Scout, I found the article interesting. I really did not like the first half - but the latter part seemed to take a more reasonable look at the issues.

A couple of thoughts on the overall issue
- It seems reasonable to assume that those people most willing to cheat on a partner and be deceitfull about the paternity of a child are also likely to misuse the child support scheme if the opportunity arises.
- At the moment it seems to be a "have your cake and eat it" situation - biological paternity or significant relationship can be both used to impose unreasonable financial demands on the "father" resulting from what are mostly the mothers choices. The article attempts to address some of the issues around this.
- I'm uncomfortable with the idea of universal paternity testing for some of the same reasons that I would be uncomfortable if I had to routinely submit to a polygraph regarding my fidelity within a relationship. Nothing to hide but don't like that kind of intrusive activity.
- I do think that the issue changes where the government chooses to decree and enforce financial liability. It seems strange that while other items are verified (income, liabilities etc) the issue of paternity is not. Paternity can have significant financial consequences for both property settlement and child support and should involve adequate levels of proof and appropriate consequences for fraud or inadequate "duty of care" in making declarations.
- Privacy appears to be a mjor concern to that Australian Law Reform Commission in paternity testing. However it does not appear to be a consideration in other aspects of family law. I had to produce all my bank statement including credit card statements for the post seperation period as part of the property settlement process and make them available to my ex and her solicitor - no privacy there and frankly none of her business.

Cheers
R0bert

seeker, the bit that I did not get to yesterday in my post is the role that the way we conduct ourselves has on changing impressions.

I think that a lot of people tend to think that men who get done over by the family law system probably deserved what they got. Obviously not a view which I share but one which seems to be common. Similar to the view that when a woman hits a man he probably deserved it.

To often all that people see of us is our anger and bitterness and that reinforces the stereotypes, people fail to separate cause and effect.

Constant bagging of women and a refusal to acknowledge the pain some of them bear through this process is not likely to convince many women that injustice is being done. Rather many will perceive that what is happening is that poor long suffering women are getting a bit back against those nasty men they had the misfortune to marry.

If our communication of the issues portrays an unreasonable aggressive attitude then that is how we will be perceived.

You said some time ago "but as you may have noticed I don’t seriously attempt debate – rather, I tend to focus on worst case scenarios when making my generally stand-alone comments, then rarely return to defend them. They are never an attempt to show my overall personal balance." - fair enough but I don't think that approach is going to help change any viewpoints for the better.

Scout and others by their willingness to engage have impacted on my understanding of some issues, as I suspect that I have impacted on some of their understandings. Some of the extremists have also impacted on my viewpoints as well but generally away from their viewpoints which I doubt is what is intended.

Cheers
R0bert

Robert

I don't understand how you can pay homeage to Sue Price. She's just as misogynistic in her paternalistic outlook on life as, say, Seeker.

Scout

Truly admire your courage and patience with the renegade warriors adverse to women (except for the likes of Sue Price).

Call us misogynist. Simultaneously promote misandry. It is equally OK for the wife or girlfriend to terminate her pregnancy without consultation, as it is for her to bring another man’s child into her relationship. Because we don’t routinely test, estimated incidence of paternity fraud is 1%. We are expected to accept the accuracy of this “low” rate, and as they say in the classics – be men about it.

I seem to remember a child sexual abuse campaign in the early nineties which beamed to every household and accused every father of his potential evil. The estimated incidence of this must have been in the double digits to warrant such an onslaught. More recently, we see the “Violence against Women” campaign. Again the implications are that all men are perpetrators – they just didn’t know it, without the education component.

Scout,

You must have missed my statement “It is as much about male violence against other men and women as it is against women destined to build unstable families headed for divorce.” I acknowledge the existence of (using your words with appropriate attribution ;-), “… men who simply like to fool around”. And no, “men are not perfect paragons of virtue”.

But none of it detracts from the central tenet that paternity testing would be fair to both men and women. No “convoluted logic” there Scout.

R0bert,

I’m doing my best – as a mere male I am not expected to understand the intricacies of women’s suffering. I am here to learn. Nor do I understand how it is OK to bring another man’s child into a relationship without a “social father” given a say. Ponder on the term “social father” for a moment … do you agree with such terms?

Paternity testing should be done at birth. The resident “social father” can then decide without the exaggerated pain that may come with deferral. Everyone’s position will be clear from the start. Unresolved Paternity – Australia says No!

Liz, Sue Price has never struck me as anti-female or as seeking a world dominated by men. Everything I have heard her say or read from her has emphasised a desire for equal treatment in law and practice for men and women - if thats misogynistic then count me in too.

I suspect that Sue has contributed to saving a number of lives as she deals with men going through a time that for many what will be the worst time of their lives. She is a someone who provides real help to men at a time when no-one else seems able and willing to help.

There are very few readily available resources available to men going through the trauma of seperation and or divorce, men who are suffering as the victims of DV etc. Have a snoop on a government web site - first of all looking for a list of resources for women needing help then try and find the equivalent list for men. Sue is doing what she can to bridge that gap.

She speaks out strongly against those who misuse the system but I've not seen any sign of calls for special treatment for men. As with all of us is she is human and may make mistakes but misogynistic - no I don't accept that.

seeker, I don't think the kind of fraud involved in misleading someone about paternity is ever OK either. It is a massive deceit given how significant reproduction is to the human makeup. For many the raising of their children is the most significant act of their lives. Having said that I'm not convinced that systematic testing of paternity for all children is a healthy move for society or that it would be well accepted by parents.

I don't have any satisfactory answers to the conflict that I can feel happy about. We do need a better understanding of just how many children are not the child of the father nominated on the birth certificate to work out how much of an issue this is.

R0bert

Scout wrote:

Fact is Seeker, men are not perfect paragons of virtue - if you are going to diss women then at least keep it equal and acknowledge men's poor behaviour as well.

---

So true, men are rotten and terrible, and are always being told that if they don't want to face the 'consequences' of sexual activity then they should 'keep it in their pants'. But I have yet to hear one feminist, or any female say to woman, in the modern era - post pill and post liberation - that if they don't want to face the consequence of sexual activity then they should keep their legs closed.

Instead we have both genders wanting to have sex without responsibility and blaming the other: like that woman in the Victorian case who took her husband for thousands of dollars in paternity fraud because she got pregnant twice whilst having a long term 'affair' and who still refuses to name the real father of two of her children.

Maybe all men should take the advice - and keep it in their pants - sex for men, before, during or after marriage - whether that is marriage 1, 2, 3 or 4 is simply not worth it.

After all, women know what is best for the world, and if they say that men should keep it in their pants then it cannot be wrong.