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 > To baby or not to baby? > Comments

To baby or not to baby? : Comments

By Daniel Donahoo, published 14/2/2006

Men need to be more involved in the debate around families, children and work.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
The facts of our modern society dictates (unfortunately) the age of parenthood and the number of children.

The values are shifted from family focus to career and creature comforts like buying a home, cars, travel, etc... Couples find it hard to juggle finance, marriage, careers, recreation; “family” often slides down the list of priorities.

I noticed recently that couples would say “WE are pregnant” instead of just the female; which gives hope that it is more of a shared thing that before. But women tend to make the decision to fall pregmant.

Many couples reverse roles temporarily or long term, but most Mr. Moms still find it awkward to brag about it.

In all fairness women are much more apt at raising children then men. Men are all thumbs when it comes to multitasking.

I would like a push for more births – but it has to be a complete social reform and national back-up. We need more populace in Australia – why import it when we could produce it locally?
Posted by coach, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 10:55:43 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
Coach,
As usual you are very difficult to argue with, I really enjoy your posts.
Regards,Shaun
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 2:46:48 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
Get real. All men have to do is wait till the current government fascination with women in employment comes to an end and then retake the jobs. Women only want men's opinions on children to inveigle them into PAYING for their excesses.

Women are unsustainable in an equal rights employment role.
They have 3-4 times the environmental footprint of a man. They will have two children irregardless of any man or men's perspective on the matter. They have a need to look beautiful despite this being a most non equal opportunity activity that wastes time, saps productivity causes conflict and adds huge swathes of complex pollutants to the environment. In the difficult economic times ahead, no government will support wasteful equal opportunity roles for women. The Chinese kill female babies under a one child policy for this very reason. The real monster is the insane biological need to have two children for every female ever born. Pretttty Locusts!

In bouyant economic times, government's can afford to pander to equal rights for women. It has the added advantage of lowering birthrates and removing the need for mandatory support for legions of unwed mothers. A problem that inflicted western society pre 1990.

Now, women are free to tell themselves the story that they are on a roll and dumb men will become redundant because of a redundant Y chromosome. But the History of the Earth and the emergence of China as a superpower under its one child (preferably male) policy tells a different and hauntingly true story.

And lastly, at the end of any conflict, 'men V women' included, it always comes down to muscle. And unless women intend to evolve into a separate species of Miss Trunchpoles then I suggest they get real, stop listening to their own media reflections and independently come up with some idea of the fact that they NEED to treat men with more respect whilst realising their biolgical right to two or more children is becoming a significant threat to world peace and any chance they might have for a real and enduring equality with men.
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 4:00:29 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
We can only hope that KAEP is making a joke which has failed to come through via this text-only medium.
Posted by Laurie, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 4:20:15 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
Laurie,
Agreed either that or he/she lives on Zircon, a far flung planet, in a far away galaxy.....
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 5:48:00 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
Laurie, Shonga,

If it weren't for the grammar I'd take a punt that our old friend has come back to pay us a visit...

Either that or *someone* missed out on getting a Valentine's card!
Posted by Tracy, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 6:21:33 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
Hi Daniel

Usual thoughtful article.

I live in a holiday location on the Sunshine Coast of Q. I see older parents, around 40 and above walking slowing around with their toddlers (usually about 4 and 6 years of age). I am not stereotyping. This is what I see almost everyday. Overweight Mum and Dad with their equally overweight kids.

The van or campsite is powered for TV, playstations, and everything that people normally have at home. There sure is no roughing it - though each to his own of course. But the trend away from caravaning and camping being vigorous and healthy lifestyles for youngsters is more than obvious.

From my observation, older parents are too tired to get physical with their kids - apart from passively sitting in the spa or under the waterfall at the pool.

That is the only action. Seldom do I see parents playing cricket, footie or ball with their kids. If the parents do passively play with their kids, they sit out the front of the tent, van, or cabin (beer or vino in hand), and throw the ball onto the road for the kids to catch (despite the fact that there is an incredible playground and playing fields here for kids and families).

Mostly I see parents and kids inside the annexe watching TV or a video - and of course, everyone has a mobile phone permanently attached to their ear.

In addition, the older parents (in contrast to younger and healthier looking and more physically active parents) do not seem to know how to say no to their kids. It's a hell of a lot easier to say yes, and to have a break from their high powered jobs, and teach their kids nothing in the process.

I see little effective parenting from these obviously wealthy older parents.

I am not deliberately moving the thread of your argument - just adding another thrust.

Agree Laurie and Shonga.

Tracy - your first sentence cracked me up! You are correct, the grammar does not fit, but the sentiments sure do.

Cheers all
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 7:09:37 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
Ladies,

You are incapable of addressing the substance of the issues raised and their relevance to that naivest of ideas that men have ANY meaningful say in child birth matters at all. This does not surprise me nor your lawyers..

All I see are threats, slights, insults and presumptions.

Women are on notice. In a world of 6.5 billion people who are all competing for first world rights and where overpopulation IS the key issue, women will rapidly become redundant unless they reduce their burgeoning environmental footprint to be at least equal to that of men.

The fact that you can't see this or won't see this is entirely irrelevant.

And Trunchpole. You know to whom I speak. You have a nice Valentine.
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 7:47:37 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
KAEP, your posts sound like a declaration of war or something.
I've been on the wrong end of the family law system and can sympathise if you are going through the wringer.

Attacking all women is not a valid response to the harm caused by some. Certainly we need to raise the awareness of people who don't understand the harm and injustice done by gender biased FL but the answer is not to attack equal rights or women in general. That just perpetuates a cycle that makes us all less than we can and should be. Also please remembers that some women get really ripped off by the system and dishonest ex's.

I agree that the world is overpopulated. However 2 kids per woman would lead to a decrease in global population assuming not all make it to adulthood so I'm not sure what your concern is about women and two kids.

In regard to the article I agree with much of what Daniel says but suspect that he has not being paying enough attention to what men have been saying for some time on some of these issues.

Not just the post seperation residency issues either, rather working to find ways to get a work/life balance that lets them play a meaningful role in their kids day to day lives. I certainly see guys I work with trying to manage that. Some time ago had a good discussion with a female friend and work collegue who was struggling to understand her husbands desire to be the home dad for a while.

I think that we are still working through a transition period on this issue but I suspect that it is a bit more advanced for many people than Daniel realises (and maybe less advanced for some than I realise).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 8:13:30 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
Welll...I've said it in just about every other place so I'll say it again here.. YES.. HAVE MORE BABIES :)

2 is not enough.. we need all couples who can have them and not experience too much hardship to have 3 or 4 at least.

-Reeeediscover the joy of family....
-Discover if you have never done it the freedom and independance of working from home
-Contribute to our national well being and reduce the need for bringing in migrants, many of whom have questionable settlement and compatability issues.

I gave other points in another thread about this.. the housing one i think....

I meet soon with the Eastern regional coordinator of Family First (Vic)for a chat about things political. I think I'm actually too radical for them :) They are too soft on the RRT2001 and I'm rabid about repealing that bit of inquisition like legislation.

Just in case someone missed it.. HAVE MORE BABIES please :)

Dare I say... producing them can be quite fun ? :) (oh wait.. I'm going to get jummmped on by the ladies.. 'sure its easy for you... a tiny bit of fun and we carry the load for 9months' etc)

Laurie..put DOWN that stick pls :)

I went as far as my circumstances and medical condition of my mrs allowed us.. produced only 3... barely replaces we 2 parents and one sick or accidental death person who dies prematurely.

Its even Biblical "And the Lord said 'go forth and multiply, fill the earth'"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 8:23:33 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
KAEP

OK. I took the bait, vis a vis: " Ladies ... ".

As far as I know:

* coach is male
* SHONGA is male
* Tracy is female
* I am female

And I do not know Laurie.

You know that RObert and BOAZ _David are male.

Hardly says that we are all females?

I agree with Daniel's article. Did you not read the last part of my post? It would have been ridiculous if I had repeated all or most of what he had to say.

The article is not about feminism and womens' rights. It is not about relationship breakups and the like.

Daniel is asking males to get back into having equal say in deciding with their partner when they will have a child or children.

Come on fellas - fight back - is my understanding of what he is saying. And as a female I agree with him.

Radical feminism, political correctness and civil libertarians, have in my view, really stuffed up our male population for the past 30 years or so. I am old enough to know and have seen this.

Let's get back to true and long lasting relationships where married couples plan their children with love and devotion for the remainder of their lives.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 9:03:52 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
Men are yet to abstain from fatherhood in significant numbers. Commitment phobia is about to get some real credibility, and cease to be just a cliché bandied about by feminist freaks. Gratuitously labelled gays will be recognised for smart, incorruptible men that they are.

What rational thinking men, properly informed about current social and legal climate, would gamble their lives away. Having seen innumerable marriage bust ups, heard enough horror stories about Family Law, and Child Support, what man using his upper brain, would want to be father. What man would sacrifice all choice, have his sperm stolen, or be deceived about his own paternity.

He will be environmentally friendly metro-sexual with no need for permanent relationships. He will not work 60-80 hour weeks, or pay over 40% in taxes. He will be comfortable with who he is, his friends, his sports and hobbies, and his level of contribution to housework and cooking. He will feel adequate and in control. He will be happy.

If his female countrymen don’t care if Australia becomes a Muslim nation in 50 years time, neither should he.
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 9:16:48 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
One factor has not been mentioned.

A large number of marriages end in divorce.

A majority of divorces are initiated by woman.

Even though the government is working towards improving the input of fathers into their children's lives, most children of divorces are raised by their mothers', mothers who often repartner, the new partner often taking over the 'father' role in the children's lives, excluding in some cases the biological father from that role.

However, fathers are also responsible for paying child support, the highest rate of which exceeds the independent rate payable for government student allowance.

So, the point is, as long as men are aware of the possibility of losing their children, but still having to pay support for them, they will be cautious about having children in the first place.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 9:44:59 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 dont blame men for being cautious of making a family at all... they are on the downside of the feminist swing and seem to be copping it worse legally.

To be honist family law is beyond me i have no idea here... i have a few male friends though who have lost all financial hope and child access though divorces.

i.e. well to do men now living in actual flop houses from high payments and not ever seeing their kids, one guys new wifes income is calculated into his child payments along with his own income, plus many more.

then i have 2 female friends who got away from men, one for severe violence and another to protect her child against rape from the father and they have no help finacially or legally....these girls really needed help more than anyone i have known.

i have no idea of the gov budget available or system but to me it seems that it needs each case individually assesed, with out blanket rulings for all. its just to individual and volitile... as i say i have no idea how this could be managed. I do think its an area to invest tax money into trying to rectify.

as for us competing with islamists to hold our land its a dam sad reason to breed, even tho i agree its nessecary. more so i think new comers should be held to our lower breeding rates.

there are to many people and their problems in the world as it is.
Posted by meredith, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 10:55:41 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_David,

No, 2 is not enough with our aging population. But from your posts I can see that you don't have the clue of what it's like to suffer financially.

My wife and I don't even know that we could realistically afford one child – regardless of the baby bonus (when will politicians realise that throwing money at a problem doesn’t solve it?).

Now that the IR reforms are a certainty, we are considering writing-off the idea of having children completely. I am reluctant to have a child with no job security and less pay…and we’re not the only one’s who have been deterred by such reforms either.

With the middle and lower classes in society becoming poorer by the year vastly due to our current governments policies and priorities, the amount of people having children will be less and less now that we have a little thing called contraception. You can’t have it both ways mate. Either ensure that the “the battlers” get-by or we stop breeding. It’s that simple.

Feminism doesn’t help this problem either.
Posted by Jinx, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 12:28:29 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
All governments like to tell us they are successfully managing the economy, but when my generation cannot afford (whilst maintaining a healthy work-life balance) to have children before the age of 30, surely its evident that they have failed?
Posted by Stuart, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 4:11:37 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
Hi Team

Jinx.. I do know that situation you describe.. I knew it when I was having children.. I had my first 2 in Sarawak, and had $10/week disposable income after rent and food. That was only through the good craces of those who gave, that we might live. I was a 'misho' (evil missionary :) Needless to say, we didn't have much in the way luxuries. By disposable, I mean thats 'all' there was for everything personal. I had a wonderful adventure though. I saw provision come in amazing ways, not just for us, but fellow team members also..

Nothing comes overnight, and I identify with your position. Don't let my 'have more babies' make u feel frustrated please.. I know we all have to work within our financial constraints.

The only way we survived having our 3rd baby, while single income family, was for my Mrs to do work at home, very boring and repetitious, but provided much needed extra income. Baby was looked after, by a mum at home, and income also coming in. You have around 4 yrs from birth to build up the finances if a mum works at home.

If the art is not so much an income producer at this stage, look around for outsourcable process work, from companies. Knock on doors.. eventually one will open. They have to pay up to $25+ per hour to agencies for casual workers, your mrs could offer herself at $15/hour :)

All things come on time to those patient enough to wait... I'll leave you with Pauls words from Philippians:4

[for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13I can do everything through him who gives me strength.]

Key words... 'Through Him' :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 5:35:56 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_David,

Thanks for your inspirational words.

I have simple, inexpensive pleasures as my Christian upbringing tought me to enjoy what I've got and just be thankful for it.
Posted by Jinx, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 10:58:23 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
I can only speak from personal experience so that is what I shall do.

My partner and I are both 32 and we've been considering our capacity to raise a child since we were 30. The single biggest deterrant to us was the financial difficulty involved in a household where the female is and always will be, the major bread winner.

In October of 2005 after a short time trying we achieved a pregnancy despite our ongoing reservations about job security and financial capacity. We're going to do what our parents did and told us not to do - we're going to 'wing it' and 'make do' and we're looking forward to it.

In many ways I'm far luckier than my partner because in making this decision my biggest worry was money - his worries extended to where he would stand if our relationship was to disintegrate - we both know that in the current system I would likely retain custody and he would be forced to accept visitation rights agreed to in a court of law. In some ways the stakes are so much higher for SOME men and I'm glad so many still want to take on the challenge

Great article - there should be much more discussion along these lines so the issues can be successfully addressed.
Posted by shiny, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:10:51 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 have to say I was surprised by the fact that this article seemed to assume that it was a new thing that men were involved with the reproductive choices of women.

Surely, ever since reliable contraception became widely available, having a child is often planned? And planned between both parents?

Things like: How many children can we afford? When should we start trying? When will our employers pay maternity and paternity leave? What sort of age space should the kids have? If we have two boys or two girls, do we want to try a third time to have both daughters and sons? A fourth time to make pairs? What if we plan on having two children, but the second pregnancy is twins?

Arn't these discussions normal? In long-term, serious committed relationships, isn't discussing reproductive aims USUAL? Certainly, there are many instances when pregnancy is an "oops"... but even then, its often a happy oops, a year or so early oops, but not unwelcome.

Anyway. I was just surprised that this article seemed to be thinking that men having a role in a couple's child-bearing choices seemed a new idea.

Heh. I'm reminded of a story my Grandma tells- her four kids (within six years, yikes!) were all a little older, and all at school, when several women on her street had babies. Feeling clucky, she said to my Grandfather, "gee, wouldn't it be nice to have another baby? I always wanted five or six...?" he said very sternly "If you want another baby, go and play with someone else's for a while! We've got enough of them!"... She never did end up with another bub... :)
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 3:40:41 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
shiney, nice post. I did want to clear up what appears to be a misconception.

Nothing in the current system compels mothers to end up with the bulk of residency other than a choice by the father not to be involved in residency. When shared parenting does not occur and the father wants to be an active parent the lack of shared parenting is because of the mothers choices.

I would hope that in the unfortunate situation that your marriage did not last that you would put your kids well being and some concept of fairness ahead of other factors. Then neither of you needs to loose your kids or your ability to have a life. It does not have to be all or nothing if you both care enough for your kids.

I hope it never becomes and issue for you.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 5:52:49 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
Another factor is that of paternity. Some estimates of the rate of 'false' paternity have been as high as 10%. However a more realistic figure in Australia is probably around 3% to 5%.

In Australia it is either already illegal or soon will be for someone who suspects false paternity to arrange a test without the consent of the other party, or a court order.

Even if the figure is 3% or 5%, consider this, at least one kid in each of your classes at school was born to a woman who was having sex with someone else than the person who she later claimed was the father.

In the crowded bus on the way to work, there are probably two or three people who are the result of a cheating relationship.

Should men take a 1/20 risk that the children that they could either raise, or pay child support for if the couple split up, are not actually theirs?

It is not the 'fathers' who are creating this difficult situation. Or should men just accept the fact that any child that a woman says is their's is their's, regardless of biology?

So the risk is not just 40% that a marriage will break up, but also 3% to 5% of all marriages are based on false premises.

What price fatherhood?
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 7:30:41 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
Hamlet,

I dispute your stats of false paternity in 3% to 5% of cases for Australia. These must be guesstimates only, for as you imply, who tests and measures these things? Even abortion rates are unknown (and how many of those are because of "wrong" paternity?).

It would have to be a least 10%. Of course, this is an average, and the incidence could be a lot higher in certain cases or certain sections of society. In my case it is 33%, but all too late to do anything about it (as if ever we could).

As I said before, mandatory paternity testing with results included on birth certificate, is a must. Anything else reinforces the idea that men are mugs. Making paternity testing illegal (which I accept is reasonably accurate under the current system), is ludicrous. Why do men continue to accept such terms?
Posted by Seeker, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 7:54:31 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
I don't know that there's too much that can be done about falling fertility rates. At 35 my wife and I are about to have our first child. We have been together for over ten years and married for seven. If you had really pushed us a few years we might have cited reasons like housing costs or a lack of childcare places or the poor work/home life mix as reasons for not having children. The fact is though that while we are better off finacially than we were 10 years ago, having children is still going to push our finances and curb some of our previous lifestyle choices and we knew that when we did decide to have children a year or so ago.

We just didn't want to have children 10 years ago. We wanted to travel, try a few different jobs, study, go out with our friends and do whatever else we felt like at the time. We wanted to take advantage of and experience all of the opportunities that we saw in front of us and having children pretty much had to come last because if it had come first then none of the other things would really have been possible.

As a new parent I'll appreciate any improvements to society or my family finances to help make child rearing easier but if my wife wasn't 8 months pregnant then I really wouldn't care at all. The world's just changed and rather than trying to change it back I think we just have to adapt to the changed conditions that it brings.
Posted by Dick, Thursday, 16 February 2006 8:41:57 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
In conversation with girls my age - starting uni - there was one common idea on this issue...
1. career, therefore 'independence' and 'stability'
2. marriage, (loss of independence?)
3. children

Problem is, women's fertility isn't set up for that. More and more women and discovering that they can't put it off til after 30-35, and that IVF works all too rarely, and costs more that they can afford. The message given to young girls is career first, because that leads to independence. In reality, we should be saying "first, marriage and children, then career". While a 50 year-old woman can have the naus for work, they can't conceive.

Most men would prefer to have a first child in their mid to late twenties. They want to be active with their young, especially boys, and play a part in their lives. Unfortunately, they are dettered by many things. The first is young women wanting to put it off til later. The second is we don't have the assurance that we will have shared custody after divorce. The third is a concern for children; most men want their wives to exit the workforce for at least a year after a birth, a very wise idea, and worry about finances. The Baby Bonus has helped, in lower, and lower-middle class suburbs, to bump up the birth-rate. Middle class, especially upper-middle class families will probably need a higher payment before having children.

It is ironic that we are asking for men to be more involved with fatherhood and parenting, yet when it comes to issues like RU486, adoption and abortion, men are being told to butt out even though half of the genetic material to create those children is theirs. This involvement of men must be sincere and total if it to be taken seriously.
Posted by DFXK, Thursday, 16 February 2006 4:17:19 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
To all posters and Daniel

How refreshing to have an article about our most precious people - babies who will continue in this wonderful country.

How refreshing not to have an article about Islam and the tyrade that goes with such articles.

How refreshing that posters, even though some have different views, are not berating each other! Well done Daniel and posters.

However, how sad that some posters who are sincerely engaging in long term relationships or marriages - are already planning for the possibility of divorce!

Divorce is not an inevitable outcome of marriage. I shake my head as I think about people who are even contemplating divorce before they are married?

BOAZ_David

Loved that quote

Cheers
Kay

PS: To the "youngsters" who are thinking about having children - you do not need a brand new home with four bedrooms, two bathrooms and three garages. You do not need FOX and surround digital TV. You do not need multiple computers and mobiles.

Take a breath. Breathe the air. Listen to the sound of silence.
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 16 February 2006 8:06:19 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
Seeker wrote:

Hamlet

I dispute your stats of false paternity in 3% to 5% of cases for Australia. These must be guesstimates only, for as you imply, who tests and measures these things? Even abortion rates are unknown (and how many of those are because of "wrong" paternity?).

It would have to be a least 10%

end of quote.

Indeed, the DNA testing industry has reported a figure of around 10%, however this can be misleading, as the tests that have been carried out are the result of some suspicion of false paternity anyway.

In some overseas studies, which involved testing of parents and children for other medical reasons, such as transplantation and the like, in other words a random sample, the figures have been closer to 3% to 5%.

What bugs me is that the focus on the morality of testing has been placed on the possibility of the child's best interests not being served by the establishing of paternity, or non-paternity.

The issue of the woman's duplicitous behaviour in the interests of the child is never mentioned. Even when the man is not responsible for the birth of a child, he is held to be responsible for 'injuring' the best interests of the child.

Whilst I can understand this, it begs the question, once again, as to why men would take the rsik of parenthood.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:03:30 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
My understanding is that there is somewhat of a linkage between falling birth rates, and the level of affluence of a society compared to others around the world. In other words, the richer your country, the less it citizens have babies. (I am also told that Richer = Better Educated, and that better educated people tend to have fewer children as well.)

To the extent that this linkage is true, isn't it interesting (not entirely sure which word is most apt here) that as a society gets richer/smarter, we all apparently 'vote with our feet' and have less children.

How can so many smart and affluent people all be so wrong? Are they all mad?

If our society decides that it really does want us to have more children, I'd say that someone's going to have to mount a fairly sustained and motivating case. Seems to me that a lot of smart, rich people are going to take some convincing….

Warning: Eugenic Sentence Follows: As some might (arguably misguidedly) say at this point, the irony is, of course, that it is probably the smart, affluent folk that ought to be ‘encouraged to breed’. (Please, I’m not touching that idea with a barge pole.)

Let’s be naughty and play Devil’s Advocate, and extrapolate this trend out (to the extent that it is true and supported by the facts) to a surreal extent: an atrophying and diminishing conclave of rich, smart people, who aren’t replacing themselves, being out-bred by less affluent hordes who multiply geometrically, since they know no better.

Twenty years ago, I thought something like this might happen to some degree. Low and behold, Peter Costello now tells us to have more babies. Is anyone planning ahead here, or are we all expecting that the Other Guy already has a fix for this on their To Do list?
Posted by When_The_Going_Gets_Weird, Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:53:09 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
Hamlet,

So after taking into account the fertility rate and multiple children in households, at best 1 in 19 men, and at worst 1 in 6 or more, are routinely deceived about their paternity, by both the mother and the state.
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 17 February 2006 9:03:17 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
So many women in other topics on abortion and 486 etc arguing for the freedom of women to have as much sex as they like without consequence:

And no one here defending the right of women to foist on unsuspecting men a cuckoo to raise as their own, that is, for women to have sex with one man and place the consequences on another.

Do I perceive a double standard here?
Posted by Hamlet, Friday, 17 February 2006 11:21:47 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
Robert wrote:

Nothing in the current system compels mothers to end up with the bulk of residency other than a choice by the father not to be involved in residency.

unquote:

Robert, take another look. Perhaps read a few judgements, they are available to read on the Federal Magistrates and Family Court website.

Parenting is defined as the time spent WITH the children, not the time spent acting in the best interesting of the children.

If a man works long hours to support his wife and children, and due to this he doesn't see his children as much as he likes then his 'parenting' is discounted. It is only the comparative hours actually spent with the children that matter when residence and access is taken into account.

In many ways this appears to be 'fair' to the children as the father is a distant stranger. In my case my father worked two jobs and long hours to maintain a good standard of living for us. He did this out of love for us. But it was only the unfortunate death of my mother when I was 10 that lead to an opportunity for me to get to know my father, and I am now almost 50, and still trying to catch up on those lost years of estrangement whilst he actually lived with us.

The difficulties facing a 'family' when it breaks up with the mother wanting to repartner and desiring nothing to do with the father, except for child support, must magify this exponentially

So, if men work long hours to be a good provider, then they are not 'good parents' and miss out. If they don't devote themselves to the lifestyle that their spouse wants and spends more time with the kids, they are criticised for not being good providers.

Once again: Men, what price parenthood?
Posted by Hamlet, Friday, 17 February 2006 11:35:02 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
“Welll...I've said it in just about every other place so I'll say it again here.. YES.. HAVE MORE BABIES :)”, writes BOAZ_David on 14/2.

Yes….. often repeated!

But why??

“-Reeeediscover the joy of family....”

Well, gee, you don’t have to have more kids to discover that. Just have the number that you were going to have.

“-Discover if you have never done it the freedom and independance of working from home”

Um what? Freedom and independence is a lot more closely related to having NO kids and it is to being ‘tied down’ by a family. And it is more closely related to having one than it is to having two, and so on. Who wants to work from home? Crikey, you live there - surely you want to spend your working day somewhere else?

“-Contribute to our national well being and reduce the need for bringing in migrants, many of whom have questionable settlement and compatability issues.”

Excuse me, but having more kids is not contributing to our national wellbeing. And it is not about to lead to a reduction in immigration. Why would David think it would? If he is worried about ‘questionable compatibility issues’, why doesn’t he push for his sort of immigrants? Afraid of racial connotations? The immigration intake and composition is much much more malleable than the birthrate. Surely that is where he should concentrate his efforts. Raising the birthrate is a pretty long-term ‘immigration mitigation’ mechanism, that is not guaranteed of any success.

Having three kids is fine. In fact, having as many as you want is fine, for as long as the national average (~1.8) is below replacement level (~2.1).

My message is, not ‘have less babies’ but certainly ‘DON”T HAVE MORE BABIES’.

Let’s celebrate Australia’s low fertility rate, enjoy the freedom to choose whether we have none, one, two or twenty kids… and not feel any pressure to have more… and for goodness not get sucked in by that disgraceful one-payment baby bonus bribe.

“Laurie..put DOWN that stick pls :)”

Here, give it to me Laurie….. whack!! (:>)
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 18 February 2006 10:01:50 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
Hamlet, I think that you have misunderstood my post.

I differentiate between the current system allowing plenty of opportunity for parents to do the wrong thing vs compelling them to do the wrong thing.

Parents who both wish to put their childrens best interests first may do so, the system does not force the 80/20 thing if both parents are willing to put the kids interests above their own. Where it fails is that it supports those who put their own interests above their kids in gaining 80/20 or worse. It does not pay attention to all the circumstances which created the situation and in some cases it assumes that the circumstances which existed during the marriage were the preference of both parties rather than sometimes one party responding to choices made by the other.

The current system does not compel unequal parenting, rather it fails to support equal parenting and equal responsibility and it rewards bad behaviour.

A broken marriage does not have to result in little involvement by the father in the kids lives if both parents are willing to put the kids first.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 18 February 2006 10:27:10 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
Good on you Ludwig.. (or should I say EARwig ? :)

[Special note to Scout-> no mate.. this is not a deliberate 'insult' that you can add to your list of Christians sins :) its just a dig]

seems you like to sink your pinchers into me or my views at least..
well.. never mind. I'll just quickly 'jeet kun do' that stick and whack you back :) along with a long drawn out eeeeeeooooowwwwwww or something. kidding of course.

You have a rather pessemistic view of 'working from home' and an overly glorious view of working outside it mate.. consider this.

Travel 2 hours per day would be typical. thats 600 hours a year doing 'nothing'. Its hours which could be productive. Moreover it has many other 'costs'

600 hours at $30/hour = $18,000 lost potential income. (running your own home based business)

or.. 600 hours @ $15/hr doing sub contract/process type work $9000
Fuel/Travel costs $5/day ? around $5000
If you go by car there will be depreciation/wear and tear. Estimates Ive seen are around $100/week, thats $5000 odd....

Child care ? $100/week ? (dont know much about this) $5000 more lost income.

"You Live there" err.. is 'home' some kind of hell ? or pergatory ? hope not, I rather like being at my place.

In any case, we should regard such things as 'strategic' and heading towards a goal of more independance later. So, short term sacrifice even for 5 yrs is cool if it brings you to a better place in life.

It has been shown (News yesterday) that children in 'care' rather than a family environment(Study of children in Romanian orphanages)
stunts their growth and development.

I think I have a very good case actually so 'whack' back and raise you a pinch :) !
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 18 February 2006 12:40:39 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
eeeeeeooooowwwwwww!! Oow that stings! But I lahhk it …….…..Feel free to do it again!

Nothing like a good vigorous debate, with a bit of humour inserted. Good no you David.

I sink my pincers into your views, on this issue only. Not into you personally. I appreciate your views, but I would appreciate them more if I understood them, which is what I seek to do.

At the moment I completely don’t understand why you want us to have more babies, let alone so vehemently.

I followed one thread of your argument under ‘Refugees – we’d like to help but…’, in which you wrote; "am I fearful of being outbred by certain groups".... A RESOUNDING YES...

Then when I sought clarification with; “Are you afraid of current Australians or white Australians being bred out or overwhelmed by faster birthrates among non-whites or immigrants?” You didn’t respond.

Was that getting too close to the truth? Who exactly is it that you want to have more babies? Sounds like it is not the whole of the Australian populace.

You overstate my simple expression on working from home. Each to their own. Many would prefer to work from home. Many wouldn’t. This is really a little side issue to the issue I raised with you – your push for more babies.

So why do you push for this?? Could you also address the three above questions. Cheers.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 18 February 2006 1:31:15 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
Ludwig, perhaps you should go live in The Netherlands. There, they proudly advertise the fact that whites are now in the minority in certain cities like Rotterdam. If you don't find that completely WEIRD then you really are a lost cause.

Personally, I'd like to see my ethnicity and culture exist well into the future. To actively seek to make yourself a minority, or even allow yourself to be dominated by another ethnic group, is suicidal to say the least. Would you like some counselling?
Posted by davo, Sunday, 19 February 2006 12:56:13 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
I share your concerns Davo. Have I written anything to indicate otherwise?

But I fail to see how pushing for a higher birthrate in Australia is going to address that issue.

Can you help me understand this?
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 19 February 2006 1:59:48 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
Ludwig,

you need to distinguish between numbers of people and environmental footprints. I am the father of 6 children, on a single income. I do not feel that my children go without, mind you, they do not have Foxtel, Playstations, Reboks, fashion clothes etc. Our energy bills and water bills etc are well below average household consumption levels etc.

I have a lovely house, but 15 years ago it was just a 'sh1tbox' on a relatively busy road that couldn't be given away and that the Banks wouldn't give me a loan for, even though I bought it for under the Vg's land value etc.

Needless to say, after many years of work, it is a nice place. But I didn't just walk into it. Nor did my family go on expensive holidays or any other number of trimming the cloth options that were necessary.

For all those people out there saying "we can't afford children yet..." try asking the question, "Am I prepared to go without (x, y & z) so that I can have them now?" As Kalweb's observations reveal, many children appear to be social acoutremonts that need to be provided for rather than people to love & care for.
Posted by Reality Check, Thursday, 23 February 2006 2:27:31 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
Just a follow up on 'value for money.'

My 3 year old goes to the local community preschool each Wednesday and was given the "Treasure box" where he is allowed to bring three things next week.

He raced into the house, pick up the first three (broken or part) toys he could fit in the box and has been pleased with himself ever since.
Trying to reason with him & tell him to take some 'proper' (ie unbroken) items fails to impress him.

Now, if he can only keep the mindset of not having to keep up with the Jones' of this world.

PS: Make sure you are in at least 3 community groups - you won't have time to waste money on self excess.
Posted by Reality Check, Thursday, 23 February 2006 2:34:01 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
Reality Check

Thank goodness for people like you in our society! Good on you!

I have no doubt that your children will be forever grateful for your "generosity" - the generosity of your unconditional love and caring.

Your children will grow to be fine citizens who appreciate the "little" but more meaningful things in life, vis a vis: respect for themselves and other people, team work (six kids!), healthy competition, sharing and caring. They will know the value of hand-me-downs and they will not feel ashamed. They will be discoverers and adventurers. They will succeed without having to lie and cheat. They will succeed because they will know and appreciate your work ethic and your wife's work ethic - invaluable role models. I applaud you!

I am 58 years of age (feel 38). I would not trade my childhood for quids. We did not have TV until I was 17 years. We played sport++, chess, scrabble, cards, sang and played the piano. We did not get pocket money. We did stuff for Mum and Dad because we felt privileged to have them as parents. We climbed trees, had cubby houses, listened to the radio, had family picnics. We did not know what take-away food was (thank goodness). Friday nights were special. Dad would bring home some salted peanuts and Mum would make home-made hamburgers. What a life it was.

No wonder you call yourself Reality Check!
Cheers and all the best to your wife and children
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 23 February 2006 6:56:56 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
Reality Check

Even if you are not a John Laws fan, the following is invaluable reading, and is more than likely the premise on which you base the rearing of your children.

Go to: johnlaws.com.au and click on Milestones. It is a wonderful piece.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 23 February 2006 8:11:17 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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