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.