You will let go of what you love if it is best for them. It seems that the some are letting go for obvious reasons... not to damage the kids.

Leave that to the embittered who deliberately punish their ex and seek ongoing retribution for unfulfilled fairytale fantasies.

Its very sad and its very true that hell has no fury like a woman scorned. Awful truth, political corrections notwithstanding.

All the divorces observed amongst male cohorts were instigated by their wives who had become dissatisfied with married life, wanting to get back out and re-live their youths before the passage of time clipped their wings. Ties into the the tendency to crap on loyalty and adult-like responsibilities/commitments in the pursuit of selfish interests.

And their ex-wives routinely put them thru the custody/visitation/mediation/lawyer/court grinder.

You are absolutely correct when you say its ALL ABOUT POWER and MONEY.

The power to make someone else suffer.

Custody determines child support which has been very astutely manipulated into ALIMONY by STEALTH.

Thankfully we dont have those outrageous abuses of human rights that exist in the USA known as 'deadbeat dad' laws. Where men, overwhelmingly living in poverty, are imprisoned for child support arrears. They can loose their driver and professional licences. Thats gotta make it easier to earn a dollar. Their liabilities determined by earning potential rather than what they actually take home, which is often not enough (after tax) to meet the imputed liability. Crazy stuff and a warning shot of just how merciless feminists can get.

In Oz, a motivated man, with a basic knowledge of the system, can easily set himself up to effect unilateral control over HIS finances and how they are applied to support. This does not mean he will be irresponsible. It does mean that he can circumvent defacto alimony.

This is the ONLY real way that one can CONTROL their OWN situation and be free of a meddlesome, spiteful, vengeful and sometimes just plain damaged ex. Its the only language they understand and its the only way to ENFORCE EQUALITY and shared parenting. Sad, true and necessary.

The woman who invented "the problem that has no name", Betty Friedan has finally died on her birthday, a couple of days ago. Her timing was almost impeccable. It is now up the living to bury her legacy along with a few more of those early feminists due to expire.

It is encouraging to see men starting to freely acknowledge their pain. Not long ago, some of these very same contributors were either in denial, or felt unable to discuss problems not yet given names. Being men, we accepted labels such as “dead beat dad” much too easily from our loyalty-challenged, boredom-intolerant, money-grabbing, shared-parenting-averse, life-sapping, grudge-holding, vengence-motivated, uterus-wielding, no-fault-divorcing ex’s. No more. Enough is enough. Our children deserve better. We deserve better.

During the little contact time I have with my 11yo daughter, bestowed by “our inequitable, unjust Laws”, she has confided to me she feels peer pressure to “date with boys” as other girls in her class are “doing it”.
I wish to know if our elected representatives wish to “fine” biological dad’s who already have lost more than half their assets, face CSA repayments etc; or the new mate in the Ex’s life?
Feminist groups have told women, men aren't needed to raise kids and the Law has stopped dad’s form seeing their kids, now a generation later kids who were never disciplined are becoming out of control
Now the Govt. wish to fine parents for the children’s lack of discipline and
control, yet parents already face fines, imprisonment or loosing kids if you do!
When fathers have no say in their children’s lives, because the courts told us mother’s are better at raising, then I hope my or any other daughter does not become pregnant or a delinquent as a result of stupid Politicians running our lives.

Dear Michael Green,

There is evidence in dispute against a lot of what you state.

"This is not true and has never been true. No mediator or mediation agency will conduct a mediation session when family relationships are seriously affected by violence or abuse. In such instances, mediation is always seen to be inappropriate. The new family law provisions specifically exclude mediation in such cases."

Personally I have been pushed into mediation over the last 5 years with my abusive ex and that being DESPITE years of domestic violence and child abuse allegations against the father. ANd mediation with an abuser is never a pretty sight - a classic example where I asked we have a clause that says our daughter's interests are put first - eg birthday partys, special events, we will reschedule his fortynight contact to teh following weekend (so he does not lose out), he refused and thunped his fist on the table saying "MY contact is more important than some kids birthday".

Our most recent mediation was about negotiating meeting places and petrol costs - the mediator asked what he would agree on - he said "I ain't agreeing to anything unless SHE drops assault charges". Still with all of this, legal aid turn me down and send me a letter which says I must try mediation again before court - so maybe you should post this research which shows victims of DV are not forced into mediation - because I knwo I am not to only woman who has been forced to mediate with her abuser.

To Womensactiongroup

This is a rather old thread - the latest thread which is entirely pertinent to your argument is at:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4296

I would be interested in your POV. There are some interesting perspectives in the posts to this article and I welcome you to contribute as there are more male posters than female.

Regards