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.