Hi Robert, no I can assure you that I am not a man hating female because I have found myself in the postion of having to rear my children alone.If you have been unfairly treated by the system, and I,m well aware that fathers do it tough, those that do want to be involved in their childrens lives that is, then I,m sorry for you ,it must be heartbreaking. I can assure you I would rather be the one left with my kids than be the one to lose them.

I am using my Social Work degree to work in the area of mental health for people who do find themeselves in your position and to perhaps work in rural areas . Where I am here there is a lot of youth suicide and death relating to deep depressions and no one for these people to turn too, and rural areas Australia wide are desperate for people skilled in Human Service areas such as this.

My husband found himself incarcerated for 5 yrs, that was extremely tough on us all.I find it hard to tolerate ignorance from some parts of the community who place moral judgements on people and situations .

I am extremely frustrated for the rotten deal that fathers get after separation and no ,were not all complete heartless cows.

By the way Robert, single mothers do not milk the system for all its worth by having children to secure themselves an income..yes the odd one may be dumb enough to think it is an equitable propostion, but they get a rude shock soon enough.Most single mothers would never be so by choice ,a terrible misconception.
The pittance one receives is quickly swallowed up in essentials and is often not enough to go round..theres nothing left over for us 'women of loose morals to go party with and perhaps, in the process maybe put another bun in the oven to strenghten the family budget'..The concept is ludicrous.The Govt.,if you think about it is actually now encouraging population growth bhy offering $4000.00 baby bonus to new mums..the people who would be most attracted to this would be young teens.Thats what the govt wants..no thinking person would see the value in this other than them.

I have owned my own home (paid cash), worked hard and paid my taxes.
The family law court allowed my fathers children to take evry single thing we own when I went to court to fight for the rights of my chidren. they let me down and allowed him to place us in poverty by stealing my childrens future. I do not feel guilty .

OZGIRL,
To me your emotive language hides hostilities unsuitable to be able to be unbiased toward everyone. Just look at your view of John Howard. From my view you are a social engineer with an agenda and not a compassionate listener. I assume you expect that the Government will pay your salary? By the way the Government at present is headed by .......?

I have to agree with Wendy, on the fact that much of todays social problems are reflected in poor television modelling and scripts. That you would see BB as suitable for children indicates the values to which you envisage should model your children's lives. People are attracted to drama and entertainment that reflects their own values and modelling.

I see the same old tired arguments being recycled. Give me a break from all the rubbish about everyone having their own moral code. Also, stop conflating criticism of stupid behaviour with an attack on personal freedoms.

We live in a society. By definition, we are interdependent on each other. We do not live in a vacuum. As such, we have a right, as a society, to question the behaviour of individuals, particularly when that behaviour occurs in a very visible and very public manner. If you believe personal freedoms ALWAYS triumph over the good of society, then go live on an deserted island.

Getting back to the question at hand, a show which is publicly broadcast should be held to a stricter moral code than one available on DVD or some other restricted media (such as cable TV). Society should be able to pass judgment on what occurs in public spaces. So if people are offended by a program, then maybe it shouldn't be on prime time.

Big Brother is a waste of time. Personally, I don't care about it much one way or the other. However, I do object to people trotting out the old "freedom" argument to defend any old rubbish. It's not an intellectually rigorous argument and it is generally the last refuge for defending behaviour that is indefensible.

You didn't upset me OZGIRL and no offence taken, but I think you have a lot to learn if you feel I didn't come across as male, just by reading my comments?

And I am just wondering if the Social Work/Sociology degree at uni will teach you this, that you don't reply before knowing the facts?

Now can you confirm something for me, isn't this forum about Big Brother?

So why are you going on and on about yourself and your life?

Now back to talking about Big Brother:

If Big Brother Daily Show as you claim OZGIRL, is in no way unsuitable to children then why isn't it on durning the day, where G Rating shows are allow?

Also if you must know snout Big Brother cameras are rolling 24/7 so have you considered that the reason you might not see any offensive material is because The Producers would have cut out the offensive material.

So on this basic:

Our children are our future, they should have a voice, but not with help from some?

OZGIRL, thanks for the reply and good points. I do have a different opinion on the financial thing in some circumstances.

Kwv, I'm missing your point in that last post. Isn't the issue about what goes to air rather than what is filmed. If the producers don't put the bad stuff out during the hours when kids are likely to be watching then isn't existing censorship working?

I keep my son away from the show because from the times I've watched the show the ethics and attitude of the participants are not ones I want to encourage not because of any actual sexual content during normal hours.

Channel 10 does not get much use around my place.

R0bert