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.