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

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.

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

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'"

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

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.