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.