Cireena,

So what do you propose? You say that "The new initiative does not offer careers for single parents - it offers jobs" but wouldn't you agree that in order to establish a career, at least a job is better than sitting at home and an avenue to escape the poverty trap.

You've touched on a number of problems which could be debated for years. Firstly, the lack of spaces and affordability of Child Care. Then there is the perception (sometimes very real) that single mothers are lay-abouts. The harshness of the Centrelink "Breaching" will deprive (8 weeks loss of dole), not just the mother, but the child/ren.

There are a number of solutions that I can think of at the moment. Perhaps make parents choose their mating partners more diligently by not providing anything up-front in the first place - nature is harsh this way. Someone will think twice about having children if the taxpayer isn't paying.

Another solution would be to train some affected single mothers for childcare. Cottage Industry could sprout everywhere, but this has many problems.

A final solution up for grabs could be a return to the "Female Factories" of the 18th and 19th Centuries, which would both provide employment, housing and childcare very efficiently.

We all have choices and with these choices come responsibilities. Sometimes we don't like the options on offer as they may be hard or disagreeable. But nevertheless we all end up making choices even if the choice is to make no choice.

If the choice is to be a single parent and a further choice is to go on the dole and a further choice is to not seek further education to enhance job skills and a further choice is to not try to find a solution to the specific child care problem at hand and a further choice is to whinge about how hard it all is, then you have made your choices and why should I have to compensate you for it?

Narcissist, yes let’s take the children away from all those bad women who dare to be widowed mothers, divorced mothers or unmarried mothers and lock them up in Magdalen Asylums http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_Asylum ... not! I don’t see you proposing “Male Factories”.

“Perhaps make parents choose their mating partners more diligently” – what about accidental pregnancies? What if you carefully choose an excellent mating partner and marry him/her and have children and then your mating partner dies?

Pedant wrote, "what about accidental pregnancies? What if you carefully choose an excellent mating partner and marry him/her and have children and then your mating partner dies?"

Drawing a bit of long bow there, aren't you Pedant?

Tragedies they may well be, but I can't help but feel these (heart wrenching) stories are the exception rather than the rule. Governments in a democracy are supposed to rule for the majority, not the minority. Unless of course, one is a Marxist, then the majority are penalised for the sake of the oppressed minorities.

The last time I looked, the Howard government didn't profess to be Marxist in its principles - probably why they keep getting re-elected.

Ah the old cry “While the debate rages about whether to restrict child care facilities for non-working "ladies who lunch", one sector of the community whose right to child-care facilities is unarguable, continues to be ignored.”

Why?

Why should the burden of parenthood be distributed across a society which did not participate in the pleasure of the conception of the child?

Why are these “mothers” “single”? maybe because they lack the self control to participate creatively and equitably in a relationship?

Maybe they simply expect society to rally to their support despite their own contemptible disregard for their own responsibilities.

Or does Cireena Simcox expect single mothers, who have failed to plan or consider the consequences of dealing with their circumstances, to be given first take at better paid jobs which they lack the competency to perform in?

The way I see it, too many expect a handout. Pandering to this sort of moral blackmail merely encourages future generations of irresponsible breeding machines to remain permanently attached and suckling off the public teat.

Perhaps a personal example will help some of you right wing people from jumping to conclusions about mothers who are single.

I separated from my husband of 19 years in February 2005. I had been trying particularly hard for the previous three years to ensure our marriage could continue. Our children are 11 and 8 and we share the care of the children. I moved just one block away so that the disruption to them would be minimal. There were many ongoing challenges throughout our married life and it was never my intention to find myself in this position at 39. We never purchased a home and I inherited a substantial credit card debt and a very old car.

In the first 12 months, I was constantly available to provide care before and after his full time work so that he could still have 'three nights' with them and never knew from one day to the next what I would be doing the next day. It was extremely difficult for me to adjust to being a part time mother and if it was not for friends who regularly phoned, I would not be here today.

It would have been physically impossible for me to work full time as I do not have any family living in my state. I don't have people I can call on for childcare, there is no before school care and the after school care concludes at 6pm (I cannot make it back from the city in this time). I do not have anyone to help out during school holidays and curriculum days.

I am very well educated and I love learning. But most of the part time jobs that are currently available are extremely lowly paid. I do not receive child support payments or spousal maintenance from my exhusband (although he does pay some of the childrens' expenses).

Fortunately for me, I have a small business that I run from home, but I live a very meagre existence and it will take me a long time to re-establish myself.

The other de-stabilising aspect of this is the lack of a partner. It is very lonely being an adult on your own without physical closeness - try living without your partner or anyone else touching you for two years...especially after being with just one person for 21 years.

So, what would I suggest for mothers who find themselves single?

1) Access to some relevant personal training (I highly recommend www.humanrelations.org.au) so that they can improve themselves and adjust to their new reality

2) Access to more information on child care resources like family day care (if it is available in their area)

3) Volunteer local community families willing to provide additional emotional support to both the mother and her children (the children need to mix with other children in similar situations outside of their school environment but also feel accepted as they are and not be labelled SINGLE MOTHERS - married mothers are just called mothers)

4) Access to specific training on running a single parent household - budgeting, parenting, new relationships, finding suitable work

5) Access to free and low cost social activities where children are welcome and you are not ostracised by the two parent families (at the hairdressers I was asked if both children were from the same father!! - community education and awareness could be improved)

6) More support for fathers to cope with the additional responsibility if they are sharing the care of their children (part of new regulations coming in from 1/7)

7) Additional training on managing relationships and negotiating with a former partner.

8) That people planning to have children have access to a 'relationship audit process' so that they can be confident that they will be able to remain together for the next 20 years (my parents told me not to marry this man - but an independent person may have helped me 'see the light')

We have a new tennant. Shes a lovely girl.

She told us she had two kids and a husband. Well its really the live in sometimes boyfriend and 3 kids[ she forgott the mention the 6 months old AND shes having another!.

She Does not work but all kids go 6 days a week to child care. YOU PAY FOR IT. Her boyfriend baths the kids and feeds them as well.

They get around the system by doing a home computer course of anything.

WHY! do we provide CHILD CARE PLUSS pay their keep as well?

For god sake wake up to these slack imoral women as they give all women a bad name.

It's so easy to be polarised on this kind of topic - single mums are long suffering saints or single mums are self centered demons.

The reality is probably like most things in life a spectrum. Some are genuinely doing it very tough as a result of external circumstances, others deliberately manipulate the system for a variety of reasons including a passion for unearned money and most probably sit in the middle somewhere. Their own choices have contributed to their situations and they find themselves in a trap that is hard to get out of.

Attempts to paint the extreme situation as the norm do little to change opinions of those who think differently. Yes there are some single mums who are widows and there are some who have very cynically set out to live off their children but hopefully neither extreme is the norm. We need to find a way to support the former and protect the children of the latter from the lessons they may learn from such a parent.

One of the first questions which should be asked - is the father willing to provide a reasonable contribution to the care of his children? If so then the emphasis should be on shared care of the children. For those who might wish to dismiss shared care because of concerns about the safety of children please have a look at the stats on substantiated child abuse and who does it before raising the issue - The National Child Protection Clearinghouse is a good place to start http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/sheets/menu.html. I am aware of plenty of fathers who have only token roles in the raising of their children not from their preference but as a result of the choices of the mother of the children (combined with the difficulties financial and emotional along with the harm to children resulting from residency disputes).

To raise children successfully most of us need the support of our community in one way or another but the responsibility for the choice to begin lies with the individuals who choose to begin that journey.

R0bert

Maximus, although I do agree that single parenthood caused by a partner’s death is less than single parenthood caused by separation/divorce it’s not as uncommon as you suggest. I suppose I may be a bit sensitive in this area because when I was growing up my mother was a widow and unfortunately occasionally people would treat her like scum for being a single parent. As for accidental pregnancies they are not the exception (with approx 100,000 abortions per year in Australia there must be a good swag of accidental pregnancies in there). It sounds like you want to blame and punish people for being parents if their circumstances don't meet with your approval whereas I think everyone should receive support.

Further, I don’t agree that a democracy only rules for a majority. A democracy rules for everyone because everyone has to follow the laws (liberal democracy = form of representative democracy where the ability of elected representatives and the will of the majority to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of liberties, freedoms, and rights of individuals and minorities).

R0bert I agree that the emphasis should be on shared care of the children. More employers should offer decent permanent part time work!

All of the posts have valid points.It certainly wasn't so popular being a single mother 30 years ago without any financial support.
I work in a store, and most of the single mums I serve have more money to spend than I do. One rough young guy pointed his baby out to a friend, saying"three thousand dollars" obviously referring to the baby bonus so generously dished out by our government.Why do so many of these girls have so many kids?Don't they know what's causing it?
From what I.ve seen, most of them have generous allowances both from the government and the father/s as well.I see them shop till they drop every day buying cute designer clothes that I never afforded as a mum.

I am amazed.

No one forces single mothers to be such. Sure, there are some thru unfortunate events of death of a spouse, but at the end of the day they have their own choices.

The legislation - a long overdue change to the welfare state of Australia - makes people accountable for their own situation. Government is not a crutch to exist.

Consider the lurks of their existance (per fortnight:)

Parenting payment: $499.70
Family Tax A and B: $137 per child plus $110
Rent Assistance: $118.00
Child Support (they dont create themselves)- minimum $6 average around $100

Total: $965 per fortnight - also add in subsidised gas, eletricity, transport, medical thru a health care card. $25090 without tax in benefits for one adult and one child! How many working Australian families earn LESS?

The majority of that is TAX FREE and offers no input into the Australian economy due to taxation. In essence, free medical, roads, schooling, etc. Fair?

The money well is drying up and the 90+% of single mothers are now forced to take accountability for their lives. ABS stats also show that 86% dont bother looking for work prior to this legislation.

When compared to partnered women - whom the majority of which also work either part or full time - you can see that most of the time single mothers are not a 'poor single mother' but more someone taking advantage of a broken system

pedant, thanks. More flexible working conditions would help along with some sanity in starting hours (a lot of blue collar jobs seem to start so early that single dads would find it impossible to work around).

I managed to do a 36 1/4 hour (5 day) working week and shared care involving a mid week changeover for quite some time by starting late a couple of days a week. During that period my ex mostly managed to work one day a week (and mostly one of the days our son was in her care). We appeared to net about $100 per week difference after tax, child suppport, benefits and my train fares were taken into acount dispite me being in a reasonably well paid job and her hourly rates being quite low.

For some the poverty cycle is not all that deep.

R0bert

Founder, my 19 year marriage / 20 year relationship ended about 13 years ago.

My ex worked, her choice, after grabbing 65% of the assets, she received maintenance from me for another 10 years and held her hand out for every dollar of public subsistence she could grab.

Despite an agreement for me to take my daughters for every Wednesday night plus alternate weekends, they actually stayed with me, if they were coming for the weekend, from the Wednesday on, which meant the girls were with me for ½ the time (not that I was bothered by that, the girls and I have always enjoyed a great relationship).

I did not seek adjustment to the maintenance agreement and never received a cent of public funds. My daughters did not receive youth allowance or anything else directly, their mother grabbed it all.

Coming and telling hardworking fathers how tough you might think you have had it will not cut it with me or some others here, who I know, from their posts of the past, have suffered similar “inequity”.

One success in all this, my daughters are a source of love and pride for their father and I for them. We have the best of relationships despite the threats and intimidation of their mother, which included removing them from Australia and of course, the good old “YOU (being me) will never have anything to do with them after the family court have had their way”.

It just goes to show, when fathers stand by their kids, kids remember who did what was right and who did what was not right.

Single mothers should knuckle under, maybe listen more to their partners and stop expecting everyone else to turn their lives upside down to subsidise a lifestyle which they have not the wit or responsibility to develop by themselves.

Robert “For some the poverty cycle is not all that deep.”

Yep, It starts with, no bingo, manage a budget, fewer cigarettes, hang back on the grog and try finding dignity in personal effort instead of handouts.

Fisherman re “no one forces single mothers to be such” - not just widowhood (at least you recognise that’s not a choice) – what about escaping a physically abusive relationship or where the father of the baby “disappears” (to avoid child support)? Some choices! Why blame and punish parents if their circumstances don't meet with your approval?

I don’t consider $25,000pa a “lurk” with a child to support. $13,000 of that would be taken up just by rent (presuming rent of $250 per week for a house). Then there’s food, medical expenses, schoolbooks etc. (disclaimer: I earn approx $60,000pa before tax and my husband earns $60,000pa before tax and he pays $13,000pa in child support for his 8 year old son).

It’s all about forcing single parents to work in cleaning, retail, hospitality and (shock, horror) childcare for low wages - doubt if more than $25,000pa!

Col you would have been impressed with my (widowed) mum – she didn’t gamble, smoke or drink. But she still needed every cent she could get from government sources to keep me and my brother housed, fed and clothed while she finished her degree so she could get a better paid job (and thus pay more tax to the government!). Yes you seem to have been a hardworking father who had it tough – that does not mean there aren’t hardworking mothers who have had it tough also. You’ve had a hard time – why don’t you recognise that others have a hard time also. You say “single mothers should knuckle under” – what do you mean by “knuckle under” I truly hope that is not a literal instruction!

To me it just proves the point of the article – without easily available child care the cycle of poverty will continue for many single parents. There must be some creative solutions – eg. the government could provide free child care for all workers and in conjunction with decent permanent part time work more single parents would be working (and paying tax!) and the free childcare would create many more jobs in childcare.

Most single mothers are created by their own choices. The incredibly small minority of those escaping abuse are the exceptions as are the widows.

The majority are those who see the financial perks.

The lies and the propoganda of the Australian Child Support Agency (coupled with the slander of the mainstream media) - 76% of their staff receiving child support - do not show the reality that the majority of payers of child support pay and pay excessive amounts. Action to reform the 'fundamentally flawed system' show why it is inevitble that a small minority dont do the right thing.

$25000 is an amount ALOT of Australian COUPLES earn from WORKING to support not only themselves but their children. No such things as a poor single mum.

In order to be politically correct and thus avoid censorship from the feminazi's infesting these forums I will attempt to remain objective.

As a Single Dad of 13+ yrs ('ex' left after gaining her Australian 'Citizenship') I find it most exasperating to find employers who really, honestly understand the dynamics of single parenting and trying to get oneself free from the clutches of Centrelink & CSA. Trying to re-skill in other trade areas in the vain glorious hope to establish a business = self employment has not come to fruition.

Kids get sick, get asthma, thus not 'sick' enough to go to hospital, not well enough to go to day care etc. Therefore boss is "understanding" the first & maybe second time you take days off work. Upshot is that no one really has a true concept of your situation and you are subject to the vagaries of the 'system'.

Advanced Macrame and Origami courses are all designed to feed the Welfare system and "Feel Gooders" but really achieve zip overall. Job Placement agencies are singularly useless also.

11 yrs after starting Electrical & Refrigeration studies at TAFE (NSW - WA - NT ) the dream is still some way off, so I get work in my basic metal trades background and fill in jobs doing whatever is on offer.

It all in all gives false hope to those single parents who wanted to have a go but are constantly thwarted by the economic rationalist mind set that prevails.

So, to the feminazi's - I do understand the plight of women with kids, ex spouses who won't pay Child support and I'm nauseous from hearing that its always the 'blokes' who don't (excuse the pun) "pull their weight."

The irony is that you have had far too much say in the policy making decisions. I'm sorry but you folk via your narrow single view misandrist perspectives on relationships are now being hoist upon your own petard's and it's our kids who suffer most!

Pedant “There must be some creative solutions”

Yep try thinking about their own future before it happens.

Try acting with some sense of responsibility for the consequences of their actions of today.

Try building a network of friends who they can give support to (and possibly gain support from when they need it) and who they can at least talk things through before taking irreversible action.

Stop looking to strangers (nee government) to pickup the pieces and the tab.

That said, their will always be unpredictable events which merit some form of support. But that minority of worthy individuals is swamped by a stampede of unworthy, bloodsucking, freeloaders.
- As similarly illustrated by fisherman.

Thanks Col. Yes, I understand that some ex-partners are money grabbing individuals - I am not one of those (which is what I was trying to demonstrate in my example). What I would prefer to see, is rather than a welfare mentality or a punitive policy, is a range of sustainable education based options implemented so that in the long run, mothers AND fathers are given the skills to raise well adjusted children (with some quality strategies before pregnancy to reduce single parenting in the first place). And of course employment options that cater to various personal circumstances.

It takes all of my resources to avoid letting my ego interfere with arrangements and for me to do what I truly believe is best for the children - and although there are many things I don't like about the messages they receive at my former husband's house, I believe that they do need to spend time with him. And I have faith that in the long term, the children will realise that I had THEIR best interests at heart, not mine.

As a result of the training and support I have utilised, I have every confidence that I will never need to rely on either my ex-husband or public financial support - but if the resources I have accessed weren't low cost and if I had not been able to find them, I would not be in this position. I am grateful for the services I have been able to access - so that is where I think the priority should be.

Founder “… education based options implemented so that in the long run, mothers AND fathers are given the skills to raise well adjusted children”

The problem founder, people do not need to qualify or be tested for their suitability to either marry or worse, procreate.

I realise that not all mothers are money grabbers, just as not all fathers are “responsible”. Again we are talking about how to manage the selfishness of a few by inappropriate measures against the many.

I have always believed a relationship is a 50:50 thing. The raising of children is a 50:50 thing. Sure mothers have traditionally spent more of their effort actually looking after children and fathers have spent more of their time working outside the home, to support the entire family.

When a couple separate, there is a period of chaos followed by a period of reconsolidation and then ongoing stability. What has happened is the calculation of financial liability is computed in the period of chaos, with no regard for the longer term stabilising influences.

Making couples jointly responsible, I believe it respects both parents as equals in what are supposed to be mostly "no blame" divorces and puts the “balance” where it should be I further believe it is a better outcome for their children, who are best served by a continued and ongoing relationship with Dad, equally to Mum and Mum equal to Dad.

I am not that familiar with which “services” you are referring to but accessing them means you looked to a network in which the individuals were important (as I suggested – friends) and I can only say I am pleased you found them

I am with Bruce on this one.

My family have just taken new tennants in a property. The girl said her husband worked and she had the two children. Shes a really sweet girl BUT you forgot to mention A Hes not her husband B its her fourth because she forgot to mention the six months old and oh that she was pregnant again.

These kids go to day care from 7am until 6pm six days a week. Guess who pays for that. You the tax payer!

So we pay her to have them then pay to mind them.

The counter argument of course would be to the writer of this post.

iF ? She were to look after her own children through the day i would suggest the title Mums off bums very unfair because real mums work harder than a 9 to 5 office person.

The real problem is the over the top push to tell people what to do with their own body. eg. She can see even she just cant have another child which is sensible at least.

Does any body want to help her with a termination.
NO. For the first time I actually feel sorry for her.

Yep sure she should have got a job got married then had kids maybe however when these people finally wake up to themselves nobody will help.

I think Tony Abbotts got a lot to answer for because there seems to be great changes towards terminations just on the quite.

Either way i resent paying all her bills and so should you.

I never cease to be amazed at all the hand wringing about working mothers, child care problems, cost of houses etc etc.
No one seems to understand what is the root cause of all these problems.
Quite a long while back the government forced the lending institutions to lend on both incomes of a couple looking for a housing loan.
This was a direct result of pressure from the feminist lobby.
Fair enough it seemed, but a moments thought would have made for revelation that when you dump twice as much money into a market, prices change to affect the amount of money in the market.

The result, women thought they would get their houses paid off in quick time. No, thats not what happened, instead of having the choice of working they now have the necessity of working.
This has affected the age at which women are giving birth with all the attendant problems. The result is a falling birth rate, cost of child care etc etc etc.
Ladies, you brought it on yourself and the developers are singing all the way to the bank.
Baz

What an excellent post by the author which put to shine some of the issue's being faced by the ever marginalised lot. Due to word space, other issue's were not raised I am sure.

Priority of child care places are allocated to working parents by law. Only a small percentage of stay at home parents are allowed any access to childcare and what access they get, is minimal.

To find employment, one needs childcare just to seek employment as employers do not want a Mum or Dad attending an interview with kids in tow. Should they get the job, they then have to find childcare of which they won't have an priority until they actually begin employment.

This liberalist society is pulling society into the waste dump with the policy of worshipping the holy dollar foremost.

In the 1980's, we saw governments throw the mentally ill on to the streets where they live in the masses. They only shelter is a prison cell and that of poor housing which is not tolerated for the mentally sane.

Now, we are seeing the turfing out of society of the disabled, the single parent and, those hard working parents who earn scraps for the worst jobs around. With over 1,000 families forced to eat out garbage bins every year, society is heading towards a major sick society resembling pre-Nazi Germany where people supported the only people who supported them, regardless of other consequences.

As a single working mother, I have to say the biggest barrier to paid work is definitely lack of childcare. I'm a shiftworker, and it's very hard to find after hours childcare. I lost two previous jobs because of this. At my current job they have on site child care, which is great, but of course it's not open weekends, and my job does involve some weekend work. Sometimes I have to travel over 100 kilometres to drop my child off at friends/family before even starting my shift. I think it's important for sole parents to have a career, as it's the only way to avoid poverty. Education and training must be readily accessible, so that people don't just end up in low paid unskilled labour. After all, this country has a shortage of skilled labor.

Viki

yes, life in your situation must be a struggle. What many seem to be blind to, is the value of extended family. The old 'village' mentality.
We have isolated and individualized ourselves to the breaking point.

Another point lost on most modern folks is the 'economic catch up' factor in regard to women in the paid workforce.

There was a time when females 'worked' in paid employment to help pay the mortgage, provide a few extras and have a degree of independance.

Lets ask "Did it work" ?

Ok.. cost of homes now reflects the dual income model, so no progress there.
Child care is VERY expensive and of dubious benefit to the children needed caring/nurturing parents.

So, in conclusion, females with children who work, gain little from the exercise except a truckload of STRESS.

Perhaps we need to go back a few steps in all this.

I've often heard it said that marraige breakdown is a major cause of the single mum who must work.
How about we, as a society, return to those old fashioned values of COMMITTMENT and FAITHFULNESS and LOYALTY and inculcate them in males and females through our education system etc. These values are found almost only in Churches these days, the secular education system kind of skirts around them from what I can see.

Then... re organize ourselves so that extended family is geographically close, to provide support when needed.
Our culture is extremely weak at present.. our individualism has gone tooooo far.

Without family we are vulnerable in more ways than I care to think of.

Okay BOAZ_David, how about we legislate that only women and childless men are allowed to work. All men with children are not allowed to work, they must stay at home and look after their children. This should be encouraged in the education system since obviously males with children who work (the males, not the children) gain little from the exercise except a truckload of stress and marriage breakdown is a major cause of the single dad who must work.

Founder and Viki – just wanted to congratulate you on doing a good job as single mothers.

This is my opinion on the ideas posters have come up with:
- Wendy Lewthwaite: help women get abortions (cross – doesn’t really help mothers who want their children, and want work and childcare – although I can see that it would be frustrating to see people scamming the system), crack down on cheats (ok – if it is really cheating and they’re not eg. mentally ill).
- BOAZ_David: Encouraging women to stay at home and look after the kids (ok while kids are small – should be either parent, not just mum - and after that at least some part time work), looking to extended family (ok if you have them).
- Col Rouge – making couples jointly responsible (tick), getting some friends (tick), stop looking to strangers and the government (cross – why shouldn’t we help others?), reduce alcohol gambling and cigarettes (tick), budget (tick), find dignity in personal effort (tick), instead of handouts (cross – what’s wrong with accepting help?).
- R0bert – shared care of the children (tick)
- Founder: Suggested steps (1) to (8) plus range of sustainable education based options implemented so that in the long run, mothers AND fathers are given the skills to raise well adjusted children (with some quality strategies before pregnancy to reduce single parenting in the first place). And of course employment options that cater to various personal circumstances. (tick)
- Viki – a career, education and training (tick)

What BOAZ_David, no response to my proposal to legislate that only women and childless men be allowed to work?

Viki - there are more than enough avenues for sole parents to get access to study, courses, 'career advancement' - call it what you will. Centrelink 'gifts' the PES (Pensioner Education Supplement) The Feds give out ABSTUDY/AUSTUDY for Tertiary courses or trade related training.

Where the whole show falls over and goes 'pear shaped' is with the issues of employers, the bottom dollar and irrational economics.

In my earlier post the mention of Advanced Macrame and Bachelors of Origami are tongue in cheek, but these are all designed to make you feel good, nothing else. Family day care has been a God send in the past but it all comes to the sum of zilch when uncaring employers, greedy bosses and such, have no concept of the issues involved in single parenting, working and studying.

To the folk who denigrate those fair dinkum sole parents in these forums - just on the fact they draw taxpayers money via Centrelink.
You too are only a hop skip and jump from the dark side of divorce, separation, widow(er). Be a little more considerate and less judgemental. Granted, there will always be bludgers of both sexes.

Not all those parents who get benefits are what you portray them to be.

Unfortunately these posts on single mothers brings out the aptly named 'narcists' and boring Bruce's, not to mention the virtuous Wendy's, oh and let's not forget the pitiable Fishman .

Wendy: She's not a single Mother … she has a partner there. May not have a ring on the finger, but she's not single. She's half of a partnered family. How can you link your disapproval of a partnered woman with four kids to single mothers?

And you yah twat Bruce… very few people would choose to be a single mother. Most single mothers have one child, are in their thirties, and became mothers during marriage. Most do go on to further education if they haven't got it already… but it still doesn't magically create child care spaces…. Married women are also finding themselves in the same predicament.

The article was on child care availability … not an opportunity to kick butts using fallacies e.g. pitiable Fishman

What a load of cr@p. The average women DOES NOT receive $100/week in child support. This is the minority. 40% receive the minimum of $6. As child support goes up, parenting payment goes down, as does rent assistance. What are you going on about $137 plus $110 per child… what rot….$965 per fortnight …. b*llsh*t…. you don't know what your talking about… and you're sprouting off like you're an expert on single mothers income ... and there's very few bulk billing clinics left anymore.

THE AVERAGE TIME-FRAME FOR SINGLE PARENTS RECEIVING WELFARE IS 2-3 YEARS.

What a bunch of ignorant, uneducated, opinionated social misfits that berate single mothers at every opportunity... geez what low-lives we have in this country... stroking their own egos at the expense of women.

Just browsing and read through these comments...what no one has addressed, especially the fellows commenting, is that in order to be a single mother,at some time an uncovered male penis had to be utilised to impregnate. Now, I ask, after this event, which no doubt was great fun for at least the fellow, after all its a dead certantity he climaxed, who is in fact irresponsible? Making Whoopee is a two person job - when fellows are resonsible for their own fertility, then we may have some equality. Another thought, I wonder how many fellows would be really pleased for a woman to give brith to a baby, then immediately hand it over to daddy - see you lata - but then if they did that they would be dammed as bad mothers as well. Maybe we should reconsider compulsory adoption as it was back prior to the mid 1970's - after all lots of people cant have kids and would love to have someone else's mistake. Solve all the problems.

Gee Dot - typical of the misandrist waffle that infests these blogs.

You (and your ilk) can't and won't, see past your own myopic single view feminist perspectives.

As a 'Single Dad' who has been subjected (from my ex wife) to ALL of the archtypical 'abuses' which the feminazis always accuse men of perpetrating, I find your comment offensive, and abusive and will be contacting the mediator to have it removed.

Let's see: physical abuse, financial abuse, death threats, sexual abuse, emotional abuse. Abandonment of her children after the foaming at the mouth, manhater crew from Marcia Womens Refuge (circa 1993- 1994)in Campbelltown made threatening gestures to my family outside the Local court.

Family Court awarded Sole Custody due to the mother not wanting anything to do with her sons. This same 'wimmins refuge' could not even provide adequate bedding and such for kids on access visits. Consequently...
Both boys were hospitalised with severe pneumonia after returning from their last vist there in August 1994.

In 13 + years - No telephone calls, no birthday cards, no Christmas cards from a so called 'Born Again Christian' mother to her sons.

Please give the tired, worn out bit about male appendages a break!
The undocumented statistics show wimmin to be just as capable of abuse as men - it just doesn't make the news because of the agenda's afoot.

By the way 'DOTT' your prophesy was realised in my circumstances. I have overnight "gone to bed and slept with..." (your wish that:) men take a more nurturing role in the upbringing of the fruit of their loins. My youngest son was still in nappies and being bottle fed when 'mumsie' went AWOL. I quit full time work with a good well paid job to care for my progeny. Are you better in demeanour now knowing that 1 member of the male gender has 'subscribed' to your view?

Why do you even mention such inane verbiage - to get a bite ?
To self gratify that ALL men are like the blokes you had the misfortune to meet? Get over it - please, and move on.

I'm not a Robina Carusoe either. There are more & more men in very similar straits to my own. How about we all start caring for the people who are without exception affected deeply by the issues being discussed in this thread - the kids.

The whole inter-relationship has been eroded and diminished by the vested interests that are trying their damn best to undermine families in the traditional sense. Lack of :Child care placements, Family Day carers, centres which are easily accessible/affordable - enforcement of work return for Sole parents...the list goes on Dott.

As I said in an earlier post, the feminazi's are now being hoist upon their own petards and they don't like it! Still they waffle about 'wimmins rights....' What about the 'rights' of those most precious to each and every society on this Earth? The Children!

Hi Albi, you may be surprised to know that I married a solo parent with three young kids, because I admired their fortitude and parenting commitment. They were finding it hard to keep a decent job. After we married they soared to great career heights. I fully understand the trials of solo parenting and the other issues you mention. But that is besides the point I was making.

Derogatory statements are targeted specifically to women, as opposed to solo parents in general such as:

“Future generations of irresponsible breeding machines to remain permanently attached and suckling off the public teat.”

“they lack the self control to participate creatively and equitably in a relationship”

“contemptible disregard for their own responsibilities”.

“ at the end of the day they have their own choices”.

“a stampede of unworthy, bloodsucking, freeloaders”.

The responsibility for sustaining a relationship lies equally with both parties. The elements that contribute to a breakdown are usually contributed by both partners, albeit in differing amounts.

And what of the child born from a ‘casual’ relationship. Sex sells. Pity that after every MTV video clip, a little add for condoms or birth control pills does not appear.

Where the pregnancy was ‘unplanned’ who is to blame for lack\ failure of contraception? By branding all solo mothers as above, without being fully conversant with each and every situation, you are also affecting the children they raise. It would not be easy being known as the son or daughter of the local “bloodsucking freeloading breeding machine”.

One person is close to the point “people do not need to qualify or be tested for their suitability to either marry or worse, procreate”, hopefully his statement is gender equal.

To close with a popular song “it takes two baby….it takes two…and when a finger is pointed in blame, observe the direction of the other three.

Oh.. I dedicate much of my free time addressing the wrongs done to children by parents, courts, education and medical systems. Not bad for a what was it ? a feminazi?

Dott

Thank you for pointing out the obvious - that it takes two.

Single parents - male or female are doing it hard and name-calling helps no one.

Pro-children legilsation would ensure that affordable child care is available to all, currently that is simply not the case. Blaming people for breeding is as absurd as it is irrational and again does nothing to help children, who are surely our priority as a civlised nation.

Dot, the only problem with compulsory adoption is that adoptive parents get divorced to. I know people would like to think that they are a better breed of people, but they're just human beings as well with human being failures that also lead to marriage failure, particularly over issues such as parenting. Most likely what would happen then is that the adoptive mother will become a single parent, and face the same issues that divorced single mothers face. She will then face the 'blood sucking etc' name calling that divorced single mothers face.

There would also be an overwhelming flood of children available for adoption, or an increase in abortion.

Although I am sure the Federal Government would love to nick children from their mothers, they wouldn't quite get away with it just yet. However, they sympathise entirely with the likes of Albie, and are doing their best to undermine all resources available to 'wimmen' to parent their child/ren. Mal Brough even sounds like a divorced Dad who bitterly resents paying child support. The comment 'women spending the child support on themselves' is a consistent comment heard from the diatribe of angry dads.

ahhh...nice to get some feedback on a subject that was initially posted a while ago...I came across it quite by accident.

My dears, you,them, us me, we are all right and we are all wrong, because the dynamics change with the wind.
Now the situtation is getting worse by the second, and I see the results of it daily, yet can only put a bandaid on a a cancer, so to speak.
Can we put our minds to a solution?

A solution that will even suit persons that we dont like? Eg, ex's who "dun us wrong", dole bludgers, tax avoiders, feminazis(?)whatever that implies - and whatever the male equivalent is - anyone know? etc etc...

while we adults go for each others jugular, as can be seen by comments all over the forum pages on any given topic - the innocents, the children, are being torn apart - by having to be the 'prize' in a war no one wins.

A person I admire said that they thought that when contact/residency issues were raised, along with the resultant child support issues, and counselling and mediation did not solve the problems,that instead of the adversarial court system, maybe something like a coronial court, an inquisitorial method. Then at least the parents would not be torn even further defending their stance.
Another writer, speaking on Indigeneous problems with sexual abuse of children, suggested a CSI (as in the tv show) type of thing. Good ideas.
Come on all you clever and thinking people, lets show we do care and come up with solutions. You never know, one must might work!

In the words of the late great John Lennon "there are no problems, only solutions"

ps..Liz, there are many other problems with adoption also - hence my moments of despair - a family member in the late 1960's 'disgraced' herself, and being under 21 was refused permission to marry. Shipped of, called a slut, pillow on the chest when giving birth, she never saw the child. It has affected her whole attitude on life, even though she went on to have a good marriage and lovely kids. That child is now 40 years old. Where is he? Did he have a good life? We all wonder. I know others from that same era who were the adoptees - some are happy and secure, others, placed in families where personalities from biological parents shines forth, differing from the adopted parents, have never felt fully loved or comfortable, affecting their adult relationships - breakdown, solo parenting

I would hate to see another generation of little Australians 'stolen', which is why I am always trying to get poeple to think and adamant for support of parents and children to try and halt the cycle.

Breaking the cycle would involve some unpalatable decisions. Keeping it in one’s pants is just one.

Treating parents equally could perhaps make them feel responsible in more equal doses. Making them pay equal amounts for the raising of children, would also promote more equal custody arrangements. Remember, it takes two.

Screwing fathers and taxpayers in the best interests of children gives mothers the wrong impression.

Dot

I had a sister that was forced to adopt her newborn baby 25+ years ago. This boy contacted my sister a few years ago. What a screw up. My sister is more aggreived because she believes she would have done a much better job raising her child, and yet there's this expectation that she should be thankful to the adoptive parents for raising him.

Seeker: 'breaking the cycle' what cycle? we do not live in an 'equal' society. And what is considered 'equal' is not necessarily in 'the best interests of the child'. It's quite parentcentric thinking.

Unfortunately, you lowered yourself by linking a perception of 'screwing fathers' and taxpayers (goodness knows why your're bringing them into it. Must be the 'blooksuckers ...' mentality) to 'best interests of children'. There is no relevance. It is just claiming victim status.

The parent that gets residence is the parent that is the primary care giver. Not the parent that did not play that role. Nor the girlfriend of 'victim' non-resident parent.

Dott, you were not labelled per se as a 'feminazi' if you read my post(s). My sincere apologies if the innuendo from your post which precipitated my response was interpreted in this fashion.

Similarly a 350 word response does not an essay maketh. By the way your efforts regarding the inequities of the status quo are commendable, but please consider the semantic connotations of the 'steroetypical Penis references' as they may be relevant but not in all given sets of circumstances.

The greatest problem facing our kids, and indeed us parents, is the entrenched mindset of the vested interests and these are the 'feminazis' (and others) to which I draw specific attention to.

The Aboriginal issues were briefed over in one post, we have not seen (yet)the full bloom of its repercussions to date.
Paternalism is rife, resultant the Crown policies in existence from day 1. Our Administrator of the NT Ted Egan wrote a very pertinent letter to the NT news some time ago (I'll work out how to link articles in future postings)...

Suffice it to say, we need to get away from the welfare state in many facets of our society, but not as a wholesale policy as one size does not fit all.