The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Time for mothers to raise their children, not their status > Comments

Time for mothers to raise their children, not their status : Comments

By James McConvill, published 12/9/2005

James McConvill argues that resident parents need to focus on the best interests of their children.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
James, although I don’t have children, I read your article and found myself nodding in agreement… until the final two paragraphs. What an appalling solution!

People in your proposed ‘wealthy’ bracket, as defined by you as $70,000, already pay enough tax. As someone in that category who pays my taxes and has never claimed any form of support from the government, I am sick and tired of being told I should be paying more.

Currently, my partner and I are a dual income, no kids household and while that situation may change one day, I will not support the idea that I have to provide for the needs of other people’s children.

I do support a welfare system as I believe all societies need a safety net to protect people who may, at some stage, not be able to support themselves. But raising a child is the concern of the two parents and it is not my responsibility to pay to raise that child if the parents are separated.
Posted by Hel, Monday, 12 September 2005 12:00:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm gonna be terribly reactionary here.

"and educated mothers and fathers on the virtues of good parenting..." - somewhat idealistic. Its like the old plan of educating judges not to be sexist.

The current system still seems preferable as it places some responsibilty on the "non-resident" parent (like me) to pay some child care money rather than relying on some distant hope that somebody will try to educate me.

Your other proposal - making those in one tax bracket (and not others) financially responsible for child payments to other people's kids... Best to have an across the board income tax increase (say 1 percent) if we were going to go that way. But the electorate wouldn't buy it.

Sorry to be politically realistic
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 12 September 2005 12:15:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most probably, “the best interests of the child” would be to have 2 parents, and in that way the child also has the support of 2 sets of extended family.

However wide scale divorce and separation is fast changing the face of childhood and parenthood in Australia, and indirectly, it is making so many people dependant upon government.

It appears that 1 divorce is a tragedy, but 1,000 divorces per week is a mere statistic, and while much thought has been given to child custody, little thought has been given into how to reduce the flood of divorces and separations in the first place.

About the only study into the “reasons for divorce” was carried out some years ago, http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/WP20.html and one analysis of that study found aspects of it were quite biased also http://www.cis.org.au/Media/OpEds/opeds1999/E260799.htm, but no further research has been carried out carried out to my knowledge.

So, we have a situation where symptoms are being treated but not the causes, and now the treatment for the symptoms means that people will become more government dependant, which is not that recommendable.

I would agree that many women consider their children as a type of status symbol (or as an extension of their own identity), but I tend to reject the idea that men see their jobs as being a similar status symbol. I think that many men are forced into being the primary breadwinner by the mother, but come time for divorce, the mother will want the children to reside mostly with them, and will use the father’s role as the primary breadwinner against him. See http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/28/1059244556494.html for further details.

The reluctance by so many custodial mothers for the non-custodial father to have more parenting time with his children (i.e about 60% of custodial mothers don’t want the father to have more parenting time), means that these mothers want the fathers to remain as primary breadwinners, and they want to continue in the role of primary carer. But hardly much egalitarianism there by the custodial mothers, and not exactly in the “best interests of the child” one would think
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 12 September 2005 1:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this article is a disgrace, and am aghast that it's been republished by Online Opinion. To find out why, see http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/09/12/a-real-doozy-of-a-thought-bubble/, at Larvatus Prodeo.
Posted by Naomi, Monday, 12 September 2005 3:02:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James,

According to your logic, women bear children in order to achieve status.

Women achieve status by dressing children in shop-bought clothes, sending them to private schools, having children attend gymnastics classes and ordering a glass of froth for their children when visiting a café.

Children who have received such attention do not experience real love. They are 60% froth.

James – is this a class analysis?

Should we advise the middle class to refrain from breeding for the sake of the future of society? Are middle-class parents bad parents? Is poverty a necessary condition for good parenting?

And James, according to your logic frappacinnos will contribute to the fall of society.

Should we legislate against the frappacinno?

Afterall, we don't want children who are 60% froth. Though, James - do you have an ideas about what is the acceptable level of froth? Maybe 10% froth is OK? Maybe even 15%. Maybe parents could get a frothometre to test their children's level of froth?

James - should we also destroy the clothing industry? Should we rely soley on the public school system? Should children's exercise be banned?

Or James, should you make some effort to appeal to evidence when you are invoking your academic position to give you public words greater weight?
Posted by Shell, Monday, 12 September 2005 3:40:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wholeheartedly agree that many parents use their kids to enhance their own status, parents being, unfortunately, only human.
However, the operative word here is parents. This extraordinarily anti-women diatribe, aimed squarely at mothers, is simply beyond belief.
I love the way society allows men to be human but expects women, especially mothers, to be saintlike and lashes them viciously when they prove to be just as fallible as everyone else.
Imagine having a perfect mother, you know, one who didn't care about status, or money, or what other people thought of her. Who was never insecure or unsure or lonely. Who didn't feel any anger at her ex husband, justified or unjustified, and always, always, always put her child's needs ahead of her own. A woman who was always wise and patient and self-sacrificing. I reckon any normal human child would want to kill her, quite frankly.
Guys, get real. We're no better and no worse than you are, whether we have kids or not. If you can think of a better system than flawed human parents, either together or seperately, I'm dying to hear about it, but Mum's ain't ever going to be perfect.
Posted by enaj, Monday, 12 September 2005 4:47:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have read this silly article, and I agree with Naomi above completely. Apparently it was originally published in the 'Herald-Sun'... which just about says it all really.

What is it with law academics these days? And this journal? Is it that hard to find quality contributors?

I also agree that the commentary at Larvatus Prodeo about this article is far more enlightening than what seems to be the norm for debates about gender related issue at this blog.
Posted by mahatma duck, Monday, 12 September 2005 6:39:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James

I find it inconceiveable that a woman would endure nine months of pregancy and then painful childbirth for the sake of status! What status? From a female viewpoint, your argument makes no sense to me at all.

And as for people earning over $70,000 per year having to be further taxed to support some mothers and children is just plain wrong. People on that level of income must have worked hard to get there. Why should they pay for the possible selfishness and egocentricity of others?

Most people have children by choice - not by accident. When people make a deliberate choice to have children, in my view, they should have to pay for them.

I do not earn $70,000 per year, but if I did, I would be incensed by your suggestion re increased taxation to support others - this of course does not mean that I am against a necessary welfare system for people with disabilities and the ageing population.

Even so, thank you for your article.
Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Monday, 12 September 2005 7:05:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
enaj, I'm in agreement with your point that both men and women are human and have failings. Unfortunately the family law system in this country acts as though that is not the case. The combination of maternal bias, social expectations and support etc mean that it is most often women who have the opportunity to use kids for their own purposes.

Now on to the topic -

There are a couple of assumptions which underlie the responsibilities of parents towards their children.
- The responsibility to provide nurture (day to day care, teaching, loving etc) to your children.
- The responsibility to provide financially for your children.

They are not interchangeable and should not be treated as such. Both parents have a responsibility and should have opportunity to do their share of both parts of parenting. If society chooses to excuse one parent from their share of either of those responsibilities without the willing consent of the other parent then the responsibility for the shortfall should not fall on that other parent. That however is exactly the situation faced by many parents. Many fathers want more opportunity to do the nurturing part and a more reasonable share of the cost of raising their children. Those parents have no say in the other parents employment choices but are held financially responsible for those choices.

I gather (but have not met any dads who claim to be one) that there are some dads who do not want the nurture responsibility. I'm not discussing those situations here (word limits etc).

Another post will follow on what I perceive to be some of the consequences of the current approach to child support.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 12 September 2005 7:32:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Naomi
I get the impression the author was trying to get some thinking going.
Taking an 'out on a limb' appraoch and saying some quite 'out there' things is often a good way to do this.

I believe James does have one most IMPORTANT point to offer. That is, the goal of single custodial mums spending time raising the children without the added stress of trying to manage a career as well.

I don't agree with his means of providing funding for this, -if tax was the answer, I'd say increase mildly across the board not just one segment. There is no need to have kittens over his statement. Use it for constructive input.

I would prefer to see a shift in education towards family values as a whole, and enhancing extended family as part of that. We have too many 'would be' Bronzed self reliant/individual Anzacs, and too few members of a team.

And of course, the best is last, we need to regain our moral anchor, we have been drifting rudderless in the storms of wayward humanism, barren socialism and cold capitalism for too long now. Time to do some national repenting and hunger and thirst for national/personal renewal. "In Christ"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 12 September 2005 7:42:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The following comments are my impressions of the current child support system (including C$A payments, family tax benefits, single parent pensions etc). They are from the perspective of a middle income earner who wants to be a viable father to his son.

The current approach to child support may
- Require child support payments well beyond the reasonable cost of raising children
- Contribute to ongoing tension and conflict between parents.
- Leave one or both parents feeling aggrieved and contribute to children being a source of pain to that parent which is probably damaging to the relationship between parent and child (unless the parent is especially perfect).
- Take no account of the circumstances which lead to residency arrangements. Non custodial loose both their children and a financial future if the custodial parent relocates to another area and the custodial parents gets more money for doing so.
- Encourage disputes over residency with the increased funding related to a larger share of residency.
- Minimise the motivation of payers to make an extra effort financially (Overtime this year might mean an increased assessment for next year etc).

I'd like to see the financial support for parents who don't cooperate with shared nurture responsibilities to be assessed quite differently to that for those left with all the nurture responsibility by the other parents lack of interest. I'd also like it recognised that separated/divorced parents should not have to prop up the welfare system for ex's who don't like working.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 12 September 2005 7:53:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Old African proverb:

"It takes a whole village to raise a child"

It seems to me that those who say it is their right to abrogate this responsibility are not living up to their obligations as members of the village.

Little wonder we have juvenile delinquents in our 'village'.
Posted by mahatma duck, Monday, 12 September 2005 8:19:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would agree with Boaz in that the proposal by the author helps to open up the thinking about the situation, but ultimately the proposal would largely continue with the present divorce system, (if not encourage it further), and the present divorce system is basically a divorce industry. Some people make money out of this divorce industry, but most people lose money from it.

The cost of a case going to the Family Court is paid for by the taxpayer, as well as by the individuals involved.

Eg
The Attorney-General's Department estimates the average case filed in the Family Court costs taxpayers $21,000. Individuals often incur legal costs of many thousands of dollars.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/family-centres-to-stem-divorce/2005/07/30/1122144059147.html

As well as this, there is the longer term cost to society of the family breakdown. It has been estimated in the US, that each divorce costs the taxpayer about $30,000, mainly because of the negative emotional effects it has on children. This in itself could be underestimated, because divorce tends to become generational, and the children of divorced parents have a higher rate of divorce themselves, and so the process begins to go in a downward spiral.

Whatever costs there are to a divorce, multiply it by 1,000 divorces per week, year in-year out, and the divorce industry in Australia becomes a lucrative industry for some, but the vast majority of people pay for it, and have been paying for it for many years.

The majority of single parent families come from divorce and separation, and if there is to be increased taxes, I would much prefer to see that money spent on mediation and counselling, to try a repair the marriage in the first place.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 12 September 2005 9:33:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mildy astonished, spooning my latte down my neck, I'm musing on the stupefying range of opinion in and about James' ravings. Marriage is a minefield; if you read the fineprint you probably wouldn't have signed the contract. Women, especially, don't need it - it drives them mad and costs them money and health unless they are very lucky. Many men don't want it either - otherwise they wouldn't escape so fast and be so resentful. The conventional wisdom is that children need two parents. But one sane and healthy parent is probably better. Let's think about some more intelligent options. Let's make it easier for women to be single parents if they want to be. Better childcare, more flexible jobs. Let's have child-raising contracts so that people who want to be parents understand their obligations from the start. Let's have a more progressive tax system so that all of us in the village contribute to raising and educating the children who will be our fellow citizens. Let's make sure they go to schools which teach them to be democratic not unpleasant little things with religious and social foibles. Let's stop dumping on each other. Have a latte, James - it's really nice.
Posted by Cathode, Monday, 12 September 2005 11:43:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert,
Thank you for your reasonable and well thought out responses.
The Family Court is in a horrible position, really, isn't it? They are dealing with possibly the highest level of hot human hurt, anger and emotion. Human beings, of whatever gender, are at their worst when in the grip of such strong emotions and the Court must deal with it as best it can.
I have many stories of women who have been cheated and impoverished by their husbands in divorce. My sister-in-law, in a miserable and abusive marriage for 20 years, stuck it out doggedly until her sons were grown. Then, when her lawyer suggested she put a Sherriff's order on her husband's assetts, because he was self employed, refused to do so. Her husband then hid most of his assetts overseas and she ended up with the purchase price of a unit. He now owns a company, house, farm, shares and assetts in the US. He also married the mistress he had flaunted (she used to turn up to family Christmas's, I kid you not) for 8 years of their marriage.
Statistically 70% of people living below the poverty line are single mothers and their children, so while some mothers are no doubt exploiting the system, many are either not, or are not very good at it.
When people feel hurt and angry, they exploit what weapons they feel they have. Men often use money, women their kids, neither is honourable or reasonable, and the Court may or may not be biased in favour of one or other gender. It does seem to me that women's lives are much more affected, not just by having kids, but by their potential to have them. Still many employers are wary about hiring women of child bearing age. Maybe the Court is trying, albeit clumsily, to take the greater effect kids have on their mother's lifetime earning potential, into account.
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 11:24:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The family law courts are full of people desperately trying to rebuild their lives from a divorce.
If fathers were treated as equals with mothers.
If the real needs of children – which includes the continued relationship with both parents was put first.
Then and only then will there be some “sense” in our divorce and child support laws.

“Typically, men still use the career route to construct their path to greater status.”
I thought it was just part of the expectation for men to be “bread winners” – this makes it sound like a cop out, which it is not.

Now “First, the most important factor contributing to one’s happiness is being in a loving relationship”
well that will not be found in a marriage which is in the abyss. However, the continuing relationship with both parents is essential to children and a solution between parents, as individuals has to be found.
Easiest way to that end is the courts to start by treating both parents as equals before it, with neither having the unwavering support or being treated as a pariah because of gender.

Proposing an extra tax for the purpose of simply making the burden of child rearing easier for those who decide to have children is total bunkum and socialist emotional and meddlesome political drivel at its worst.

People taking responsibility for their own circumstances is the only option which works.

Going through divorces,
Dealing with issues of child support
Being a loving parent
Separating the emotional baggage between divorced parents from the children of the marriage

These are what individuals have to deal with and what only individuals can deal with.

They cannot be made a wider-society responsibility
They should not be made a wider society responsibility – even when targeted at the wealthier

I know because I am a father who separated 12 years ago.
I battled the CSA
I battled the Ex
But I never battled my children or blamed them.
I continue to have the best relationship with them any father could ever have.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 1:35:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cathode,
I am wondering where you got all your information, about marriage, child raising, mothers, and fathers?

You seem to discount fathers as being parents, seem to believe that marriage is unhealthy, seem to believe that children should be raised by the “community “(ie. which is another name for the “state”), seem to believe that 1 parent is better than 2, and seem to infer that this parent should be the mother, because she is more likely to be “sane and healthy”

I am finding your thinking to be not at all uncommon, but very common indeed, and I am wondering where this type of thinking originates. Does it come from experience, books, University courses etc.

But have you ever thought about how you are going to explain such thinking to a young male?

Young male, your future life will be as follows:-

1.Find a woman who wants to become pregnant with your sperm.
2.Remove yourself from the woman after she has become pregnant.
3.Work, earn money, and pay this money to the woman.
4.Apply through the courts if you want to see the child after it is born (ie. normally visitation rights are granted to fathers to visits their children every second weekend or less, but the fathers must first pay money to solicitors for these visitation rights to be granted).
5. Believe that this system is “in the best interests” of children, and also of the father.
6.Find another woman who wants to become pregnant with your sperm.
Go to step 2

I think the above 6 steps would fit your belief system, and in many ways it is the system that has been operating for the past 30 yrs, but if you believe that this system is workable and sustainable, could you please provide the scientific evidence to support this (and not anecdotal evidence, gossip, hearsay etc).

So there would be 2 sets of questions:-
Where do your beliefs originate?
Are they workable or sustainable?
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 2:22:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not to speak for you Cathode, but I think Timkins has gone completely reactionary - I don't get that from your response at all.

I take it as a much more realistic and constructive view of modern marriage than those put forward by embittered divorce court fathers, for example.

I do agree though, that the current state of affairs is dismal at best. I *do* think fathers are generally badly treated in matters of child custody, I *do* think there are women who have no better way to empower themselves than by having kids and sharpening them to a point aimed squarely at the 'baby daddy' heart.

I think what might be more important than deciding what to do with the kids WHEN you get divorced (I agree with Cathode - marriage is unhealthy and unnatural state for humans to force upon themselves, therefore either misery or divorce are inevitable...IMO)is deciding whether to have kids at all.

I would like to see parenting contracts (good thinking Cathode!) so that men could be held accountable to actually do some hands on... (I know that isn't going to be a popular statement but it's true. Even in cases where the parents discussed, ad nauseum, the chore split before the baby arrives, it ends up falling to the female partner to do the lions share of both child-rearing and housework at least 80% of instances...)

You can't just 'donate' and still expect the kudos, no matter how much money you throw at the situation. You can't expect dollars earned 9-5 to make up for effort 24/7....

On the other hand - these changes to the family law court may go some way to preventing lazy women from 'opting out' of taking responsibility for themselves and their actions....maybe they'll think twice before 'forgetting' to take the pill and thinking "Oh, he'll get used to the idea...."
Posted by Newsroo, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 3:35:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A brave position James has adopted - and I note Naomi is a ghast - what is a ghast?

James has a point; kids are often times symbol status, some live their lives vicariously though them - but why the focus on resident parents adn in this csae he really means the mother - when parents are seldom - excpet in recent decades looked after the kids. They might have looked after you and me. But all manner of child rearin has been in play over time and mum and dad have not always been at the fore front.

I wonder why he bothered. ANy way I'm going to go and look up a definition of a ghast - maybe I could get one; can you breed from them?
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 3:50:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sneekepete, a ghast is one of a set of fridge magnets. First you get a lert, then you get a larmed, then the more serious collectors get a ghast. The real cognoscenti spend hours on eBay looking for a palled.
Posted by anomie, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 7:10:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Newsroo,
So I am to be discounted as being “reactionary”. I have noticed that if someone questions certain things, they are more than likely to be called various names, and I think that this is being purposely done, to try and silence that person.

You don’t speak for Cathode, but you seem to believe that fathers are not doing their part, by not spending enough time looking after children. It could also be said that many mothers much prefer to have the fathers out working and being the primary breadwinner, then they will use that against them at divorce time.

I have previously posted a link on this issue:-
“That's the irony. The married men who once were rated most highly by their wives - as partners and fathers - then have their willingness to support their families count against them. When it comes to a battle over custody, men who worked those long hours are least likely to be allowed shared care and usually end up with fortnightly contact. In fact, the divorced father wanting to see more of his children may be required by the Family Court to keep working those long hours to maintain his former family in the manner to which they are accustomed.
Suggesting that married men drop back to part-time work to spend more time with their children may set them up for post-divorce custody settlements but it isn't going to pay the mortgage or allow mothers time-out to be with their families. It will be a sad thing for our society if this debate convinces men that breadwinning is a mug's game and they should look out for number one - just in case.”
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/28/1059244556494.html

In all my personal research on the issue, I cannot find very much evidence to suggest that what is in that article is untrue, and double standards are being carried out by many mothers.

So if you want to call me names in the future, carefully read through any links that I have previously referred to beforehand, and also provide a list of names I can call yourself.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 9:47:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am in your debt anomie. I will now go in search of all of them; and, if I'm lucky, I might find a nomie as well
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:36:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That would be a stonishing. A nomie is a one-off.
Posted by anomie, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:51:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely its a mugs game for both mothers and fathers? That's the trouble with the way we push men and women into such starkly different roles when they become parents.
After the extraordinary, revolutionary experience of 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth, the exhausted, bleeding (yes, usually for 8 or so weeks), stitched, bruised and shell shocked new mother faces home alone with her baby. She must learn to care for this unpredictable and demanding new person, and manage breastfeeding -the source of much pain, despair, anxiety and social embarrassment, until it settles down after about 3 months-more or less unsupported, and on very little sleep. Just when she wants her husband to mother her, as she mothers his child, he feels the pressure to be a good breadwinner and often spends more and more time at the office. No wonder new parenthood is the most dangerous time for many marriages. No-one's fault, just the stupid way we design things.
In my own case, my worst time was when I had a toddler who didn't sleep during the day, a baby who didn't sleep at night and a husband whose job took him away 26 weeks out of 52. Perhaps you can imagine what that was like? I broke my elbow during that period and my husband still had to go overseas for work, I changed nappies on a squirming one year old with a broken arm. Let me tell you, guys, if after all that we had split up and the Court had tried to take custody away from me... well, I can't think of anything more unjust. Fortunately we didn't split up. And before you feel too sorry for my husband, I still remember him ringing me from Tuscany telling me how he'd spent all day at a winery designed by Michelangelo. When he asked me what I'd been doing, I told him the truth; canteen duty. I do feel compassion for fathers who lose custody, but, to some extent, like all of us, you reap what you sew.
Posted by enaj, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:06:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To echo other posts here: shouldn't ALL parents focus on the best interests of their children?

But just as seriously, shouldn't parents be granted the opportunity to make some of the decisions about this themselves?

I also take issue with the assessment that women are using their children as 'status symbols' in the manner you describe. My parents were known to observe a similar viewpoint on seeing the explosion in the number of kids at cafes in Carlton and Fitzroy ("children are the new pets")...until my child became one of them. This ("chinos", as my son calls them) is what we do, it's part of our time together. Of course, my son hasn't been screened for his froth content recently....something else for me to worry about I suppose.

I heartily agree that children have the right to enjoy their young lives in a way that is free of neglect, abuse, indifference or spoiling. And I also agree with other post-ers that many parents REALLY don't know what they're getting themselves in for (we certainly didn't). Loving your kids might be a natural instinct, but parenting is much harder work.

Anyway, it seems to me that the way to solve the problem is not to hector the people doing their best to ensure that their children grow up happy and healthy, which is what an Op Ed like this achieves, because the parents you're talking to aren't listening, and those of us who are just notch our guilt levels up to "alarming" ("am I doing too much?" is now added to "am I not doing enough?")
Posted by seether, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:28:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enaj “That's the trouble with the way we push men and women into such starkly different roles when they become parents.”

Oh enaj – I would observe – that has been going on for generations – it is nothing new.

What is “new” is women thinking that the world evolves around them and expecting their “parenting” role to be something which every employer and social institution should kow-tow to them for and defend their career aspirations.

Historically, women stayed at home and the men went to work. That was the practice which would have (seemingly” “worked” for successive generations.
In more recent times we have seen more women “choose” to work.
We have seen an expectation that jobs be held open for them
We have seen affirmative action pressuring women’s rights before the natural selection process of individual “merit”.

Women might want to work full time – that is their individual choice.

But to suggest “they are pushed” is to presume the practice of the past generations, who brought us into the world some how got it wrong.

There is no right or wrong.

No one is “pushed”

The “roles” were defined before we were born
Reinventing them to suit some “feminist political agenda” is what is being “pushed” and from a male perspective, I see no merit in it at all.

Seether “But just as seriously, shouldn't parents be granted the opportunity to make some of the decisions about this themselves?”

Absolutely agree – individuals are the best people to decide what their “life choices” should be, even their “bad” decisions will produce better outcomes for them than the “bad” decisions imposed by some remote bureaucrat or useless socialist agenda enforced by statute.

Even in the troublesome business of maintenance - I resolved with my "ex" the maintenance agreement and we did our absolute best to keep it out of the hands of the CSA - she knew she was better off that way and so was I.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 1:40:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, Col Rouge, men at work and women at home is a relatively recent phenomenon.
In most pre-industrial communities, both men and women worked side by side in the fields, and older children and grandmothers minded the babies.
Even in industrial times, working class women worked for wages, they had to, to keep bread in their babies mouths. Sometimes they worked in factories, sometimes they were washerwomen and seamstresses, sometimes domestic servants and sometimes prostitutes. The recent, middle class ideal of dad in the workplace and mum in the home is peculiar and hasn't worked well for either gender. The minute women had a decent choice they voted with their feet and fled their homes for the workplace. We all like the sense of autonomy work and our own money give us, whatever our gender. And men as put upon wage slaves haven't looked particularly content either. Perhaps we would all be a great deal happier if mum worked more outside the home, and less in it and dad worked more inside the home and less outside it. You know, balanced things out a bit.
Our working hours are very much pushed onto us by the demands of the economy, technology and history, and they always have been. There is nothing natural about able bodied adult women staying home and raising kids, most economies cannot afford to leave them there, even hunters and gatherers sent women and kids out to work gathering.
Posted by enaj, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 2:47:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Enaj. It ignores economic reality to think that all women who work outside the home are exercising a "choice". For some it is a matter of economic survival, whether or not they maintain a home with a partner and/or father of their children (assuming they are a heterosexual couple).

And I'm not talking lattes, gymbaroo and plasma screen televisions, I'm talking whether the rent will be paid or the phone will be cut off.

Meanwhile the same parents who barely eke out a living because they prioritised staying home with their children (which is perfectly reasonable) are sure to be lambasted later in life for not having saved for their children to attend private schools and get "the best education possible".

I for one am not working outside the home to fulfill my feminist ideals...my partner and I cannot afford for me (who earns more money) not to work. Is this the result of an evil, feminist, socialist, affirmative action style conspiracy? Nope. It's just that he works in an industry that is poorly paid.

But I AM proud that my workplace values me enough to consider the ways in which I might be encouraged to return to work, by providing real-life, flexible, family-oriented options that do not interfere with the other workers in the workplace, or with productivity.

Judgement is everywhere you look, the minute you announce you are becoming a parent. No one can win this kind of debate because EVERYONE has an opinion about the best way for things to be done.

There is no one-size-fits-all, and if some one could write the manual for raising children that covered everything and everyone, my Mum reckons they'd make a fortune.
Posted by seether, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 3:16:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seether,
I would agree that there is not one formula that would suit every child, but the article is on child custody and child support, and the system that is in place very much is a “one size fits all” system.

Nearly 90% of the time, the child resides with the mother, and the child support is paid by the father. The father is normally told that he can easily get 80/20 parenting time (i.e every second weekend and half the school holidays) but if he wants more, then he has to pay more. For verification of this, just contact a Family Law solicitor.

That is the norm, and it is very much a “one size fits all” parenting system that has been applied to divorced parents for decades, and by so doing, it is also being applied to children. This system is said to be in the “best interests of the child”, but it is highly debateable as to whether that is a convenient propaganda term, or a term that has been found to be scientifically correct.

If mothers want equality, they should work the same hours and earn the same income as fathers. They get 50 / 50 at divorce time, and the mothers do not get child support, nor do they get up to 80% of the property settlement. The mothers will also be required to work until requirement age, just like fathers.

That is equality between parents, but I wonder how many mothers would put their hands up for that system.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 6:51:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins

My husband and his previous wife separated (around 90) and later divorced. He physically built the family home - he was left with an eskie. He worked two jobs for over ten years = 7 days per week. She got the house, car, credit card - you name it.

He stopped paying maintenance on the grounds that she gained the home and everything else. He has not had access to his children. She is still tyring to get back pay? After 15 years? Wow - a very clever woman. My husband has not seen or heard from his sons. It is very sad.
Posted by kalweb, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kalweb,
The situation you describe is not at all atypical. Depending on which survey the data is obtained from (eg. ABS survey data, HILDA survey data etc), then between 25% - 30% of non-custodial fathers will not see their children in the future, and non-custodial fathers constitute about 90% of divorced fathers. There are about 1,000 divorces per week, and about 1,000 children per week are also caught up in this system.

The system that is in place has very little to do with the “best interests of the child”, but much more to do with “money”.

The default position is that the mother has custody of the children, the father gets to spend time with the children every second weekend and half the school holidays (ie the 80/20 system), and the father also pays money to the mother, which is termed Child Support.

Should the father want to spend more time with his children, then he generally has to pay money. He either has to pay money to the mother (ie a form of bribery), or he has to pay money to a Family Law solicitor, who then argues the case in court, but that can take many months or years, and the father is paying out all the way through.

As well as the legal fees payed by the father, the taxpayer also pays out, and the average court case costs the taxpayer about $21,000. Most of this money goes to solicitors, judges etc, and none of it is spent on the children.

So a divorce industry has been created, and some people make money out of it, but very little of it has to do with “the best interests of the child”.

It is a system mostly driven by money, and to my knowledge, no reliable study has ever concluded that this totally abhorrent system, is generally in the “best interest of the child”
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:54:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, well said.

Kay, I doubt that your husband's ex has to be especially smart to use the system so effectively. There appears to be so much help out there with lots of social workers, solicitors etc determined to see women as victims and who then do their bit to see that men "fathers who lose custody, but, to some extent, like all of us, you reap what you sew". Does not really matter if the fathers have done the relevant sewing. The tricks that work for the genuinely hard done by work for the lazy and selfish almost as well. Until the decision making process starts to take some account of the actions of the parents in creating the circumstances which lead to "best interest of the child" situations the rorts and harm will continue.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 15 September 2005 7:49:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OH..I see we are on the 'Extremes of Feminism' thread ? :) oops.. no, its a different one..

Kay, I find that scenario (your hubby and ex) so sad.. mostly the denial of access...

Anyway, as a thought, it occurs to me that in the 50s, a single income was enough to provide the basics of life and even pay for a house. So, based on the limited income, house prices remained within the grasp of such income, if they exceeded peoples ability to pay, the obvious would happen, people stop BUYing them.... so, market forces at work.

Then, the women folk decide "We need 'equality' of opportunity" and a bunch of them move into the workforce. So far so good.. 'MORE MONEY' yeehaa...... then.. astute real estate agents note "Hey.. these purchasers are rolling in money now.. HIKE the price of land and homes !"

Now, it takes dual incomes 'just' to pay for the basics of life and buy a home. Hmm.. now what went wrong here ? Seems to me that all the lustre of 'equality' has tarnished under the corrosive impact of 'financial slavery'.

So, now, instead of having one stressed out member of the family who negotiates predatory traffic for an hour each way 260 days a year, we have TWO members... and what of the children ? oh.. forget them... they can bring up themselves... ..

The idea of a man as provider and woman as nurterer might seem 'sexist' to some, but culturally it seems to have worked better than our present situation. Financially we are no better off, health wise, probably worse off, child rearing is 'fitted in' rather than something dedicated to. One ingredient is most important in all this 'committment' and a framework of supportive values which include extended family and a modern equivalent to the 'village'.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 15 September 2005 8:33:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ, it is time for you to come to terms with feminism and the fact that many women don't want to stay home and look after the kids anymore. The best thing you can do right now is show your support for those husbands who choose to stay at home and look after the kids while the wives go to work.
Posted by minuet, Thursday, 15 September 2005 9:18:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks BD

I really enjoyed your post. I know that the rampart feminists will rant and rave about certain aspects of it. C'est la vie.

If I had been privileged to have children, maybe I would be saying something different from what I am saying.

I think that women should regard pregnancy and childbirth as a privilege and not a right. I think that being a full time mother should be the first thought for mothers.

Coming home from school to the Arnotts Biscuits and milk, peeling the beens and the peas, playing cricket in the backyard, playing with the dog, cleaning our shoes for the next day - and all of the time Mum was there and we were telling her what we had done for the day. We loved it and she loved it.

Yeah Yeah - here they go. We can't afford it. What a load of bulldust. People do not need brand new homes, furniture or appliances. Second bathrooms and toilets are a luxury - not a necessity. Throw-away nappies are not necessary, and are very expensive. Home cooking of hamburgers is very healthy and lots of fun.

Today I purchased two blank project books for the sum of $3.00. I am using them to teach two young children how to be creative. I hand draw the template, and then in writing, I teach them how to draw. I did this for my nieces about five years ago - they have never forgotten it.

Mothering is a choice. Mothering is a responsibility. Mothering is, in today's society - more often than not, lazy and greedy.

Today's women know how to get pregnant. Do they how to be mothers?

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 15 September 2005 9:33:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
I would agree that there are many people who will purposely attempt to remove the father from his children. But considering the way the “best interests of the child” is being applied, I think the Family Court is in serious breach of important government legislation.

This would be the government’s Risk Assessment legislation, which has to be applied within any company, or within any organisation in Australia.

Risk Assessment legislation is basically a 2 part process.

1.If a company wants an employee to carry out an important procedure, the company must first carry out a Risk Assessment of that procedure, before the employee actually carries it out. Then, after the initial Risk Assessment has been undertaken and the procedure is believed safe enough, the company can now direct the employee to carry out the prescribed procedure, BUT,

2. The company is still legally required, to carry out further monitoring and Risk Assessments in the future, to see if that procedure still remains safe for the employee at all times. The monitoring and Risk Assessment process is meant to be ongoing.

If a case goes before the Family Court, the Court will hear evidence and make decisions based on that evidence, and will then give directives to the 2 parents, (and indirectly it will give directives to the child also). This is part 1 of the Risk Assessment process, but the Family Court rarely carries out the second part of the process, as it rarely carries out Risk Assessments or monitoring at regular times in the future, to assess whether or not the Court’s directives are adversely affecting the child or it’s parents.

The Family Court would be failing to properly comply with all aspects of Risk Assessment legislation, which would constitute professional negligence by the Family Court.

The author of this article has qualifications in Law, and would be able to determine whether or not the Family Court has been properly carrying out the important Risk Assessment legislation, but I tend to think it very doubtful that the Family Court has been doing so.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 15 September 2005 10:09:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanx Kay
Minuet... actually you have misunderstood me :) I fully accept that there are many women who don't want to stay at home, but prefer to work.

What I was drawing attention to, is the economic and cultural impact of this that I'm sure was not expected, such as the cost of the family home.

I don't for a minute think that those girls who wish to work should be paid less for the same work.

But I truly believe a lot of girls have become 'victims' of a very well orchestrated bit of social engineering, where they actually think they have the best deal by going out to fight their way on the monash etc to get to the office or whatever.. when its just possible, that if they had savored the delights of an alternative, they must just question their current state of mind.

One problem is that most seem to see only 2 stark alternatives.

1/ Work work work.
2/ Stay home, housework, bored, burdened and bludgeoned by all the hassles.

BUT WAIT.... there's more....

The woman at home approach actually has so many rich and fulfilling possibilities !

1/ SELF EMPLOYMENT. A girl can
a) further her education from home.
b) Start a home based business be her OWN boss.

2/ COMMUNITY INVOLVMENT (just use the imagination)

All this, with the added bonus of availability and flexibitlity if a child (if they have them) is sick or in need of travel here and there.

"I came, that they might have LIFE, and have it abundantly" Jesus
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 16 September 2005 9:25:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note that most people posting reactionary comments on this thread have, on their own accounts, suffered a broken relationship with the mothers of their children (or have never had children). One therefore tends to regard their comments as being coloured by emotional loss: of partners, children, or even perhaps the potentiality of children. One empathises with them, but ultimately dismisses their comments as unuseful.

On the other hand, another poster exemplifies much that is wrong with the patriarchal Christian view of the family and society with biblical guff, and appears to attempt to deliberately inflame women by referring to them - offensively - as "girls". One tends to dismiss such comments as sanctimonious bullsh*t.

The toothpaste is out of the tube, chaps (mostly chaps, anyway). Women will no more resume the status of men's chattels and domestic servants because a few reactionary blokes are unhappy with their failed relationships, than rational Australians will accept reversion to religious dominance (whether it is Christian, Muslim or Raelian).

I've been reading these forums for a while now, so I know that my comments will fall on deaf ears here. Nonetheless, I look forward to some amusing replies.

BTW, for the record I'm a happily divorced father & grandfather, who maintains a close involvement with my kids - who are actually here now for school hols. I pay child support to my ex, but we negotiated it without any involvement of the CSA (although we did use their tables as a guide). This has been working very well for about 6 years now.
Posted by mahatma duck, Friday, 16 September 2005 10:45:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mahatma duck,
nicely said. Though some refuse to admit it, their past experience or ideology get in the way of some clear points, namely:

- personal (i.e. anecdotal) experience does not make the norm and does not equate to how the whole thing actually works for most people.

- patriarchal ideology is dead. Women are free and very unlikely to submit to what is not considered ‘democratic’ ideology anymore. They can’t have the democratic society without giving the freedoms to only 50% of the population.

Yes, there are some entertaining (if somewhat frustrating in their ignorance) views being proposed. I expect I may very well be one of them. Far be it for me to presume knowing all. I hope we both get a chuckle from the extremes that pop up around this site.

Cheers,
Posted by Reason, Friday, 16 September 2005 11:48:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fascinating aspect of Mahatma and Reasons responses are their patent lack of clear thinking, and actual constructive debate.

It is the unmitigated BIAS which suggests as you guys did, belies lack of actual argumentation of worth.

<<...is wrong with the patriarchal Christian view of the family and society with biblical guff, .... referring to them - offensively - as "girls". One tends to dismiss such comments as sanctimonious bullsh*t.>>

Mahatma, this is not yr 11 and the local schoolyard, please don't act like it is. Calling a woman a girl is a wondrous complement to those who are feeling the impact of age, wake up ok !

Now, most of my suggestions, were of a positive, embracing, exploring and enhancing nature, which one of those was 'wrong' ? (and by what ultimate standard ?)

I tend to think the shoe of slavery is on the other foot, it sounds like 'some' posters would enslave women in a work force to get extra dollars ? or perhaps you insult women by suggesting they would be less fulfilled persuing THEIR dreams as opposed to the dreams of some 'glass ceiling boss' ? Perhaps you feel women are incapable of organizing themselves in productive ways without some 'boss' telling them what to do ?

I'm sorry, the one who is insulting the women is you.

I'd also like to know how my suggestions can be construed as the 'bad old partiarchal' ways ? For your information, Patriarchy is no less valid than Matriarchy, both are valid cultural expressions of human existence. The point is, they are a response to reality. Only 'bad'if the situation is deliberately used to hurt or harm others. The Christian view of patriarchy is not as described by you guys.

It appears your starting point/presuppositions about life are that God 'isn't'? If correct, then your argument about 'good/bad/right/wrong' is invalid.- culture is dynamic, and will take the form of those opinion leaders (with vested interests) who shape it.

Some exposure to cross cultural living experiences might help you guys a bit.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 16 September 2005 9:24:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to KAY:
"People do not need brand new homes, furniture or appliances. Second bathrooms and toilets are a luxury - not a necessity. Throw-away nappies are not necessary, and are very expensive. Home cooking of hamburgers is very healthy and lots of fun."

I don't think it's about staus at all. I think it's about consumerism. Children are big business and mothers/ fathers/families and children themselves are victims of advertising. You'd have to stop watching tv, stop reading the papers or any magazines, stop listening to the radio, and stop looking at all the billboards, fliers, junk mail, stickers,etc etc you name it to avoid being one.

No, all the luxuries are not a necessity, but have you noticed how many ADS on tv there are devoted to disposable nappies? We are all being brainwashed every day of our lives, from the day we are born to want the latest, the newest, the most convenient, the most aesthically appealing, the most exciting, fun, everything!

There's a local FREE chldrens magazine which is chocabloc full of tasty ADS for all kinds of fun things to buy and do with kids: baby massage courses, music classes, dance classes, kids clothing sales, toy sales, beautiful illustrated kids books, trampolines, backyard swings, early age learning workshops, swim classes, natural fibre clothing, baby einstein videos, travel nappy bags, post baby exercise classes,,,...

I don't know how anyone in this society can avoid not wanting to buy new things? It's nothing to do with keeping up with the Jones, it's called a contantly whetted apetite courtesy of billions, zillions of dollars in advertising. And even if you rebelled, and went to live in the bush, somewhere along the line, you'd end up not knowing about all the latest technology until you'd have to do a course just so you could learn how to access your bank account statements.
Posted by minuet, Friday, 16 September 2005 10:22:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The belief that there is wide spread “patriarchy” in families appears to be a myth. After a study of 660 couples in NSW, a Dr Sotirios Sarantakos concluded :-

The findings confirm evidence from relevant national and international studies, which fails to support the presence of patriarchy in Australian families, and demonstrates that domestic power is diverse, and independent of gender. Women share domestic power with men almost equally: in about three quarters of the families they control the relationship, either alone (matriarchal families) or together with their husband (democratic families). Following this, as well as research evidence of the last fifty years, it is concluded that the notion of Australian families being patriarchal is empirically unfounded, not only with regard to contemporary families but also with respect to post-WWII families.

http://www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/4/sar.pdf

So widespread patriarchy in families is a myth, but divorced women, or women in single parent families are generally less wealthy, less happy, and less healthy than women in marriage.

I would also agree with some posters that money by itself does not necessarily bring happiness, or guarantee happiness. The more you earn, the more you tend to spend, so once a household income gets above a certain level, (ie above subsistence or welfare level), then any more income does not necessarily bring increased happiness.

Also the term “best interests of the child” is widely misused I believe. About the only way for organisations such as the Family Court to determine if something is going to be in the “best interests of the child” is to carry out a Risk Assessment, and the Family Court does not carry out proper Risk Assessments, which also means that the Family Court is in breach of government legislation regarding Risk Assessments, and has been in breach of that legislation ever since it was developed.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 17 September 2005 8:35:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Reason - but what did I say about responses?

True to form, the Christian patriarch, having told us that he feels uncomfortable with women as bosses and that men are closer to his God than are women, is incapable of acknowledging his blatant sexism and instead points to my 'godlessness' and supposed lack of exposure to cross-cultural experience. Ha! If only he knew... I don't suppose a couple of decades as a professional anthropologist count! Very droll indeed - as is the idiotic notion that women like to be called "girls" by patriarchal men.

On the other hand, the men's rights apologist, having - inter-alia - gone on and on (and on and on and on...) about divorces being too easy to get, with the implication that women should be forced to remain married to men from whom they wish to separate, cites a notorious second-rate sociologist to make the ludicrous claim that Australian marriages are not patriarchal in nature, nor have they been since the Second World War.

I have to tell you guys that one of the reasons that feminists (however defined) tend to reject marriage is that the institution itself is fundamentally patriarchal (which undoubtedly is why you're so much in favour of it).

However, I have to thank you chaps for a warming chuckle on a bleak morning :) You guys quack me up!
Posted by mahatma duck, Saturday, 17 September 2005 10:06:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Patriarchy" is not so much about 'power' its about culture and responsibility. Just as 'Matriarchy' is.

I urge anyone with problems with 'patriarchy' to read the book of Ruth in the old testament. See how BOAZ lived and treated women.
See the concept of "Kinsman Redeemer"

A simple reading of the names of sons of Noah, and his sons, and seeing how they turned into families then tribes and then nations is illustrative of how inevitable a patriarchal approach to life is.(without the artificial props of our current social/historical status quo)

In 1961 there were 55000 marriages per year, in 2001 there were 32000.
Clearly, since the 'sexual/cultural liberation' of the 60s things have changed. The crucial question is 'for the better or worse' ?

If one assumes that co-habitation without the elements which 'marraige' signify and an "easy in/easy out/take me or leave me" approach is a viable way to manage the raising of young human beings, I guess they will opt for 'better'. But my gut feeling is that deep down, most would suggest 'worse'.

Marraige has been with us for...er..what.. like since forever, yet suddenly, we have 'arrived' and its a dispensable commodity. Consumerism at its worst.

I continue to call for a re-structuring of our social organization along patriarchal, marital and responsibility lines, in a values framework which supports unions rather than destroys them.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 17 September 2005 10:13:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mahatma Duck,
Thankyou for calling other posters maligning names (eg “men's rights apologist”). Unfortunately, you have not presented any real evidence to say that what is in previous posts was incorrect, but instead have just called other people various “names” (which would also constitute “flaming” by the way)

I believe that you should now present complete information that marriage is mostly patriarchal in our society, and that unmarried women are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than married women.

You could also present complete information that children in unmarried families are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than children in married families also.

You could also present complete information that the Family Court has been carrying out proper Risk Assessments (as required by legislation) when determining the “best interests of the child”
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 17 September 2005 11:11:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mahatma Duck,
You were so right! And funny too. Let’s see where it goes…

BD,
There are so many illogical statements in that last post. Where to start?

“…their patent lack of clear thinking, and actual constructive debate.”

And your’s is? Come on BD. You are structured around an old, outmoded ideology that gives you power, advantage and seniority over 50% of the population. And you say we lack clear thinking?

”It is the unmitigated BIAS which suggests as you guys did, belies lack of actual argumentation of worth.”

And just what do you call your religious bent? Unbiased? You make me laugh…

” Calling a woman a girl is a wondrous complement to those who are feeling the impact of age..”

This is so indicative of your mind. So, age is an impact. I guess you refer to the physical loss of beauty, etc? Typical of the chauvinistic man not to see beyond the surface to the true depths of a woman. Nothing more than a reproductive servant to your kind.

”…enslave women in a work force to get extra dollars ? or perhaps you insult women by suggesting they would be less fulfilled persuing THEIR dreams as opposed to the dreams of some 'glass ceiling boss' ? Perhaps you feel women are incapable of organizing themselves in productive ways without some 'boss' telling them what to do?”

I think the point the Duck and I made was that women are capable and easily skilled enough run their own lives, be successful and contribute equally in all areas of society. How is this ‘less fulfilled’ – unless you believe that all women have the urge/need to have a child and be barefoot in the kitchen for the majority of their life? Again typical of the simplistic, unthreatening mindset of your kind.
Posted by Reason, Saturday, 17 September 2005 4:51:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
”Patriarchy is no less valid than Matriarchy, both are valid cultural expressions of human existence. The point is, they are a response to reality”

Only true in that both are power states to give rule and bias to one sex over the other. The only reality is that some choose to believe themselves more worthy than another (I can here Timkins ‘animal farm reference calling!).

“The Christian view of patriarchy is not as described by you guys.”

Just plain wrong. Deceit. Lies. Or if I was being kind moral blindness on a brainwashed adherent.

”It appears your starting point/presuppositions about life are that God 'isn't'?”

Wrong. Just that you want an old world power structure that does half the world a great deal of harm. Really the difference between you and your Islamic boogie man is so small.

“If correct, then your argument about 'good/bad/right/wrong' is invalid.- culture is dynamic, and will take the form of those opinion leaders (with vested interests) who shape it.”

And that’s why it is wrong. Vested interest. Just how does that equate with democracy! You took a toe off I think…

”Some exposure to cross cultural living experiences might help you guys a bit.”

Typical facile statement showing typical superiority complex. Here’s a pin…
Posted by Reason, Saturday, 17 September 2005 4:51:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many apologies to anybody who felt 'maligned' by my previous post. I certainly had no malign intent in attempting to locate a couple of the various anti-feminist arguments put forward in this discussion such as those of the "men's rights apologist" or the "Christian patriarch".

As for "flaming", my understanding of that phenomenon is very similar to this:

"Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board (usually on the Internet)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming

I suggest that Timkins is being a tad sensitive here, particularly in the context of his prolific statements representing his views - which I personally categorise somewhere towards the extreme of those espoused by various "men's rights" apologists. Disagreement with and categorisation of another forum member's views in polite terms doesn't constitute flaming, at least according to the excellent discussion at Wikipedia.

Again, no offence intended to anybody. Merely attempting to add a balanced and intelligent voice to the discussion :) (Which is still intensely amusing, BTW)
Posted by mahatma duck, Saturday, 17 September 2005 6:51:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day Duck

Thanks for that last post. Totally agree. You were definitely not offensive or "maligning". Timkins has a "repeat malign button" on his PC across most articles - especially if he is speaking to/about women or men who acknowledge and praise women.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Saturday, 17 September 2005 7:26:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mahatma -2 decades of anthropology count when u show the fruit of such work in your posts and spend less time ridiculing others.

Note: it is not.... about ‘power’ or female servitude. (a feminist stereotype of males)

PATRIACHY and MARTRIARCHY

In my continued advocacy of a partriachal approach to social organization, and adoption of Biblical guildelines for male female relationships (for Christians), it is worthwhile pointing out, that the important issue, - the overiding one, is cultural/social cohesian, not 'dominance' as is often suggested by my critics.

"Property rights",- lets examine 'the lot' of females in patriachal or matriarchal societies

In Israel, females could and did inherit property. (Naomi http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=8&chapter=4&version=31

"Naomi, who has come back from Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech"
Naomi's husband and sons had died. So, in order to maintain her independence and financial viability, she could sell their property.
But the patriarchal aspect comes in, where she can (if she wishes) sell it to a wealthy 'kinsman redeemer' from her husbands lineage, and the property can be retained in the inheritance structure of the male line. (for future generations) This also involved her daughter Ruth being 'acquired' as part of the transaction. (for "lineage" reasons, NOT for 'possession/dominance' reasons there is a WORLD of difference)
This type of pattern, is mirrored in the Ashanti of Africa which happen to be a Matriarchal society. The mirror reverse is true of many of the Israelite laws.
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/case_studies/akan/lineage.html#exceptions
All property is distributed thru the females lines though men are still the heads of households.

CONCLUSION, with our divorce rate spiraling, and marriage rate fading, we are without question in the process of social decay of apocalyptic proportions. We are living with moral anarchy, and we will reap the consequences of what is being sown..

Mahatma, here is a good article in support of my contentions
http://www.anthroprof.org/documents/Docs102/102articles/steelAxes.pdf

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways... then.. will I hear,.... and heal the land ” II Chronicles 7.13
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 17 September 2005 9:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mahatma Duck,
You have called your posts “balanced” and “intelligent”, but your last 2 posts had very little to do with the topic, and were taken up almost completely with name-calling of other posters. I don’t think that is allowable in the forum rules. Maybe the moderators should check on that, as other posters are putting in the effort to try and stay within the forum rules.

I haven’t called you a name, except Mahatma Duck, and for that matter, I haven’t called any other posters a name either, only what they call themselves.

But I have asked you some questions, so as to better understand your dissatisfaction., Unfortunately, you haven’t answered those questions yet, (despite all your name calling. Those questions were:-

“I believe that you should now present complete information that marriage is mostly patriarchal in our society, and that unmarried women are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than married women.

You could also present complete information that children in unmarried families are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than children in married families also.

You could also present complete information that the Family Court has been carrying out proper Risk Assessments (as required by legislation) when determining the “best interests of the child”

As well as those questions, you have previously said that a sociologist was “notorious” and “second-rate”, so could you please supply a list of other Australian sociologists, who are also “notorious” and “second-rate” .

Kalweb,
If you read the links I provide in my posts, then many, (if not the majority), are written by female authors. If I had a negative attitude towards the female gender, then I would not be referencing female authors so often.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 18 September 2005 9:05:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, you make the classic Anthro 101 error of confusing patriliny with patriarchy, and matriliny with matriarchy. You're confusing status and power with descent - may I suggest that you consult any introductory anthropology text book in order to clarify the difference.

While there are many matrilineal societies still extant, I can't think of a matriarchal society, except in myth (e.g. the Amazons) or possibly in history (e.g. the Nayars of India, or the Iroquois of North America).

Ironic that you should cite Sharp's seminal paper about the destruction of a Western Cape York Aboriginal society by blundering, ignorant missionaries. A century ago the Yir-Yoront (and virtually all of their Wik-speaking neighbours) had a stable and rich culture that had sustained itself for thousands of years - if you were familiar with conditions in communities such as Kowanyama or Aurukun today I doubt that you would be so forthcoming in pointing us to a paper that demonstrates one of the mechanisms used by missions (admittedly as de facto colonial administrators) to bring about the degradation of Aboriginal people in Queensland.

Timkins,

I hereby undertake never to refer to you as a 'men's rights apologist' again. In fact, having followed these forums for some time I've noticed that it is futile to engage you in any kind of meaningful dialogue, so I won't refer to you directly again.

Best wishes :)
Posted by mahatma duck, Monday, 19 September 2005 2:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mahatma Duck,
Your previous posts show that you can do name calling of other posters, but it is not known whether you can answer questions. The questions that were previously asked were as follows:-

“I believe that you should now present complete information that marriage is mostly patriarchal in our society, and that unmarried women are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than married women.

You could also present complete information that children in unmarried families are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than children in married families also.

You could also present complete information that the Family Court has been carrying out proper Risk Assessments (as required by legislation) when determining the “best interests of the child”

Yyou have previously said that a sociologist was “notorious” and “second-rate”, so could you please supply a list of other Australian sociologists, who are also “notorious” and “second-rate” .

You have carried out your name calling of other posters, (and of a sociologist), but you haven’t answered the questions that were asked of you. That’s not very democratic.

So there is now another question:-
Is reluctance to answer the above question an indication that you don’t know the answers, or you do know the answers, but are unwilling to state those answers.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 19 September 2005 3:41:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shiver me timbers, Timkins, I be raised by two lesbians, says I, and turned out fine, to be sure! Aye, me not be wealthy, as I still be searchin for me booty, but happy I am, gargh.

And before ye make assumptions, me hearty, these were certainly not the wacky idea of feminists you be keepin! I be raised in a warm loving environment and knew me old man quite well, I did! They were feminists, to be sure, oh aye, gahr, but only by the fact they believed strongly in equality, they did, arr. And I be growin up into a great, swarthy, villainous pirate, leader of my pack of dirty scoundrel crew of the good ship, the ‘Virgin Blue’. Arr.

So listen up, Timkins! A wench (hey, sticking to character) may not need to be married in order to bring up the little ‘uns, for such idea’s be archaic and ancient, like the treasure I be searchin for, gargh. And baby parrots may be seemin like a good idea for pets, but they can be eatin by yer alligators, so fair ye be warned!

For a debate like this to progress, ye be needin to leave the battle of ye sexes, me hearties. For tis circular, and Timkins be most foolish of landlubbers to be following this path!

There be more important issues than the battle of the sexes, says I, yar, to be sure, garghr, such as tradin these spices for jewels in faraway lands, the likes o’ which ye never seen!

Yar.
Posted by spendocrat, Monday, 19 September 2005 4:14:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spendocrat,
I’m not really interested in pirates or anecdotal evidence (which is not very reliable evidence as it is rarely indicative of a whole). I’m more interested in large-scale affects on societies.

Could you answer these questions (without anecdotal evidence)?

-Please present complete information that marriage is mostly patriarchal in our society, and that unmarried women are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than married women?

-Please present complete information that children in unmarried families are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than children in married families also?

-Please present complete information that the Family Court has been carrying out proper Risk Assessments (as required by legislation) when determining the “best interests of the child?

A further question:-

-Does frequent reliance upon anecdotal evidence indicate a desire to hide information?
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 19 September 2005 4:49:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well splice the mainbrace and keelhaul the lily-livered, Spendo me hearty! I nearly forgot that today is International Talk Like A Pirate Day!

Arrr, I reckon ye be on the marrrk concerning yon battle of the sexes - thar be far more booty to be had if we ally ourselves with yon mermaids and sirens, and work together to raise yon sardines so they grow into strong and smart sailors.

Belay all talk of patri- and matri- arks, mates and mizzens! We'll have a tot and a hornpipe together, and give the brass monkeys a jolly rogering! Avast, any scurvy mutinous swabs can have a taste of the lash and walk the plank!

Arrr... aboard the good ship Venus...
Posted by mahatma duck, Monday, 19 September 2005 4:57:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mahatma, yes, I did confuse the 2 terms. (as you did the intent of the missionaries :)

On the Sharp article.. We studied that article AT ‘missionary school’ :)

The missionaries prevented disease, guns and alchohol from reaching the tribe.
they erred culturally in well intentioned attempts to assist them.

The more important thing now, is how will MODERN cultural steel axes effect us ?

Male self esteem/identity and feminism ?

http://www.scn.org/rdi/kw-gyn.htm Matrilineal Society

<<Here, in an Akan community, we examine dimensions of inequality as they apply to women: "power" or the ability to get one’s way despite potential opposition, "authority" or the legitimate demand for obedience, "Influence" or the ability to persuade people to do things, "prestige" or public recognition and respect, "independence" or the freedom to avoid demands made by persons with authority, and "office" which is a recognised status position.
...
Sanday, in a comparative analysis, isolates three factors that contribute to this variation. She notes that reproduction, subsistence, and defence are crucial for survival, and that the first, reproduction, limits female participation in the third, defence. The contribution of women to the second, subsistence, is the most important, then, in determining their status. women may or may not produce subsistence goods, but if men have control of the product, or of its allocation, then the status of women will be low. >>

The amazing (and probably unrealized) aspect of this assessment, is that it is made with concepts of “power” at its root. It fails to recognize happiness and fulfillment and above all, and how these values are not necessarily related to ‘power’.

I wonder if the women of the Akan would even ask the same questions as this anthropologist ? My experience with tribal Borneans suggest they would not.

So, the values and conclusions of this anthropologist are THEMSELVES a study in contemporary culture.. “ours” ! They reveal that for the modern Western mind, life is one huge ‘ego trip’.. “power”.

Needless to say, I totally reject this underlying value.

The Western notion of ‘equality’ rather than the traditional value of ‘belonging’ are seen here
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 19 September 2005 6:12:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's always enlightening to see members of the powerful group telling members of the less powerful group that they are happier without power. Its like telling women they are better at doing the boring, low paid jobs because they have such good attention to detail.
Actually, guys, pirates, mysogynists, christians and human beings of all colours, flavours and varieties, I will decide whether I wish to seek power or not, I will decide whether I want to work outside the home or not, and I will decide what I need to do to increase my own happiness and potential. I will make mistakes, of course, but my own mistakes and not someone elses. I will not be told and my (equally feminist) husband and I are bringing up our daughters to refuse to be told, who they should be and how they should live their life, by any other mob, particularly the terminally self-righteous. My advice to you all is to do the same, and stop wanting to control other people, particularly female people's, life choices.
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 10:07:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mahatma Duck,
It is known that you can call other people various names, and you can talk like a Hollywood pirate, but can you answer questions. Still waiting.
See http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3800#15319

Boaz,
I think there are people who will say that the nuclear family is patriarchy, but I have not been able to find any evidence that abolishing the nuclear family creates a sustainable society.

I have read of accounts of early aboriginal societies, and although there were many different tribes, it does appear that the nuclear family was the norm within much of aboriginal society, as an aborigine would readily know and value their mother, father, brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins etc.

In earlier years in Australia, a man would find it very difficult to get a bank loan, unless he was married and had a steady job. Now such requirements have been minimised, but the amount of personal debt in society has increased to record levels, with very high rates of tax, and a dwindling birth rate also. I don’t know what early aboriginals would have thought of our current society.

The system that a custodial mother is paid mainly by the taxpayer, would only increase the amount of tax on the public, and basically classifies the father as a second class parent. And it does not necessarily mean that mothers would do a better job at mothering, as some of the worst social problems are now occurring in single parent families, or in short lived cohabitation families.

And this is possibly why so many societies in different parts of the world, have quite independently developed the nuclear family system, so as to avoid the many social problems that seem to inevitably develop, without the nuclear family system.

Enaj,
You have called a lot of people various names. You say you have “choice”, but you would also have to make sure that your choices do not adversely affect someone else, and you would have to be prepared to answer questions regarding your choices
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 4:06:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins (and I'm not sure why I bother as your mind is clearly already made up), it's good that you want whats best for families, but you're saying that the nuclear family has some inherant quality that makes for a better family setting. I fail to see this.

Basically, there is no one factor that makes a healthy, happy family as you suggest. A good family is the culmination of MANY factors, including values, respect, love, etc etc. Don't you think it makes far more sense to judge a family on their individual merit, not on whether it's the married with 2.4 kids type?

And no, I can't provide you with statistics that 'prove' children with single parents are just as happy and healthy (or more so) as those with two parents of each sex. Such a study is next to impossible, there are too many variables in what results in a happy healthy kid (I'm leaving out your 'wealthy' category, because I don't think it's particularly relevant, unless the parents are poverty stricken or millionaires). Genetic disposition to being healthy, schooling, psycology, countless environment factors and so on. So stop asking for that information, it doesn't prove a damn thing.

See, you've asked an unanswerable question as a way to gain dominance over the debate, rather than provide reasons why you believe what you believe. And you're getting the cart before the horse. Non-nuclear family environments don't create social problems - Social problems exist, and therefor there are non-nuclear families. It doesn't matter who, overall, is healthier and happier. What matters is that we live in a free society, and have the right to live the way we want and raise children the way we feel best. No way is more right than others, because everyone is different (jeez, I feel like I'm teaching a 6 year old), and what works for some doesn't work for others. Get it?

Of course you don't.
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 4:50:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spendocrat,
Thankyou for giving me a lecture, (eg “Get it? Of course you don't.”)

To help make up my mind regards families, I have looked through much data, including :-

Australian Youth Facts and Stats
http://www.youthfacts.com.au/index.php?option=displaypage&Itemid=214&op=page
Marriage, Children and Subjective Wellbeing-
http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/Biblio/cp/conf-p01.pdf
“Does marriage improve the wages of men and women in Australia?”
http://acsr.anu.edu.au/APA2004/papers/7D_Breusch.pdf
“Marriage and mental health “
http://aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2002/fm62/dd.pdf
"When the difference is night and day"
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrc8/parkinson.pdf

These are just a few of the studies I have read through, and as a partial summary:-
-People are easily lead by propaganda
-Never believe anecdotal evidence
-Never believe anything from an organisation that excludes males
-Be highly suspect of someone who calls themselves a feminist
-Be highly suspect of anyone when they talk about “choice”
-Be highly suspect of someone who calls other people lots of names.
-The number of couples with no children are significantly increasing.
-The number of single person households are significantly increasing.
-The present rate of divorce and separation creates an enormous amount of economic and emotional cost to society.
-Much data about de facto relationships and single parent families is being hidden
-Widespread patriarchy in families is a myth.
-Males and fathers are being purposely demonised by certain sections of society
-The Family Court does not carry out required Risk Assessment processes when determining the best interests of the child, or of anybody else.
-Divorced women, or women in single parent families are generally less wealthy, less happy, and less healthy than women in marriage.
-Children are generally better off in married families than in other family types.
-Society is unsustainable with our current family systems, and the longer the delay in doing something about it, the more difficult it is going to become for people in the future.

However the above is a partial summary only of what I think, but it is based on a considerable amount of experience and personal research into it all
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 9:15:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ENAJ said
<<it's ..enlightening to see members of the powerful group telling members of the less powerful group that they are happier without power. Its like telling women they are better at doing the boring, low paid jobs because they have such good attention to detail.>>

Point taken Enaj, but I would prefer we didn't see things in terms of 'competitive power relationships', which is the fundamental flaw I believe in our current view of male female relationships.
An assumption in your words suggest that males in 'authority' positions, will always use that for some kind of ego gratifiying dominance.

Timkins has a lot of research suggesting that the current approach has serious failings, as demonstrated by various 'happiness' studies and the levels of marraige breakdown. Personally, I think when you put 2 strong wills in a marraige, both with ideas of leadership, you will have the same result as a footy team with 2 captains. Its not really workable.

But a captain of a team, always has the best interests of the team at heart. The biblical concept of leadership is in fact servanthood.
When Christ took the towell and washed the disciples feet, do you know what he said ?

John 13
12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16

He also said:
11"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep

On Husbands and wives, Paul taught consistently with this:

"Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for her"

If we followed a sacrificial committment to each other, society would be much healthier and happier.

btw, your comments (enaj and Tim) are always appreciated.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 8:22:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enaj, spendo, Mahatma,
How do you regard the articles statement on the status perception of children?

I am beginning to believe that it is a symptom of the modern age that people are looking for a ‘status’ – although I see that it is perhaps just in a certain portion of society. Personally, I don’t know of any child-bearing adult (male or female) who considers their children a symbol. But I can see it in some sections, where it is more of an expectation, to be considered part of the ‘successful’ person. Perhaps this is the problem? A definition of success in life?

I have begun to attribute this phenomenon to what I call the ‘merchandising culture’ of today. One thing I have noticed of recent times is that everywhere one looks, one sees advertising for something ‘we need’ – I even saw it vaguely masked on a morning news show as a ‘news article’ but I’m really not surprised.

Having recently made a conscious choice to downsize my material possessions to what I consider basic and, although not always essential, desired for a simple life, it seems that perhaps our culture of marketing is getting out of hand? I understand the rudimentaries of economics but surely more should be given to the intangible, long term strategies that produce contentment, rather than the material, short term.

Just some thoughts…
Posted by Reason, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 9:46:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reason,
Interesting question, as I said early on, I do think modern parents want their kids to reflect well on their status, hence the headlong rush into expensive private schools. It's almost as important to be a (fill in elite private school here) mum or dad as it is to be a student. You should watch them preening themselves at middle class dinner parties when asked what school their kids go to!
However, I don't think pursuit of status through their kids is exclusive to mums. Dads are just as guilty, and just as human.
Stay at home mothers, however, may be more vulnerable to trying to live their lives (and therefore seeking status) through their kids, because they don't have any other outlet, and, as I keep pointing out, much as we might want mums to be perfect, they ain't, never will be, and will always be just as flawed and human as dads.

Dear old Timkins,
I didn't call anyone names, may I gently suggest to you that my opening was meant as a jocular introduction, following on from the very amusing "talk like a pirate day" posts? Perhaps its not just feminists who find it hard to take a joke.
Posted by enaj, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 12:00:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most people do consider their children 'symbols' of their 'success'... at least when they are well-dressed and looking adorable, and just got a gold star at school... Those same parents probably try and look the other way when the kid has jumped in a mud puddle and is thowing a tantram in the middle of the supermarket!

This dosn't make them bad parents- it makes them human. We all preen a little bit when something has gone right. For ourselves, or those we love.

And fathers do it just as much as mothers!
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 12:34:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
more pirate-speak please!

ps - I asked a friend recently if she and her partner planned to have kids. The answer was a very difinitive NO. The reason: it's too hard, too expensive and too much pressure to keep up with everyone else. They didn't want to commit to having to buy the child everything it would need to keep up with the Jones' children.
Posted by lisamaree, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 1:45:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reason - interesting points and question... thankfully back on topic too!

One of the reasons I described McConvill's article as silly in my first comment was due to his assertion that "In contemporary society, a great number of parents, and in particular mothers who are usually the resident parent, use their children as a status symbol, to compensate for the life they have “given up” to become a mother, or the alternative life that they have never had".

I would have thought that, at least in the Weberian sense of status as social esteem or honour, parenthood in contemporary Western societies would confer relatively less status on parents than in previous generations - hence the tendency to smaller families or having no children at all. This is in contrast to societies where parenthood conferred its own status, and in many cases was a prerequisite to full adult status.

Having said that, there is no doubt that many parents use their kids vicariously as signifiers of conspicuous consumption - via dress, schools, etc. It could also be argued that many parents attain a kind of proxy status via their kids' accomplishments, e.g. in sporting and academic fields, or in child beauty pageants etc.
Posted by mahatma duck, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 2:07:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol. 'Give the brass monkeys a jolly rogering'. I can't stop laughing at that, well done duck.

Timkins, I'm not disputing your findings, I'm sure the research you've done, albeit one sided, is legit. But all I'm trying to say is perhaps it doesn't mean that much to say: 'On average, kids with single parents aren't as (whatever)!' Because as I said, just because it doesn't work for some, or even most, doesn't mean it should ever become a rule.

It's the sort of study that can come to pretty much any conclusion you wish. 'Kids with parents of lower IQ's don't grow up as smart!' or 'Kids with cheaper shoes grow up to...take less..care of their shoes!'

...ok, let's look at it another way. You've found studies that show there are specific groups that unfairly treat men in the family court or whatever I can't remember the details. Are you, then, denying the existence of studies that show women receiving the same vilification?

Your studies are selective.

People, families, whatever, need to be judged by their individual merit, not by the cateogry they fall into. That's all I'm saying. Individual merit. Take any given family, assess all the factors that make up their lifestyle -including, but not at all limited to- whether they are nuclear-style or not, then judge them if you must.

Yar.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 3:58:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Spendo, maybe we are all being too maligning and judgemental of Timkins. Clearly he has the most perfect marriage, with beautifully well adjusted and fully actualised children, and merely wants all others to have the same opportunities for domestic bliss
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 4:16:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,
I don’t think it has much to do with a battle of "wills", but more to do with the public being misinformed.

If someone asked a nutritionist “What should people generally eat”? The nutritionist would probably be failing in their duty and profession if they said “Whatever they like. It’s their choice. Whatever they see advertised in the popular media”.

Instead, the nutritionist would likely say “Follow the Healthy Eating Pyramid” http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/Food_Facts/Fact_Sheets/about%20_the_healthy_eating_pyramid.asp (NB. most foods advertised in the popular media, are not recommended by nutritionists).

But if someone asked a Social Scientist “What type of relationship should people generally have to best raise children?” Would the Social Scientist be failing in their duty and profession if they said “Whatever they like. It’s their choice. Whatever they see advertised in the popular media”.

There have been studies into marriage in Australia, but few studies have been carried out into alternatives to marriage, (eg. de facto relationships, cohabitation, single parent families etc), even though about 31% of children are now being born outside of marriage. This lack of study into alternatives to marriage (or lack of publishing of any results of such studies), becomes a very serious professional failing by Social Science in Australia.

When marriage is compared to other relationship types, marriage is normally far superior. But the public has been receiving mostly negative messages about marriage and few positive messages from Social Science or the media, and almost no information about the alternatives to marriage, or about any alternatives to the nuclear family.

So that is my main principle:- If more taxpayer’s money is to be spent, it should be spent on trying to repair the misinformation the public has been receiving, and also spent on repairing marriages, and not spent on encouraging more divorce, (and thereby encouraging the divorce industry).

Enja,
Would calling another poster “old” be a reliable and responsible choice?.

It has never been established that Family Law or Child Support is humorous.

Mahatma Duck,
Still waiting for your answers. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3800#15319

Spendocrat,
Would calling other posters “brass monkeys” be a reliable and responsible choice?
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 6:30:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enaj,
I agree. Living vicariously through children is certainly a trait in both women and men who feel as if they haven’t achieved in their own lives so live through successes of their offspring. Not altogether a bad thing as pride (balanced with humility) is ok.

I think you highlighted the issue in exampling the private school comparison – it should not be the school that matters but the endeavours of the child. How are they doing? Not where are they attending and whom are they connecting with. Personally, I think this last issue is a growing danger (and subject of another article some time). But you struck the chord for me. That people need to ‘one-up’ each other is more about appearances than substance – another malady of our society?

Duck-man (if I may?),
Agreed that it appears as far as parenting goes ‘less are producing more’ and the status of a parent would seem to be diminishing. However, I think that this may in fact be creating a situation (in social circles of a certain class where status seems to be most important) that the child becomes almost a sign of superiority (i.e. we achieve, succeed and have time for children - make sense?). This is what may lead to a lack of caring for the child’s wellbeing, as the status is the focus, not the child.

That parenting has diminished as a kind of ‘right of passage’ - I do not disagree. That it is a loss to society (as with the nuclear family) is, perhaps, debatable. Arguments regarding moral/value loss in our society tend to be based on strict dogmatic codes that refuse to accept that society is a fluid environment and that no moral/value code survives in a static state.

Laurie,
Agreed. A parent's pride in their child’s achievements is a good thing, even healthy for both. It is when the child is ‘used’ in a narcissistic way that it becomes dangerous.

Spendo,
Couldn’t have said it better…

Lisamaree,
Aaarr, let’s keelhall the disenters and split the booty… where’s me parrot?! Yarrr…
Posted by Reason, Thursday, 22 September 2005 12:25:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, the nutritionist metaphor was a good one…you almost had me stumped, until I realised that while different social and family environments work for different people, good food is pretty much universal. Barring an allergy or something, an apple is good for everyone. Not so with the nuclear-style family. So it was close, but no cigar.

Not to mention the fact that I wouldn’t listen to a nutritionist anyway, but that’s just because I’m reckless and addicted to fried chicken.

I don’t know about your idea that marriage is receiving a lot of ‘negative’ attention in the media. I would say it’s not really receiving much attention either way, mainly because who cares? For example, the distinction between a married couple without kids, and an unmarried couple living together without kids, is an entirely arbitrary one. The difference is a piece of paper.

All studies aside, I don’t think the fact that there is less marriage (or more divorce) these days has changed the average family environment one bit. Back in the day when everyone got married and had kids, there was still crime, still domestic violence, still misbehaving children, depression, money woes, on and on. In fact, I would go as far as to say that there were more unhappy marriages back then, because some people married (and stayed married) out of pressure, rather than because it was something they really wanted to do.

I know there’s problems in the family court, that much is obvious. I find it sad that people need to take these things to court, rather than being grown up enough to sort out the problems themselves. If you aren’t mature enough to sort out what happens to your child in the event of a divorce, then maybe you aren’t mature enough to have kids in the first place (Note the disclaimer: ‘maybe’. I concede I don’t really know enough about the topic to have the answers, just expressing my thoughts).

Your passion for the subject seems to suggest perhaps a negative personal experience? If this is the case, I’m calling your objectivity into question.
Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 22 September 2005 12:00:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mahatma Duck
You are “amusing”.
You are “neither intelligent nor articulate enough” to present your case positively in an OLO article.
Your comments are from a “Christian patriarch”.
Your comments are “blatant sexism”
Your comments are “Very droll indeed”.
Your comments are “idiotic notion” .
Your comments go “on and on (and on and on and on...)”.
Your claims are “ludicrous”
You favour marriage because "it is patriarchal”.
Your comments are “quack”.
Your comments are “silly”.
You post “reactionary comments”.
You have “suffered a broken relationship”.
Your comments are “coloured by emotional loss: of partners, children, or even perhaps the potentiality of children”
Your comments are to be dismissed as “unuseful.”
Your comments are “sanctimonious bullsh*t.”.
You carry out “flaming",
You are a “tad sensitive”.
Your views can be categorised “somewhere towards the extreme of those espoused by various "men's rights" apologists”,
You “make the classic Anthro 101 error of confusing patriliny with patriarchy, and matriliny with matriarchy.
You're "confusing status and power with descent”
Your comments are not “meaningful dialogue”.
You are a “brass monkey”
You like “scurvy mutinous swabs” that should “taste of the lash and walk the plank!”

Reason
Your views are “ biased”, and “distorted” .
You are “structured around an old, outmoded ideology that gives you power, advantage and seniority over 50% of the population.”
Your “past experience or ideology get in the way of some clear points”.
Your views are “frustrating in their ignorance”.
Your views are “extreme”.
Your statements show “typical superiority complex.”
Your views are “frustrating in their ignorance”.
Your views are “extreme”

Newsroo
You are “completely reactionary”.
You are a “embittered divorce court father”.

Enaj,
You are a “pirate” and a “misogynist”.
You want “to control other people, particularly female people's, life choices.”
You “find it hard to take a joke.”

Spendocrat
Your mind is “clearly already made up”.
You want to gain “dominance over the debate”.
You don’t “Get it?”
Your studies are “selective”.
You have had a “negative personal experience”.
Your “objectivity” is in question.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 23 September 2005 2:12:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, I hardly think calling your studies 'selective' constitutes name-calling. It's a bit of a stretch.

Are you ok? How are things at home? None of us want to insult you, we use certain language to strengthen our points, an important part of debating. And the agressive manner in which you phrase your arguments kind of does leave you open to criticism.

Cheer up mate, none of this is personal.
Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 23 September 2005 2:32:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arrr... I think someone may have had a tot too many with their lunch today?

Cheer up - "Blokesworld" is on TV tonight!
Posted by mahatma duck, Friday, 23 September 2005 3:34:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Timkins,
What’s your point?
Posted by Reason, Friday, 23 September 2005 3:52:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spendocrat,
You “don’t think”
Your information is “selective”
You carry out “name-calling”
You “stretch” things
You are not “ok”
You “insult” others
You don't not use “certain language to strengthen” your points,
You do not carry out “debate”
You use an “aggressive manner”
You should receive much “criticism”
You malign other poster, then call them “mate”

Mahatma duck
You have had a “tot too many” with your lunch today
You don’t know how to “Cheer up”
You like to watch “Blokesworld” on TV

You call other people on forums many names and malign them, but you don’t answer their questions.

Reason.
You have no “point.”

Whatever someone has said, I can simply repeat it back to them. I can malign them, make up stories about them, call them names, make a whole lot of inferences about them. If I keep saying these things often enough, it becomes brainwashing, and other peoplecan begin to believe it. I can say whatever I like. I don't have to be accurate, and I can be totally subjective regards what I do.

This article deals with the “best interests of the child”. But that is a totally subjective term that is being applied by the courts and other persons, and it is a term that can mean anything.

But based on that term, decisions are being made, that can dramatically affect the child’s life and it’s parents life for many years. The “best interests of the child” deals with health and safety, so it is very much within Risk Assessment legalisation.

If a court (or any other organisation) wants to determine the “best interests of the child”, they have to use a Risk Assessment approach, to help reduce subjectivity and inaccuracy. They are required to do this by legislation, but it is extremely questionable whether that Risk Assessment process is being undertaken by the Family Court.

So without Risk Assessment, people can say whatever they feel like, and then classify it as being the "best interest of the child"
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 23 September 2005 5:00:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am the resident parent paying child support to the non-resident parent. I provide the financial and non-financial aspects of child raising ie school support, learning encouragement, personal growth etc for my children. I focus on the needs of the children but due to the non-resident parent having contact 32% of the time and his reduced income due to lack of motivation I still am required to pay him. Child support does not take into account support for children but only the time with the other parent. My children remain clothed in this environment from the op-shop yet the other parent buys new name shoes. Where is there the rules about these situations? I needed to increase hours at work, and took risks for my future and that of the children. Interested in others opinion
Posted by LIONAR, Friday, 23 December 2005 8:07:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I found LIONAR's post interesting.

It shed's some light on single-parent households. That we're not a homogenous group of people. Our backgrounds, circumstances, education level, economic-status are vast and various.

I do not identify with Timkins representation of single mothers.

I think Timkins adheres to the preferred discourse of single mothers as being parasites on society. Single parents who receive parenting payment are a transient segment of society. Just as students are, or pensioners for that matter. They do not receive parenting payment forever. I believe the average time frame for single parent household to receive parenting payment is approximately 3-4 years.

Liz.
Posted by Liz, Friday, 13 January 2006 5:45:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy