That's not a choice. Marriage may follow, but after children arrive, the love may disappear. Then the partner's other characteristics that got overlooked become annoying. The relationship becomes unbearable.

I think evolution has dealt us a poor deck. Fixing it would involve tampering with our gene pool (even assuming we knew how to). Would you adjust the genes of your children to assure them happy marriages?

Sylvia.

Dear Silversurfer, my moniker is Ringtail, the fact you deliberately misspelled my moniker indicates a level of hostility on your part. Why?

I politely asked the male posters to this forum to answer how they felt about being a father and if not a father then why not?

I agree that there are a lot of unhappy men out there. It is a very frightening world in which we live. I and many others (male and female) are very concerned by the actions of our leaders both politcally and in business. We are faced with the environmental consequences of our greedy use of resources. Our media foists unachievable ideals on both men and women. We have inadequate programs to both educate and care for our children. There are a lot of things to be scared of – however, to continually place the blame on feminists is very narrow minded. It indicates fear of women who ‘dare’ to speak out. The simple fact is women do not hold anywhere near the balance of power to impact the changes in society that you claim are destroying the fabric of our society. There are many other factors involved than just these ‘separatists’ Men are under going painful reflection on their role in this time of chaos.

The very idea that women want to destroy relationships with men is laughable. And divisive.

These are difficult times and I doubt if I was a young woman that I would be too keen on having children now.

I acknowledge that many men are getting short shrift in custody cases. However, only recently have men been taking more of an interest in the upbringing of their children. The courts need to catch up with the change in attitudes by many men.

Silversurfer can’t you see we need to work together? Not all men see women as the enemy. However the dogmatic nature of your posts makes think that you do see us as such.

Sylvia,
Unless you are physically allergic in some way to eating a particular fruit, you could be convinced to eat it through persuasion, indoctrination, propaganda etc.

In recent decades there has been a considerable amount of propaganda from certain sections of society, that has been anti-marriage and anti-male. This section of society has advocated de facto relationships and the removal of the father as soon as the woman was satisfied that sufficient children had been born. However the male was still required to financially support those children, and was allowed the most minimal contact so that he would maintain enough interest in those children to keep providing the finances.

This system has definitely been in place for 3 decades, although the system is inhuman, in that it does not take into consideration human needs. It is not surprising that the majority of young children or young adults still desire to get married and have children, as this is an intrinsic human need or desire, that cannot be easily overcome through propaganda or indoctrination.

Many women are now rejecting the propaganda and indoctrination, and are finding greater satisfaction in marriage and in family. An interesting article regards all this is at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=466&ObjectID=10125395

This is of a woman who attended certain meetings when she was younger, along with other prominent women including Helen Clark, the current Prime Minister of NZ. However this woman is now fearful for the future of her children and grandchildren.

So the anti-marriage and anti-male propaganda is gradually failing, but there is legislation that still has to be changed.

Ringtail,
I find being a father very rewarding, and not particularly difficult. I find that most difficulties come from outside pressures and barriers, to the extent where I now believe that these pressures and barriers are being purposely applied to stop me from being a father to my child (and this belief comes after considerable thought and research).

You could also read the article mentioned previously, to begin to understand the full extent of the feminist agenda

Ringtail

straw pole

1. Of those of you who are fathers do you regret it?

No I don't regret being a father. I love it. My concerns in this area have to do with the difficulty I face in fulfilling that role as well as I think it needs to be done and in the disruption my ex is able to cause to my attempts to move on with my life. Fatherhood is not something I want to do on an occasional basis. I would also like more control over how the costs of raising my son are allocated. I have no say in how so called child support is spent and as a consequence of the child support have less to spend on the things I believe are important to my son's development. Thankfully the most important bits are free.

Seeking changes to an damaging and unjust system is not the same as regretting being a father.

2. If you aren't a father why not?
N/A

Ringtail, I only noticed the typo on your name when you alerted me to it - seems like a little of your own paranoia setting in (re your post May 25). There was no such deliberate action - I avoid personal attacks in these forums - but I don't shy away from challenges. So if I think someone is being evasive it is appropriate to say it.

I did not respond to your poll request because 1) lack of space, and 2) because non of the facts and issues presented by the men in this forum were addressed by you - hence my reference to deflection.

The facts and issues presented were mostly on par with the subject … "Is being a father worth the risk?". My last two post address financial issues; " Cost to the Taxpayer " and the CSA use of rare male suicide prevention funds - all substantial objections to spending more on organisations that feed at the trough of marriage breakdown, ie. the Divorce Industry.

Most of the posts that support these themes have acknowledged willingness to support marriage survival. That is, to address the causes rather than doing a patch job. These are all reasonable arguments that deserve intelligent replies.

My last 3 posts did not mention feminism. And in prior post, when I did, I have expressed support for equity feminist ideologies.

A review of your posts does reveal, in fact, your own critical personal assumptions about contributers. This tactic suppresses the voice of those who ‘dare’ to speak out about the real Fatherhood issues that are right on topic!

Your correct that the very idea women want to destroy relationships with men is laughable. We should all be laughing at sick separatist ideology. Yet it's basic misandrist premises have been injected into much social and legal policy - social engineering run amuck. This is why I reveal alarming factual outcomes, and suggested that policy committ to equality.

To answer your poll - I don't regret fatherhood, I revel in it! I am a very devoted father - Fatherhood is worth the risk.

sylvia , we don't have to adjust our childrens' genes to make marriages last , we need to look for the positives , tell our kids about them often and get a fair bit of the anti marriage garbage off tv for starters .

if women accept men's well known imperfections ??,your "characteristics " that may become apparent a few years after marriage , and men accept the different female attitudes that may arise from motherhood responsibilities, with a bit of work and communication ,marriage can last and be mostly enjoyable , without being "unbearable ".

if you prefer an apple to a mango surely you would still turn it around a bit before you bought it and then again before you ate it .

Ringtail, I given some more thought to my answer in your straw pole.

I love being a dad but I would not choose to bring a child into the world if I knew for sure that the outcome was to be what I am currently experiencing it. Probably like a lot of risk taking activities, we make a choice between the percieved benefits and the perceived risks. I used to fly a hang glider, when I was not a dad and got to fly regularly enough to keep my skills up then I judged the joy of flight to outweight the risk of serious harm.

I started part time Uni so flew less then got married and later had a child and the equation changed. I'd still love to fly but the risk/benefit equation still does not look good.

Being a dad not seeing your child enough (and having your relationship with the child harmed by the ex's tactics) along with the pressure of a silly C$A formula, the ongoing uncertainty of further changes next time mum changes her mind about something etc is not something I would choose (and 20/80 are not good odds).

The risk benefit equation at the moment for men makes a lot of other things seem like better options.

Fatherhood with better odds at a fair go at it. Great.

Thanks to Timkins and Robert for courteously answering my mini poll. To silversurfer thanks for finally answering my question after your lengthy lecture.

The point I was trying to make by these questions (hardly a scientific analysis) was to confirm my view that most men enjoy being parents despite the difficulties.

(Robert I do empathise and appreciate your candour, apart from the violence, I ran away to avoid the very consequences you are experiencing – my ex was very manipulative too. As I have stated the judicial system needs to catch up with the expectations of men).

If the majority of men are taking as much joy at being parents as most women do, why is this view not being transferred to our young men?

What are you saying to your sons or young friends? In other words, are you providing positive role models?

After reading many posts here, if I were a young man I would be forming the opinion that hitching up with a woman would be full of dire consequences.

My son says he doesn’t want to get married but to have a relationship like I have (shock horror de facto). My daughter wants to marry – the full white wedding bit. They were very young when I escaped their father. Now they are teenagers and liable to change their views a million times a day.

Timkins thanks for the link – I did check it out. I don’t know if it really indicates a pendulum swing back to formal marriage or not. It was interesting.

"the rearing, social welfare and education of children should become the responsibility of society rather than individual parents."

I agree that this idea – raised back in the ‘70’s IS unworkable and to be avoided. As a society, we should be supporting each other but not taking over the raising of children.

“24-hour childcare should be introduced to free women from "domestic slavery". I think this absurd idea reflects the times (1970’s) and certainly not the reality of today. I do confess to loathing housework however. But 24/7 childcare – economically insane and not a solution anyway.

As I have stated before there are as many ‘feminist ideals’ as there are feminists. Today many women, like me, would consider themselves humanist instead. I still believe we have much more to fear from our current crop of business/political leaders than extremist feminists.

I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my post Timkins and thank you for your courteous reply. Due to word count, can’t really address everything however, I don’t think a return to the 50’s is the solution either – is that what you want?

Now Silversurfer I made a little bet with myself that you would claim a typo – my moniker has been deliberately misspelt before so I was hardly being paranoid.

As for responding to male posters – I do it all the time – but I choose whomever I respond to and if you are unimpressed by my responses well – too bad

Ringfail,

I don’t think the risks to fatherhood are acceptable, and would say so as a role model, or to anyone listening. This is not to say there is no value in fatherhood (CSA assesses this continuously, and even expresses it as a daily rate). To some fathers, that is the only measure of worth society attributes them. They get no further recognition, or opportunity to enjoy their children. Their treatment is reprehensible, and needs urgent change.

To my surprise, my son already understands these risks beyond his age. Amazingly, he has long ago rejected CSA as his provider and will therefore benefit from my lifelong support; not so lucky my girls.

Its possible that the decline in marriage and fatherhood has as much to do with braodening lifestyle choices for men as it has to do with reluctance stemming from risk/reward considerations.

l see a lot of lament by both many men and some women about the social ills apparently caused by feminism. As a man, l dont really see it that way. The lay of the land is such that l dont face the social pressure to marry, l can live in sin and have kids out of wedlock... with little if any social stigma. For me that equals choice and greater freedom to act according to my own wishes rather than accomodating social preferences. l can father children for as long as l produce viable seed (well into old age), as long as l can support them physically and mentally. l can hook up with a woman up to 10-15 yrs my junior without inviting social codascension and well beyond that if we ignore the attendant sniggering of society. Society brands me as having a "Peter Pan Syndrome." The boy who never grows up. Well l see a youthful boyish attitude as a blessing not a curse. Open minded, adventurous, eager, full of possibility, optimistic and hopeful.

Personally, l dont see the point of marriage unless l want to have children. l'm one of those many men who have a take it or leave it attitude to fatherhood. l like the idea of it and enjoy immensely the short doses of company with my young relatives and sometimes think l want fatherhood. But that usually fades after 3 or 4 hours in their company when they start their tantrums and arguements and all that kids stuff that drives their parents crazy.

The discussion about perceived risks are quite useful for rationalising my preference but l suspect that lm not really up for it at this stage (maybe in my 40s or 50s that will change) and that an innate preference for an open ended lifestyle is at the heart of it for me.

Why? Because l can.

Seeker,
Probably a definition of the modern father could be:- “A man who is guilty, until proven broke”, or for a more elaborate definition :- “Under the current system of family law, fathers typically lose their children in return for financing the destruction of their own families” at http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/robbins/2005/robbins052405.htm

Or if he does get married and has children, and manages to avoid financing the destruction of his own family, he has a happy retirement to look forward to when his beloved wife puts him “in a box.” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15429687%255E601,00.html

Luckily I don’t have a son, as I would have to somehow explain the system to him.

I haven't read all of the posts yet. Trade215 I really liked your first response. It was so clear and easy to read - and so darn practical. Good on you.

Laurie, I agree with you about lasting relationships. All of my friends have sincerely believed that they would stay married for life.

Sylvia, I found your remark that children are " ... only for economic health" to be rather a sad enditement of our society. I would hate to think that people are encouraged to have children for the primary purpose of improving the economic health of our society. Maybe I am too concrete. Kay

klw

"I found your remark that children are " ... only for economic health""

Nothing I said could possibly be construed as having that meaning. I certainly did not use that phrase.

Sylvia.

Sylvia - this is what you said: The essential premise of my article is that society needs more children for its future economic health. If you disagree with that, then the rest of the article is irrelevant.

I did not mean to misquote you. I was relying on memory until I thought of cutting and pasting the above. Even so, I am allowed to have a different point of view. Your response to me sounded quite aggressive.

I have written you a lengthy and very positive response to your article. The editor sent me a message that it was too long. Whilst I was editing it I must have pressed something incorrectly. I am still looking for it.

Thank you
Kay.

klw,

I am unconcerned about the misquotation per se. What I was unhappy about was that you, whether intentionally or not, seriously misrepresented my opinion about children. As a debating tactic it is recognisable as both an ad hominem attack on me, and a strawman argument. Neither has any place in civilised debate, and if my response seemed aggressive, then it just reflected my annoyance.

If I had said "people need to eat more fruit for the sake of their physical health," that could hardly be construed as meaning that I thought that eating fruit was otherwise a valueless activity.

There are all sorts of reasons people might feel that it is desirable for more babies to be born. Of those reasons, one clearly identifiable one is that society needs them for its future financial health.

That says nothing about my attitude towards children in a wider context.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,
I would think that many of these debates on the modern family become very ad hominem and anecdotal at times, because there is often very little data to go by.

Issues such as marriage, divorce, birth rates etc, are now some of the most important issues facing society, but it is only in recent years that social science has really came out with much reliable data regards it all. However that data does not look good, as our present system is non-sustainable, and it will have to change or society collapses.

However the Feminist / Marxist system of children being raised by the state appears to be abhorrent, (in principle anyway), to most people in this forum, although it is a system that is gradually occurring in time, with the devaluing of marriage, the incessant negative portrayal of men, the wide scale removal of fathers from their children, the emphasis on “parental responsibility” rather than “parental rights”, the opening up of more child care centres etc.

Much money has been spent in the past by government, but this system has still occurred, so the idea that even more government expenditure, (and not things such as changes to legislation), will fix the problems is questionable.

However assuming your belief that even more government spending will fix the problems is correct, it would depend on how that money is spent, as there is no guarantee that government will ever spend any money wisely.

So together with a belief that more government expenditure will be beneficial, there eventually has to be details outlined of how that money should be spent, otherwise it becomes highly likely that the money will be just wasted.

When fatherhood truly becomes a mug’s game, incentives will be raised. Until then, we’ll make do with women’s fashion and men’s cerebral vortex.

By the looks of this thread, and many others, my thought that many men are in social crisis is strongly confirmed. This is just one of the many symptoms of our brilliant effort of the 60s to re-define our society more in terms of 'me' and less in terms of 'us'. We didn't just let go of the values underpinning the stability of the 40s and 50s, we threw them out with a hateful vengence.

Feminism re-defined women, and in the process re-defined men, and now men are in crisis.

We may soon see more evidence of the destructive intrusion of atheist values in more and more males losing their sense of identity, sense of direction, and sense of hope. As the Yir Yuront discovered, small changes can destroy a whole community. You know something is WRONG, but you can't quite put your finger on it, and before you manage to find the source, you are in a downward and irreversible spiral to social oblivion.

Some would 'poo poo' this view, because they only see the small increments, but if they saw how FAR we have strayed, they would think twice about whether to buy a ticket on that train in the first place.

Fatherhood "is it worth it" is just one question that should never even be raised, it is so fundamental to our survival ! The only question should be 'how can I be a good dad, and how can we be a better community in which to be a dad'.

l think the idea that society will collapse as a result of current apparently unsustainable social trends is a bit dramatic.

Society has a way of making the necessary adjustments to ensure its survival. Society has met countless challenges to its survival over many thousands of years. Much greater challenges than declining birth rates of well fed westerners who, to date, enjoy the highest standards of living and the most varied relationship and lifestyle possibilities.

And yet, here we are, alive and for the most part, quite well.

Kay, thanks for the feedback. :)

BOAZ_David,

"We may soon see more evidence of the destructive intrusion of atheist values in more and more males losing their sense of identity, sense of direction, and sense of hope. "etc.

I don't know if you noticed my post to Sels on another thread. I likened what is happening at the moment to moving house. Things are normally in fairly big disarray during a move and for some time afterwards while you work out where to put stuff (or try and remember where you already put it). You might even move things around a few time trying stuff out.

The move is not necessarily a bad thing but turmiol can be expected along the way. Personally I'm glad for the move, just very keen to fix some of the mess quickly. We are still working out how to build a society where men and women are treated as equal. That old house where the "little woman" was kept in her place was not real comfortable or healthy. We needed to move.

We are all redefining our roles and that is part of the process of growth, a very important thing for human development. Don't see turmoil as a sign that the old way was better, rather as a sign that we have not got to where we need to be yet. The kid sitting in the corner screaming about how much better they liked the old house does not really help us sort the new one out ;)

Yes BOAZ_David,
I pretty well agree with your post ... the fact that the question "Is being a father worth the risk?" is even asked is truly indicative of the degree society has plunged into inhumane standards and concepts. Some promote the message that, in fact, fathers aren't needed by children or in families - and never were! The slow change you refer to is sometimes called the 'Boiling Frog Syndrome' - if you drop a frog in boiling water it will jump out and save its life, but if you drop it in cool water and heat it up small increments the frog will not notice the temperature change, and will eventually die - don't try this at home kids!

Sylvia's article assumes that once the financial risk is reduced, young men will breath a sigh of relief and begin to procreate again. But this assumption tends to reduce the child / father relationship to mere financial obligation. To many men the financial risk of fatherhood is secondary to the risk of being separated from the child that they love. The idea that young men will feel safer to commit to fatherhood, if they know that when their children are forcibly taken from them the state will cover the cost of child support is highly questionable.

No more social experiments … please!

Boaz,
It is not just men that are in crisis, as many women and children are in crisis also.

This includes the growing number of women who reach 40 and realise that they are unmarried and childless, and likely to be that way for the rest of their lives (possibly after previous abortions also).

The second wives who realise that their husbands cannot support two families on one income (ie their present family and the ex wife’s family).

The grandmothers who now realise that they rarely see their grandchildren because an ex wife wants to keep the children away from their father and extended family as much as possible, so as to maximise the child support payments that are made out to her.

The 50% of women in single female parent families who are completely welfare dependant, and now realise that welfare provides them with very little “choice”.

There are also the 1 in 3 children who will be dragged through divorce, and about 50% will later become welfare dependant, and about 40% will only occasionally see their fathers, and about 30% will never see their fathers again.

So overall, the belief that it is only men who are in crisis is a feminist type myth.

However you seem to have a number of connections with religious organisations, and possibly the covenant marriage system as discussed earlier may interest you and others within the religious environment. It is one possible solution to this crisis for women, men and their children

Timkins,

My proposal was very specific - the money should be spent to reduce the financial liability of fathers who are separated from the mothers of their children, and who do not have custody.

I do not expect this to have a beneficial impact on the rate at which marriages fail. Indeed, if anything, it will do the opposite, because men would be more willing to risk marriage. Some of the resulting marriages would fail.

My next sentence was going to start "In an ideal world...," and go on to talk about marriage. Then I realised that I don't even know what form an "ideal" world takes in the context of marriage. It would be patronising to suggest that the ideal world consists of everyone getting married and having a sustainable number of children. Not everyone who doesn't marry is being put off by perceived risks. Some people simply don't want to. Not everyone desires to have children.

Posit that an ideal world consists of one where those who wish to get married do so, and those marriages do not fail. The ideal world also results in a stable (ie, sustainable) population.

Sadly, such a world would probably also have to consist of "ideal" people. In our real world of lesser mortals, the goals of sustainable population, and marriages that do not fail, are probably mututally incompatible.

If I had to suggest a more interventionist approach, I would propose that the Government establish 'dating' agencies, where potential couples are matched for compatability, and where the Government agrees to cover the child support costs if an 'approved' marriage fails.

Some people might even welcome the chance to be involved in such a scheme, but its feasibility would depend on objective methods of determing couplings that are likely to last. I don't know whether such methods exist.

Sylvia.

I am a feminist, I have also been married (happily) to the same man for 30 years. We have two teenage daughters. When I married I was perfectly clear that I saw this as a relationship between two equals and that we both had to leave room for one another to grow and change, particularly as we got together so young. My husband, as I have articulated in another post on another article, was and remains an incredibly hands on father and an incredibly supportive husband.
Although Timkins refused to believe this when I stated it previously, women, without exception think my husband is a paragon (sometimes, I confess, this annoys me, because while he does a lot, he still doesn't do nearly as much parenting or as many household chores as I do). The only negative stuff he has received has been from other men (sorry if you don't believe this Timkins, it remains, however, true). He has been scorned, teased and had his manhood questioned many times, particularly (oddly enough) because he does his own ironing. His work mates have awarded him "mother of the year" awards (not nicely, I might add) and he has been heavily criticised for refusing to "join the team spirit" by not wanting to attend strip shows etc when at sales conferences. While I can leave work early to attend my kids concerts, sports days etc, this is frowned upon when he does it.
Some women, just like some men, behave very badly and are manipulative and deceitful and selfish, but neither sex has cornered the market on bad behaviour. When someone behaves badly we need to feel angry with them, the individual, not with all women, or all men, or even all feminists.
It is risky to become a parent, not just a father. Always was, always will be and it is just as risky for mothers, in a different way, perhaps, but still very risky. The latest statistic I read said women who divorce end up 42% worse off financially, men 10%. Sounds like a risk to me.

Sylvia,
By “to reduce the financial liability of fathers “ you would possibly be meaning government subsidisation of child support, which has been proposed to a government child support taskforce. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15374693%255E2702,00.html

However someone cannot simply step from one relationship to another with no strings attached.

If there are children involved, then child support becomes an issue, but also child contact and property settlements. These things can take years to sort out, and much money can be spent via Family Law solicitors and Family Courts to get these matters legally finalised, although they are not necessarily agreed to by each parent or by their children.

Indeed we now have about 1 million children below the age of 18 who do not live with both natural parents, and over 30% of non-custodial fathers no longer have face to face contact with those children, (while only about 9% of non-custodial fathers want this). These figures may seem inaccurate, but they have been verified by surveys by the ABS and by the HILDA survey. Therefore there could be about 300,000 children in Australia who no longer see their natural father.

So the amount of time and expense taken up by going through the legal system to have such matters legally finalised, would probably be better spent by the parents going through such things as mediation and counselling, to help fix the problems in their relationship to start with.

So each time someone goes through a relationship that fails (either a marriage or a de facto relationship), the more stings are attached and the worse it eventually becomes for them and for society.

It is in society's best interest to encourage relationships to last as long as possible, but this does not necessarily mean that huge amounts of money have to be spent. It can mean simple things that have been suggested such as changes to legislation, covenant marriage system, less negativity about marriage and men in the media etc.

Enaj,
I am fully aware of feminism, and it is not humanism.

Feminism is gender biased. It is pro-female, and not pro-human.

Sylvia,
when l first read your article l thought that it was good to see someone articulate this matter amongst men.

How ever, suggestions like the following are making me start to think that you may me a wolf in sheeps clothing...
"I would propose that the Government establish 'dating' agencies, where potential couples are matched for compatability, and where the Government agrees to cover the child support costs if an 'approved' marriage fails."

Me thinks that these sort of cures maybe worse than the cold.

I have not come across the term "ad hominem" before (I have searched my dictionary to no avail). I have also not come across the term "strawman debate". I get the impression that I have been told by Sylvia that I am not very bright, that my contribution to this forum is pretty much valueless, and that I do not have "civilised" debating skills. She may be right! Even so, I will plod along and continue to learn in my own way.

Sylvia, I think it is fantastic that your article has generated so much discussion (even if you have been "saddened" by many of the respones).

I am interested in reading and thinking about everyone's contribution(s).

Cheers Kay

trade215

You are concerned about my comment

"I would propose that the Government establish 'dating' agencies, where potential couples are matched for compatability, and where the Government agrees to cover the child support costs if an 'approved' marriage fails."

But context is everything. I prefixed that sentence with

"If I had to suggest a more interventionist approach,"

which you omitted.

As for your comment about my being a wolf in sheep's clothing? Why does it matter? Would it even matter if I were Satan himself? An argument should always be judged on its own merits, otherwise you risk being misled by anyone who's not showing their true colours. That's how confidence tricks work.

Sylvia.

enaj, this might be heading off topic a bit but your comments are relevant.

Please note that none of the following is intended to be an attack on you or your husband or a put down etc. If it appears so it is clumsy phrasing. I liked your post but am having trouble relating the the environment you describe. I've worked all my life in SE Qld in both blue and white collar occupations and whilst I have seen plenty of good natured ribbing have never come across the type of treatment you describe.

Is there more to your husbands experience than stated? Do you guys live in an unusual area? Does your husband work in an occupation dominated by tough guys?

Guys I've worked with do housework (sometimes even ironing). They cook and change the babies nappy etc. Have I worked in better than average work environments or is your husbands experience out of the ordinary?

Thanks again for the post, it is very interesting.

He works in management in an ordinary company. This seems to be very much the norm amongst his generation (he is 50) of blokes, particularly sales guys. Younger men seem much less infected by it, which is great and a tribute to their parents, who, you must admit, were influenced by feminism.
His company, like many companies, has trouble holding bright women because of an entrenched Aussie/blokey cruel sexism which is disguised as humour. Yet, in many ways it is a good place to work and there are many good people in it. Some of the management have a blind spot about male and female roles and, to me, anyway, come across as very defensive and threatened. But, they are in power and so go largely unchallenged. I do not think this is particularly unusual in many workplaces, and men suffer from the jibes and sexist culture as much as women, particularly when they want to parent and/or support their wives.
Hope this helps explain what I meant Robert, and no I didn't feel your post was in anyway rude or belligerent, quite the opposit, in fact. You are lucky to be in an environment more enlightened than the one my husband is in.

Feminism, like all political 'isms' atempts to take much undeserved credit for social changes.

l am under 40 and my mum and dad had me doing house chores from age 12. All the kids had to do their share. Every saturday morning was a house keeping working bee. We can all do everything... set/clear dinner table, wash/put away dishes, mop floors, wash windows, clean ovens, stoves and fridges inside and out, vacuum, polish floors, laundry, ironing, scrub toilet/shower/bath, mow lawns, weed gardens (funnily the sisters never had to do yard work), rock the lttle baby to sleep. Oddly, the boyz can do everything the girls can, but we can also change a tyre, change the oil and all that typical 'mans work.'

My mum resented the feminist sanctimonious vilification of her being a stay at home mum. She brought us up to be self reliant in the basics of life bacause she came from a large and poor European family where everyone pulled their weight out of necessity.

What l find comical in this day and age are the following:
1. women still have a view of certain tasks as 'mens work' but shudder when men speak in terms of 'womens work.'
2. if l complain that my girlfriend is not compatible because she doesn't cook nor clean and her version of cooking is to make a restaurant reservation and hand me the bill, then l am chewed out for being sexist. However, when women complain , nag and ridicule their menfolk for being lazy and useless around the house and not cooking or cleaning, then that is seen as OK.

As a man, what l see, is a lot of complaining about nothing much. So what if the house isn't cleaned as often as the lobby of Buckingham Palace. My standard of homliness is good enough for me. The complaining about standards is just a smoke screen for a power struggle. Whoever sets the standards makes the rules. Whoever makes the rules (and can enforce them) has the power. POWER is the essence of this housework complaint. Most men these days, at some point, become the sole/primary bread winner and at this point they too have power (to ignore the nagging) and for many men its the only way to restore some balance. And its all a bit silly.

All this nonsense about household politics is what keeps me away from alter and crib. Its just too much adoo about nothing in my book. Living one's life and brow beating one another to achieve patentally unattainable politcal ideology in our daily lives.

lm tired of all the contradictions and l find it easier to avoid the issues and hangups of the political indoctrinates. Everything is a power struggle if you see it that way. Its tedious. Some people just need to get over themselves and learn to relax.

Trade,
I would agree that men can do anything women can do (apart from giving birth and lactation), and housework in the modern house is so easy. Looking after children is not that difficult either.

It is quite probable that many women see their children and their home as extension of themselves and also a power base, and the matter has all come to a head with such things as child custody issues. However these issues now represent extremely important issues in society.

We now have a situation where up to 50% of marriages and de facto relationships end in divorce and separation, but 90% of the time the children are removed from the father and he is made to pay child support. Seems gross inequality there, so unfortunately it can’t be just pushed to one side and ignored any longer. If that continues it becomes impossible to explain to young men what their future life is going to be.

Also the older a man becomes, the less likely he will have children, so if you are in your 30’s – 40’s I would suggest you think very intensively about the issues, as basically your time is running out (unless you marry a much younger woman, and that can also present problems).

NB. I you do decide to take the plunge, a pre-nuptial agreement is totally and absolutely essential. Also a covenant marriage system is definitely worth investigating to see if that can be used for your marriage. Take no chances

This report by Dale O'Leary, gives an example of some current advocacy research aimed at devaluing fatherhood and the heterosexual family.

"Who Needs Dad?"
By Dale O'Leary

In the July edition of The American Psychologist, Laura Silverstein and Carl Auerbach argue against the traditional view that both fathers and mothers are essential to optimum child development.

In "Deconstructing the Essential Father," Silverstein and Auerbach contend that heterosexuality, heterosexual marriage, and the biological family of mother and father are not to be seen as natural.

Both writers are social constructionists, and they hold that the differences between men and women are social constructs created by a patriarchal society. Since gender differences are created by oppression, they can and should be eliminated. In fact, the very idea of a "natural" family structure sends up a red flag: for social constructionists, such ideas are called "heterosexism," and they are the very equivalent of racism. …

One wonders, is social-constructionist research concerned with discovering the truth about human nature? Or could this be a politicization of the authors' personal rage and rebellion into social science theory, and translated into public policy? Only the nanny state could support a society of fatherless families.

Given the number of journals willing to publish advocacy studies and the number of institutions willing to hire and promote advocacy researchers, the sheer volume of such research is increasing exponentially.

trade, interesting post. I have commented on double standards re the "mens work" issue previously. You did not go down this track so I'm reading into your post what you didn't write, rather following up with some thinking that it raised for me.

I suspect that there is a tendancy to tie those types of double standards to feminism. The question I would ask is if it is feminists who do this? In my own case my ex would not claim to be a feminist. I notice that a lot of the guys who post here pushing for reform to family law are christians which raises the likleyhood that a lot of their ex's are christian (in word if not deed). Christianity is not generally a hotbed of feminism.

Are the women who run the type of double standards feminists or rather those who seek to grab every bit of advantage they can get regardless of the ethics. Certainly they are using parts of feminism but that does not make it feminisms fault.

I've seen a couple of TV segments recently talking about men not standing for pregnant women on public transport. Both implied that there was a stronger obligation on men to stand than exists for women. One pregnant woman even made it clear that she will not accept a seat offered by another woman but insists that she get a seat currently occupied by a man. Any feminists care to support that position?

robert , what man wouldn't stand for a pregnant woman ??

kartiya, apparently quite a lot from the segments (but in most of the footage I saw the women were standing behind the men so they may not have been aware of the issue).

My comment was not a defense of the men who did not give up a seat for a clearly pregnant woman but rather raising the sexist attitudes which still exists (for some) where it appears that the expectation to give up a seat is only on men rather than on all able bodied people. I don't think that genuine feminists would hold to this approach just as I don't think most would support the double standards that are at the heart of a lot of the issues raised in this thread. I'm interested to hear from two groups.

- The other guys who have been done over by the family law system (and all the add on bits). Were your ex partners feminists?

- Feminists. Do you support different treatment for men and women based only on gender?

Kartyia
The situation of a man not allowing a pregnant woman to sit would be very rare, but a situation that is not so rare is the 1,000 children per week that are dragged through a divorce situation (with estimates of up to 2,000 separations per week of de facto relationships, many of whom would also involve children).

About 90% of those children will then reside with the mother, while 75% of the fathers will see their children every second weekend or less (but have to pay money for that privilege). Only 40% of mothers want their children to see their fathers more often, with ample evidence that many mothers purposely obstruct the fathers in having more contact with his children.

The situation is totally deplorable, but it has been ongoing for many years.

What to do:- many things are possible, but the main thing seems to be to limit the divorces and separations in the first place, and the suggestions previously mentioned by posters would possibly do that. If you have some other suggestions then they could be stated.

Robert,
Personally I have never known a feminist to put forward any suggestions about the current situation, other than to continue with the current system.

hello timkins , sylvia , perhaps if women who married young and in their best child bearing years, had their 2 + children , stayed married to say 30 and then were guaranteed by law heavily subsidised or free university or other higher education places if they wanted them , this may encourage more happiness in our society , less pressure on women and men and may cut down the divorce rate and its huge emotional and financial cost . other compensation could be paid to mothers who do not take up the higher education option .

as the children are past the toddler stage when their fathers are in their 30's , this would make it a lot easier for father child minders ,as younger childen's care is always a big concern for most mothers because of their special needs and is probably more difficult for men . [ my experience has told me ].

I like your questions, Robert, they indicate genuine interest and an open mind. As a proud feminist who loves men ( and women and kids, I just like people, truth be told) I will attempt to answer.
Should men and women be treated differently due to gender? In an ideal world, no. Trouble is, until about 30 years ago, women were routinely treated differently. There were male and female rates of pay, jobs that were barred to women, either explicitly or implicitly, some jobs fired women if they married or got pregnant and much more. Feminists, by and large, deserve the majority of the credit for changing all that. Their feminist mothers and grandmothers deserve the credit for getting women the vote and access to higher education. Women have never been handed equal rights, people in power ( of any race or gender) have never woken up one morning, slapped themselves on the forehead and said, "Oh my God, I've been so unfair, here have half the power." Power has always had to be fought for, by feminists, black activists, indigenous activists, environmentalists, unionists, even early Christians, perhaps. The position of women has been so bad for so long, I sometimes joke that 2000 years of people being disappointed when you were born isn't overcome in 30 years. So you are right, Robert, a lot of women claim the rights gained by feminism but still refuse to accept the responsibilities. I would stand for a pregnant woman, having been one myself, as I would stand for a frail and elderly person, male or female. Feminists are no more identical to one another than any other group, there are feminists I find reasonable and many that I don't. But the world would be a very different place, and, I would argue, a worse one, without us, for both men and women. Which doesn't mean fighting for human rights for women has always been without mistakes or pain. nothing in life is like that, we are just people bumbling along, doing our best and sometimes, like everyone else, we stuff it up.

What a pleasure to read your post, enaj.

Just a comment on prenuptial agreements.

As far as child support goes, they're really limited to being a record of intentions. If the agreement provides for no child support in the event of separation, or support at a level below that provided by the statutory formula, it will not prevent the custodial parent from getting child support at the level specified by the formula.

If the custodial parent is on welfare payments, they will be forced to apply for child support no matter what their own desires are, and despite anything in a prenuptial agreement.

The rationale for this is that parents cannot contract out of entitlements that belong to their children. In practice of course, it amounts to a state intrusion into people's lives, and may result in children being protected so successfully by the state that they're never born in the first place.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,
I would agree that pre-nuptial agreements to do cover child support, but they help to protect assets during the property settlement phase.

An important aspect of child support is that it is often imposed. The father is rarely asked or agreeable to it, and many solicitors will say to a separated father that the system is not worth fighting against, as he has minimal chance of getting custody or even 50/50 (at present). This is why 90% of child support payers are presently male, and they often have minimal say in how the child support money is spent.

The system of child support is a completely tangled mess, which eventually does not benefit society as a whole.

Enaj,
If feminism is so great, then how come about 50% of families in the US have virtually no assets. Feminism has been very prominent within the US for a number of decades, and that country has followed many of the philosophies of feminism, with wide scale easy divorce, a significant reduction in marriage rates, increased rates of de facto relationships, many single (female) parent families, lots of fathers paying child support etc.

However those philosophies have lead to the wide scale disintegration of families, and thrown many families into poverty. Eventually those philosophies take the wealth out of families, and deposits it into the pockets of a very few.

Feminists are a bit quite about all that, because to fix the problems they would have to re-establish proper families again, and then keep those families together. They know this, but their past propaganda and philosophies do not allow them to say it.

I agree Fiona - enaj's posts are always a pleasure to read, as are Sylvia's.

Veritable beacons of light in a sometimes benighted forum, I reckon ;)

Enaj, thanks for yet another thoughtful answer. Whilst I hold a different view on the aspects of the historical situation I largely agree with your comments.

I personally suspect that a lot feminists only consider part of the picture when historical imbalances are considered. That does not make those imbalances acceptable but it is worth remembering that there are aspects of the deal men had which were not so much fun either. The saying "women and children first" is worth some reflection in regards to the cultural attitudes that spawned it. I was not there nor have I studied history enough to have really firm opinions regarding the trade offs but have seen enough to know that for most men it has not been a life of power and privilege.

Timkins, have you considered that there are a lot of other influences in American society other than feminism. The role of christianity (at least the lip service version) is very strong in their culture. Maybe the problems you mention are influenced by people not fully embracing either but rather using what suits regardless of ethical considerations. This is probably getting too far off topic but what exactly about moderate feminism is it that you are not OK with? Equal pay for equal work. Women voting. Freedom from sexual harrassment in the workplace. Ignore those who think all men are rapists etc for the moment and think about those who seek equal treatment by the law. Do you really have a quarrel with them?

If we can get past that then we can talk to moderate feminists about the damage being done when feminists gains are used by the unethical to gain special advantage.

Robert
I mentioned the US because it is supposedly the most powerful and richest country, yet so many US families are poor, and there is a considerable correlation between family disintegration and poverty, (and there has been much family disintegration in the US).

I would agree that feminism normally views world history with a very narrow magnifying glass, and will highlight female disadvantage and ignore any male disadvantage.

In terms of family and fathers, feminism views families as being patriarchal, and wants families to be matriarchal. They have wanted the removal of fathers from families, but their money is still good, so the father is removed but he has to send money back to the family, (which is called child support), and then the mother decides how to spend it.

This system has not only produced a social disaster, but also an economic disaster as the father is now expected to run 2 households on one income. However most households require 1 - 2 incomes to operate, so it becomes impossible to run 2 households on 1 income. Because of this, feminists have wanted government to provide the extra income for the mother and “her” children. So now we have a welfare state, as well as a social disaster, and this system is current – it is not 1950’s (although the 1950’s came after the war and was a period of depression).

Now the government has spent billions, and many billions of dollars of child support have also passed from fathers to mothers, but the situation with families is generally getting worse in time, not better.

But it is noted that feminists will normally use anecdotal evidence only, appeal to emotions and not facts or logic, indulge in abuse, tell men to “get out more”, “get a life” etc, ignore very real statistics, ignore any disadvantage for men and also for children, and of course call for more and more government spending, which then adds to the welfare state and places the lives of more and more people in the control of government (ie. a state run society)

Timkins,
l'm in no rush to settle nor procreate. Neither fit my life philosophy at this point in time. If l want to have children, there's no rush. l can produce viable gametes well into old age. As long as l can provide for a family's emotional and physical needs then that possibility is always open for me. l have no biological clock to worry about.

l wouldn't bother with contracts and paperwork if l was to go down that path. They are just words on paper and mean nothing unless one fights to enforce them. Even then one has to have the energy and inclination and has to contend with how way the system treats these contracts. There are much more effective ways to protect my interests. Essentially a combination of asset protection structures and discretion are much more effective in my opinion.

Robert,
l dont necessarily attribute the double standards to feminism, although l think the politics gives women a great way of rationalising their double standards. l believe that double standards are just a part of life and we only bother to rationalise them when confronted by someone who is at a disadvantage because of the inconsistencies. l just think the whole thing is a bit funny, in a silly, self-validating, naval gazing sort of a way.

Standing for people on public transport... l dont get this. Should l stand for a woman who is 3 months pregnant? Should a woman who is 8 mths preagnant stand for an old man in his 90s? Should a pregnant woman stand for a tired labourer who just got off a double shift and spent all of it on his feet?

kartiya,
what man wouldn't stand for a pregnant woman ??
Answer... a wo-man.
l have been lead to believe that showing deference to a woman because of her gender is SEXIST. Now l am told that l am bad if l dont. Crazy, l know.

Will someone please figure out the rules and then let the rest of us know. In the meantime act according to my own convictions.

I address my comments to ALL above posters on this site. I have read your comments with a great deal of interest. Sometimes I agree - sometimes I do not. I enjoy the richness that has generated out of Sylvia's article - even though she has said that she has been "saddened" by overall responses.

I have a different opinion from ALL posters re the notion and philosophy of Feminism.

I first touched on Feminist Studies back in the mid 80s. I entered my tertiary studies believing that Feminism was about being "female" and joining female groups in order to put down men.

In December of 1986 (final of my first degree) my male colleagues at the then Hunter Institute (now Newcastle University)' laughed with me and shook my hand. "Goodonya Kay. You have survived feminist bulldust!" They meant that I had survived the radical Feminist lobby.

And they (my male colleagues) were not wrong. The first person to espouse Feminist values was Voltaire. He vehemently spoke about upholding peoples' rights and their associated belief sytems. He talked abouot the value of women - and he talked about the value of men.

kalweb,
That’s very interesting about feminists in universities, but I can assure you that such male-hate feminist lecturers are still in the university system, and a number of them seem to be trying to spread their anti-male sentiments within nursing courses for some reason.

However I have never known a feminist (of any version) to say how much abortion is too much, or how much male suicide is too much, or how much divorce is too much, or how much welfare is to much, or how many single female parent families are too many, or how many children who hardly see their fathers are too many. It seems that their philosophy is the more the better.

I also think that feminists have now begun to paint women into a corner. Through their propaganda, they have devalued men, fathers, marriage and children. So this only leaves work for women, but many women are now finding work to be not all that satisfying, particularly if they are single and have no family, and will have to work until they are 65 or older.

Most things go in circles, and I would even bet that feminists will start to say that they actually like men, fathers, marriage and children, now that they see what is left in life after those things are removed.

Yes Timkins I agree with you 100%! I hold some Feminist values and I hold many Traditional values - of which I am vehemently proud.

I must be different from most other women. I really like men - singular - and as a group. I find men are more loyal in friendships. They do not compete with me and I do not compete with them. In fact, my best mates/friends are male and I would not have it any other way.

I know I am generalising as most people do - but at least I am being honest. I think men overall are more honest than women. They get straight to the point - eliminate the b....... Women, from my experience, are manipulators of the highest order.

When I have an argument with a male I feel safe! Men get to the point - stick to it - get it over and done with - and bury whatever the issue is. I cannot say the same for the female species.

Wow Timkins! The Feminists will no doubt have my guts for garters on the grounds that I do not understand their brand of feminism (lower case).

And you are spot on re female nurse academics! Many dangerous people in that regard.

Cheers
Kay

hello trade215, me being "SEXIST" probably has helped a few old ladies and men off the bus etc, and made some unexpected smiles etc . it's probably led to me having a fairly big family with its attendent responsibilities . however i'll admit it ,some of my wife's nursing mates would probably like to choke me at times. most also say that while they remain married , [and middle aged ] they most likely would not marry again. is this hormones, or lack of them talking i wonder ? we are just blokes ...what's wrong with that ??

young men can no longer rely on the committment to long term marriage in Australia of a large percentage of young women .sadly it appears that Australian men are now looking to women of other nationalities to be wives and mothers of their children . unmarried and childless is no good for either sex or our society , i believe it weakens it and that's not good .

Personally, l will always help a person if l FEEL like it, which is almost always.

l do it because it is respectful and courteous and makes me feel good.

l dont really care about the silly politics but l will not go out of my way to be thanked in the form of sniggering condascension by the politically brainwashed who read non-existent psuedo-intellectual/political/psychoanalytical garbage into a simple act of connecting with the human beings around me.

l know exactly who those sniggering fools are and my only thoughts about them is that the might be happy if they could just get over themselves.