There are a couple of interesting points available here. First point is, I don't have children.

A well experienced and published psychologist once told me that anyone who is over 183cm tall and who weighs more than 100 kilos cannot help but appear intimidating. That is, no matter what they do, they generate a psychological amount of fear in those around them. Is this fear 'reasonable'? Probably not, but it is still fear.

When a couple split up, ands it is mostly women who decide to separate, even if there has been no 'violence' whatsoever, when many wimin may feel that any request from the father (or at least he who thinks he is the father) for contact with the children is a type of threat.

Ghandi defined violence as any action that causes another person to do what they do not want to do.

So when a father requests contact, when the mother doesn't want to ever have anything to do with him again, she is being made to do something that she doesn't want to do. Hence, even his request is a form of violence.

In sexual harassment matters in the workplace the definition of harassment is taken as that felt by the victim, not the intention of the harasser, 'reasonable' or not. Consequently the idea of ‘reasonable’ has already been thrown out in one area of relationship law, why should it be introduced into family law?

Last major point: It is a central facet of feminist relationship theory that penetrative sex is inherently violent, in that it involves the violation of a wimin’s integrity by part of the male body. That is, all penetrative sex is rape. Therefore, by the sheer act of fathering a child a man has committed a major act of violence against, not just the woman that he thinks that he is making love with, but against all wimim.

Therefore men cannot be trusted, and even the concept of men having any rights in relationships should be outlawed, as a first step to eliminating relationships between men and wimim completely.

Dr Michael Flood, the patron saint of fatherless families, wrote in an article for the SMH: (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/04/1070351723076.html )

“A study of 1100 families in England and Wales found that one in seven fathers is involved in crime, fighting, or other anti-social and irresponsible behaviour. When these fathers resided with their children, the children were twice as likely to develop severe behaviour problems and clinically significant conduct disorders”

One in seven!

Dr Flood does not comment whether these figures cannot be extrapolated to Australia, by saying nothing but writing it he must think that it is the same here.

He also writes:

“Simply trying to make sure there's a father in every family won't do much for children.”

It is clear that, according to Dr Flood’s article, that having fathers in ‘families’ is preferable, but not essential.

But let’s take another look at that “one in seven” figure again.

Many state governments have passed laws against certain breeds of dogs, because of the risk that those dogs pose to people, especially children. I doubt whether the number of attacks by those breeds would even approach one in seven of those dogs in the community actually attacking. But do we take the risk?

Quoting from Merkin’s article: “We know this because only 5 per cent of all divorces come before a family court judge” and “It disturbs workers and professionals who deal directly with the victims of violence that couples coming before the court are among the ones generally involved in the worst aspects of violence.”

That is at least one in twenty matters before the Courts involve violence, of one form or another against children.

So do we take the risk?

Merkin does not offer a solution, so her ‘solution’ seems obvious. Take it out of the Courts completely, and put all the decisions exclusively in the hands of the mothers. That is, it seems that there should be no judicial or legislative interference with a woman’s rights at all over the parenting of her children.

Women don’t lie.

And Craig Folbigg would love to spend time with his children….

rancitis, I'd forgotton that post. It was not intended as an attack on your post, rather a bit of humour that seemingly missed the mark. Please accept my apologies for any offence.

Scout, I've though further on the topic of the power imbalance in family law. A parallel you might consider is - you found yourself involved in a gender discrimation issue in a workplace which was critical to your future. Something where the outcome could cost you almost everything, home, kids, future income etc. To resolve the issue you needed to deal with several departments.

Each of those departments had a rack of brochures and some posters about bad behaviour in the workplace featuring women with no examples of bad behaviour featuring men (the DV brochures and posters which seemingly always portray men as the violent one). Almost everybody you dealt with expressed views which sounded about as convincing as BD's claims of support for equality.

In at least one of the departments you were aware that the executives received performance pays which included a criteria that almost always worked against women (child support agency performance pays based on money paid when most payers are male). That same department refused to have a well respected male champion of womens rights on the advisory committee because his views were not liked. Almost everybody you dealt with was male and many had come to their jobs from a background in working for mens support agencies. One of the mediators acknowledged that he was in the exact same position as the person at the other end of your conflict, neither he or the department which appointed him could see a problem with that.

The parallel may not be perfect but I hope it gives some understanding of how the experience has been for some of us.

Cheers
R0bert

R0bert

Whoa! Slow down my friend, I am right there with you. Haven't had an opportunity to reply to your previous post let alone your latest.

I checked out your link and I believe what you wrote bears repeating:

"An abuse of feminism has contributed to the damage done by the family law system but you might also want to consider the part played by paternalistic types (both male and female) who want traditional roles for men and women. The ones who think men should be the providers and women the primary caregivers, ones who believe women are not as responsable as men an so should not face the same consequences, those who think women are inherently better parents than men. That kind of thinking fits in really well with the kind of issues that make family law a massive farce."

What we have here IS a total farce. In the upper échelons we have a predominately male environment - further enforced by a few paternalistic females. These women are the type who carve out a power niche for themselves at the expense of their sisters; an extreme example: these are the same type of women who enforce such travesties as genital mutilation in other cultures - without them dominant males would have less power. All the more reason to have 50% representation of female and male. However, the current structure is such that it only attracts people who want power. While there are those who enter politics for altruistic reasons they are thin on the ground or ultimately corrupted - as is the nature of power.

To be Continued....

Now, down at the Family Services level, we have another imbalance of gender representation. Too many women. A situation where a male is regarded as the enemy purely because of his gender. Again, within this structure we have people (mostly women) who are more interested in maintaining women as primary care givers and keeping males out of the equation. Of course I am generalising a great deal, but I hope you can see we are probably sympatico on this issue and simply approaching it from different perspectives.

As for your latest post - I have experienced something very like the situation in the workplace you described - except my antagonists were mostly female! A result of the primarily female middle management found in public service.

So where does this leave our author? With every right to question any change in law. What does 'reasonable' really mean? My main criticism remains the same - that she has ignored the plight of men.

In conclusion, I believe that the current hierachy of power discriminates against both men AND women - a perverse equality. We need to look at creating a true democracy where the common person is genuinely represented. What we have now only favours those whose primary goal is power.

Not at all reasonable.

I'M TOUCHED.....

I haven't even contributed to this thread, yet...'here I am' :)
in the posts of Rancitas... tanks moit.

Actually, if all and sundry spoke well of me and my 'assumptions' I would worry interminably. Being Christian is not the pathway to popularity, unless one says a heap of things that people 'want' to hear, which usuallly means we have departed from Scripture.

Rob, your quote from the study of 1100 fathersin Wales struck me like a half brick from a house in Telopea street Punchbowl.

If we ever wondered what condition our society is in, and how far we have fallen, and what is the solution, that quote of yours says most of it. Mine says the rest.

Of course, this thread is about 'reasonable assumptions of the likelihood of violence etc in relation to family matters. But my point, though unreasonable to some, is one I believe in.

Wales 2006

“A study of 1100 families in England and Wales found that one in seven fathers is involved in crime, fighting, or other anti-social and irresponsible behaviour."

Wales 1904 (Welsh Revival)

[people were changed in so many ways. The crime rate dropped, drunkards were reformed, pubs reported losses in trade. Bad language disappeared and never returned to the lips of many – it was reported that the pit ponies failed to understand their born again colliers who seemed to speak the new language of Zion – without curse and blasphemy – even football and rugby became uninteresting in the light of new joy and direction received by the Converts.]

It was reported that over 100,000 people joined the Church during this period.

As the bumper sticker says "If you don't feel close to God, guess who moved" Some, many in fact, have fallen away from Grace, preferring worldly indulgences as in Roberts quote. But for others......

[In asking one elderly Revival convert some years ago as to whether the Revival stopped in 1906, she answered – its still burning within my heart – it’s never been extinguished – it had burned for over 70 years.]