Scout, sorry about the flood of posts - as you might have guessed this particular topic is one that I feel strongly about. Maybe more material than you needed in the posts but take it as a mark of respect in that I consider you someone who tries to understand (and generally succeeds).

Again much of this stuff does not fit nicely for those who want to pigeon hole everything. It's not all about nasty feminists trying to do men in as to many men seem to think.

I had not considered the situation you described at work so thanks for the reminder on that one. I've probably mentioned it to you before but I'll toss it in again because I think it is so worth a read - Patricia Peason's book "When She was Bad" is an eye opening look by a feminist at some of the issues around female violence. If you get the opportunity and can stomach it have a read.

Keep up the good work on all fronts my friend, you continue to be an important part of this community and someone whose contributions and opinions I value highly.

BD - I think the quote from the Welsh study were by Hamlet not myself. Minor point I know. Your claims about the power of revival would be more telling if we could see a revival sweep thru OLO christain posters and transform their lives and posts. Those "Christains aren't perfect just forgiven" stickers have passed their use by date.

I suspect (but may be wrong) that rancitis is unable to load the original thread because it has grown to big which may be why his/her comments to me appeared here. At least you can derive some comfort in knowing that I don't consider you the devil incarnate ;) and I'm with FH - you would not need a food taster if for some reason I came around for a BBQ.

R0bert

Robert, thanks for pointing BD in the right direction - I was using Michael Flood, blessed be his name, in a rhetorical sense, after all, statistics can be used to prove almost anything. If a similar survey was done here I wonder how many families would not be involved in crime - a bit of tax avoidance, video piracy, speeding, parking infringements, returning books to the library late, not to mention 'anti-social' behaviour like drinking a bit too much one or two nights a month.

But I am also a Christian poster, the difference, I believe, is that to me Christ is the answer and the way to God for those who accept that. I try not to preach too much; I cannot and will not believe that God will impose His will from on high in our everyday lives right at the moment, but I can see how He (well, strictly speaking the Bible also has some wonderful feminine descriptions of Him) set up families as the best way for children to be raised, but I also accept that families have failed, because of people's (both genders) seeking of the self and self actualisation. Both genders are at fault, and there is nothing that can be done about that.

I am repulsed by Ms Merkin's article, because it places the blame on one side. It distrusts men so completely that men are all portrayed as beasts, and worst than that, as simply sperm donors when compared with women.

But then again, maybe we should go with Ms Merkin's ideas, therefore letting the whole ship sink and taking society with it: the idea of thesis and antithesis, leading to synthesis.

Maybe the feminist ideologues should be simply allowed to tear the rotten edifice down, so that that we will all be wandering around in the dust wondering at what could have been. Damn the casualties. The dictatorship of the femo-tariate should be given a chance, and see if it works better than the dreaded male dominated society that we think we have now.

The various posts on this topic have made interesting reading. However, from my perspective many have missed the point. As one who spends quite a bit of time working with those who actually draft our laws, including a word like "reasonable" causes me no concern at all. It is now a common term in legislation in Australia and is intended (in most cases) to set bounds on actions or beliefs leading to actions to those that would be taken by a "reasonable person". Including a descriptive term such as this legisltion limits actions and subsequent court considerations. Actions that may be unreasonably excessive in the circumstances or fears and beliefs that are not supported by fact or are based on irrational beliefs would not be supported by a court in this case.Indeed, without that boundary being set, courts could be confronted with frivolous and vindictive cases.
Clearly anyone who has a genuine and reasonable fear of violence will still be protected as before. Please lets take the change for what I feel it is; a change in drafting of the legislation.

BrianT - it is hard to see a reasonable case against "fears" needing to be reasonable before action is taken by the government which may harm others. Thanks for your comments. In my view that type of lie that the author promotes regarding gender as a major factor in family violence (and in particular against children) contributes significantly to the level of fear experienced by some and the perception that unreasonable fears may actually be quite reasonable.

Hamlet - I can't recall a single male posting regarding the injustice in the family law system and blaming it on feminists who was not christian. There may have been some but I don't recall any. Probably not a statistically significant sample but interesting never the less.

Much of what happens to men in the family law system makes sense if women are weaker vessels better suited to the care of children and less able to make responsible decisions or look after themselves. The injustics suit women who see themselves as better suited to raising children than men.

Much of it goes against the way thoughtful feminists want women to be seen and idea's like equality. It's not all about feminists, rather an unfortunate mix of old and new values which can be manipulated by some for their own advantage.

R0bert

Actually Robert, I have nothing against the family law system in this country, I have never been adversely affected by it, and neither has anyone that I have personally known.

However a society is more than just its laws, it is more than just its parts.

The family is in its death throes as an institution. I think that it is time that men particularly accept that, and understand that men will increasingly have less and less relevance.

If we are serious about being in the best interest of children we should throw away the present idea that the father must pay a certain amount of HIS income in child support.

All this leads to is inequities, where one kid, with a rich father gets $25,000 or more just in private school fees each year plus a heap more, where the child of a poor father gets less than $500 all up.

Perhaps, just perhaps, in the BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN we should all be paying to a child support fund, which then would ensure that all children, no matter who their parents, gets an equal share and equal opportunity. Why should one child get an obscene amount of money thrown in their direction whilst another cannot have decent school shoes?

Or maybe the problem in this is there would not be an incentive for well off families to break up and the wife maintain her standard of living whilst seeking self actualisation?

No, instead, men should probably give up now and when they get married simply have themselves declared bankrupt, with their wife as the sole creditor. Have it all up front - that marriage and children mean that she will have him by the balls for all eternity.

And yes Robert - if my wife ever decided to get rid of me - I would not fight it - I would simply sign everything over to her - and quietly dissappear - Money isn't everything - peace is more important - even if that is the peace of the grave.

Ever seen an ugly woman driving an expensive car?