Well, I don't believe for a nanosecond that every body has been waiting 6 hours just for me to complete my post - guess that no-one cares. Too bad.

Part 2

Where else but in the family do women get to have any power? This is a part of the problem. And leads to some disgruntled men as blaming feminism for ALL the problems. Wanting equal rights is not the problem.

The issue is the imbalance of men and women in high office and the reverse at the family level.

There is no reason why men can’t be primary care givers as well as women. However, mudslinging isn’t going to change anything. Both sides need to take a reality check here.

Single parents; be they male or female have a difficult task raising children on their own. Accusing them of being dole bludgers when the cost and availability of child care is prohibitive, is a major problem and needs to be redressed.

Solution? More men ACCEPTED into the family welfare system and MORE WOMEN in politics and business. That is what equal rights are about – not which sex is better than the other, it is about sharing power and working TOGETHER.

Most men and women ARE fair, reasonable people – let’s make it impossible for the cheats and manipulators to hold any POWER.

PLEASE?

Au contraire, Scout. We waited for the second post in order to ensure we understand the first. And then we waited another few hours to give you the opportunity to reassess.

It is clear from these that you believe that one’s immediate family is fair game for resident megalomaniacs with feelings of insecurity as inspired by any perceived unfairness in the wider society. Well, I’ll be damned!

Isn’t that precisely the attitude of small-minded men we are all attempting to eradicate?

In this so-called paternalistic society that affords women all choice with expectations of minimal responsibility (at least when it comes to Family Law), is it any wonder that women are so averse to walking that glass floor when it is more in their interest to merely identify the existence of a glass ceilings. Even if we ignore their divorce booty, recent statistics reveal that women inherit 60% of all bequests in Australia.

But then, I could be totally wrong - this madness could all be due to lack of affordable child care – just as you claim.

And how many women consider the fuit of their wombs to be 'their children' without any thought that a male has any role whatsoever?

Fair enough

Bring it on

not just for the select few who think that now, but for every child, after all, why should most children miss out on the wonderful and enriching experience of having one parent?

(One parent> an oxymoron?)

Seeker "It is clear from these that you believe that one’s immediate family is fair game for resident megalomaniacs with feelings of insecurity as inspired by any perceived unfairness in the wider society." did the post you refer to where this was clear get removed from the site?

Scout has offered a viable explanation for a situation that exists, she has not said that it is all good.

I think Scout and I have discussed the reality that for most men our experience is not one of floating on a carpet of power, and I think that Scout understands that. Some in the womens movement do appear to forget that simple fact in their retoric but I think Scout knows it.

The explanation Scout offers up does not support the misuse of power, it does suggest addressing some of the perceived underlying issues.

Save your wrath for the lies that the article is based on, there is the enemy in this debate.

R0bert

Seeker - as usual all you can do is sling mud - you never ever try to analyse problems or try to find solutions.

There is clearly an imbalance of men in positions of power and of women in family care. I think you deliberately ignore this. You don't want change or you would be working to involve yourself in family care and, perhaps, earning the trust of women who staff many of these organisations (the exceptions being religious family organisations which are controlled at the top by men).

For example, Seeker, as a result of your consistently anti-female posts, I would never trust you. Whereas, although I don't agree all the time with R0bert (for example - level of male physical violence), he does read my posts and considers what I have to say, rather than automatically dismiss anything I say. Therefore, I feel that I could trust him.

Seeker, in summary, you have seen your enemy - and he is you.

R0bert

Thank you for understanding what I was trying to impart. I can only hope that the author has bothered reading this thread and has learned that men are not the enemy and to be inclusive in future.

As long as we tolerate the status quo we are supporting the inequities that exist in our current social sector.

Regards

PS

R0bert

I feel less and less like posting these days - I have had a gutful of abuse on the Islam and abortion threads. I am sick of trying to have a reasoned discussion and I know it is possible. I had a wonderful debate on a couple of republic threads with "Ian" who held the complete opposite POV to me - yet we were able to engage in an interesting talk - I learnt alot. And I have learnt a lot from you - I believe that you have been screwed over by your ex and her lawyer. My heart goes out to you and you children.

:0)

Patricia Merkin wrote on behalf of the National Coalition of Mothers Against Child Abuse.

Strangely, the very concerned National Coalition of Mothers Against Child Abuse never have anything to say about infanticide. More children are killed in infanticide every year, almost always by mothers, than are killed on custody access visits by fathers.

From today's Age:
"Magistrate Duncan Reynolds this morning committed Carol Louise Matthey to stand trial in the Supreme Court.

"I'm satisfied that there is evidence of sufficient weight to support conviction," Mr Reynolds said.

Matthey, 26, was arrested and charged last year with murdering four of her children between December 1998 and April 2003."

Why aren't these children worthy of your concern?