ISbtiopomf, "after the militant lobbying of dysfunctional and angry men shouted about their perceived bias of "the system" because they were not getting their own way in the family court and wanted more opportunity when they were dysfunctional to hassle their ex-partners."

That's one bit of the picture, the other part is the men and children who have suffered genuine harm in a system which really does not work well.

Women who were genuinely at threat are given no better protection than those trying to milk the system. There has been almost no protection for men and children from disfunctional and or violent ex wives.

The woman who moves away (and takes the kids) for a sea change gets the same benefits (or better because she does not have to hide) as the one who flees to protect her safety. I'm not convinced that the government has done much that will fix those issues. Maybe in the circles you move in the situation you describe is the norm but for many of us the reverse has been the case. Left in the hands of a bunch of social workers with chips on their shoulders about their own failed marriages or those who think that women are automatically better at raising kids and less able to support themselves than men (not much feminism there).

Feminism has meant that many women do take responsibility for themselves and their choices, the issues that have hurt fathers have been a mix of cases of genuinely disfunctional men, some women grabbing advantage under the misplaced pretense of feminism, some feminists who buy into the power structure thing and a bunch of those clinging to old notions about roles in families.

Roll on the day when all man and women except equality of men and women.

R0bert

Feminism is all about reactionary need for power,rather than realistically looking at male/female psychology and what satisifies the needs of our common humanity.There is no doubt that women to this day still do the majority of house work while still holding down a full time job.
Women are good at multi-tasking,that is why they are the lynch pin to both family and business.Men are driven by testosterone to who are outwardly strong and powerful, but in reality are far more emotionally fragile since they don't have the social and emotional networks that women naturally develop.This is one of the reasons why male suicide rates are so high.
It is the courage and dogged determination of men that has raised the bar to new horizons,and it is the organisational skill and compassion of women that has raised the next generation to cope with the realities we all face at this moment.

In reality,we need each other.

Like all other 'isms' it is a front.

Its uneasily OK to shop in the front room, but dont look out back... its where the ugly and awful truth lurks.

Dont go there.

Ahhhh yes, feminism. Where would we be without it?

Don't think too long about that question folks, the answers might amaze you.

Anyway, seeing as how my posts seem to have a propensity to get up some people's noses (or skirts) - which of course is what they were intended to do - I'll let someone else speak out on this issue for me. And do take the time to read it. It's just a short piece...

Home News Tribune - Matt Katz
Is there something to hunting and gathering after all?
"We can't seriously expect that 1960s and 1970s social feminism (a concept not even 50 years old) is going to surpass what the female body is genetically, physiologically and psychologically programmed to do."
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060813/LIFE/608130348/-1/WEATHER0802

And as for those little dears warbling on about getting "the vote", it may interest them to learn that BOTH men and women got "the vote" federally in Australia at the same time, 1902...

Australian Electoral Commission
1902 - The first Commonwealth Parliament passed the Commonwealth Franchise Act of 1902 which was progressive for its time in granting universal adult suffrage (most men and women over 21) were allowed to vote at federal elections.
http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/history/history1900.htm

Prior to 1902, voting rights were a hodgepodge of state legislation favouring the privileged elite, but there was no universal suffrage for men across Australia. All this feminist hot air about winning "the vote" is a lot of bunkum. English men and women didn't get universal suffrage until after WW1. Prior to that, common men (those who died in the war) didn't get "the vote" either.

Maximus excuse me but that's bullsh*t.

Men were granted the right to vote in state elections long before federation. The first state to allow women to vote was South Australia in 1893, the next to follow was WA, only because the Premier thought it would win him the next election. That meant that women were also allowed to vote upon federation if the state legislature already provided for it. Women in NSW only won the right to vote in 1903 and women in Victoria were the last in 1908.

Men were allowed to vote universally but in some states voting was tied to property ownership so that you could vote in as many electorates as you owned property in. Women suffrage activists were denied any support from unionists etc in those states because all they cared about was getting a one man one vote system.

Our foremothers fought long and hard for the vote and in many cases weren't allowed to sit in parliament until much later due to compromises in order to get the vote.

Louisa Lawson, Henry Lawson's mother was one leading suffragist.

Do some research before putting out statements about things you know little about.

Let me correct myself before someone tries to do it for me.

Women who had the state vote also had the right to vote in the referendum on federation. Of course men got the right to vote federally at this time because that's when we became a federation. Women were included in the act out of convenience and consideration for the various struggles on the state level.