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And the feminist quotes from Silver Surfer are not out of date by any means, as works from these so-called “radical” feminists are still quoted by feminists today, and a feminist admiringly quoted a “radical” anti-male and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.