http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/1004roberts.html

The Feminization of Poverty?

"When economist Victor Fuchs of the National Bureau of Economic Research combed through the figures from the 1970s, he concluded: "Statistical decomposition of the changes shows that an increase in the proportion of women in households without men was the principal source of feminization of poverty."

"A few years ago sociologist Martha Gimenez sagely observed that the feminization of poverty myth only serves to fuel "conflict between men and women, young and old, and white and nonwhite."

Therein lies the secret of cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxists know they cannot topple Western democratic societies with a direct assault. Rather, they seek to undermine basic values, incite gender conflict, and weaken institutions such as the family. Gloria Steinem may have revealed more than she intended when she remarked: "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarchy."

When widespread divorce and social discord ensue, the Gender Guerillas then blame the whole mess on patriarchal society, leaving behind no marks or fingerprints.

Think about it -- it's the perfect crime. That's the genius of radical feminism."

James, I didn’t turn the argument around—you twisted my words and I pointed out your mistake.

The Dad’s in Distress website fudges facts. Male suicide is a real problem and should be funded, researched and managed to reduce it. BUT men have been suiciding at a rate of four men to every one woman SINCE the 1920’s when statistics began. The biggest exception to this was the Second World War when suicide rates dropped the most and the 1960’s when male suicides dropped and female suicides rose to the ratio of 2 male to one female. So other factors are causing it. The number one correlation of spikes of suicides in men is with economic downturns.

Marriage breakup is initiated by the woman in 64% of the cases but there are still 36% of women who are left—a statistically significant group. There are also many women who leave due to the violence, drunkenness, drug addiction or mental illness of their partner (men leave for this reason too). These two groups obviously need a different approach than your punishing “why leave? Or better still leave the children with the father.”

There are people who leave their partners when for all concerned it would have been better to stay. There needs to be something done to help reduce that incidence.

The lower life expectancy of men isn’t just for separated fathers but *never married* men too—it’s quite significant. But the statistics for women show *never married* and separated women live longer than married women. Now why would that be? Why does marriage make women die younger?

Silversurfer, could you please point me to actual research sources—the raw statistical data that Professor Baume etal used—there’s so much bogus research even among academics that are heads of official organisations. My stats are from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for suicides--go check for yourself. I did a search on Baume but couldn’t find his data sources.

Government isn’t as smart as you think they are, SS, they bend to who are the most powerful lobby groups—men’s groups are far stronger.

Aziliz,

this is the biggest load of nonsense I have heard for a long time. Your statement that men’s groups are the most powerful lobby groups really consignes it to the looney bin.

For Baume, try the Institute for Suicide Research and Provention, Mt Gravatt Campus, QUT.

Robert, I wasn’t talking about ‘my views on residency’—I was talking about the way the courts work. They give custody to the primary caregiver and I know women who have lost custody of their children because they weren’t the primary caregiver.

My own views are different. I think the best solution needs to be considered on a case by case basis. Sometimes that’s shared custody and sometimes not. The best case scenario is the parents reunite. There also needs to be more support for families experiencing violence, drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling and mental illness. These aren’t some minor part of our society but a significant section—about 20%.

I can’t believe you can be so biased Robert as you’re usually so reasonable. Didn’t you read the anti-custodial parent/anti-CSA posts? “Splitting up causes hardship for both parents”--that was my opening line. I also post official statistics so wild statements are put into perspective. I criticise the insinuation that *only* the non-custodian parent has a raw deal like that’s 100% of cases. Smarten up, Robert—you can do better than that. Reread all the posts. The non-custodial posts are the one’s that are *completely* dismissive not mine.

The CSA isn’t perfect but it was worse before (unless you were rich or a lawyer). I’m pro the CSA despite my ex being able to dodge payments by running his own business. He worked fulltime as a server administrator. But the CSA could do nothing about it. I have a son with a crippling illness that needs a lot of medical care but that was also all up to me. I got shafted but I’m not angry with the CSA.

Custodial parents getting little to nothing (even when their husbands run successful businesses)is extremely common—people get shafted both sides of the fence. But inadequate as it may be the CSA keeps it out of court which is a blessing. They often fail for the non-custodial and the custodial. They need reforming in their methods not obliteration.

Silversurfer--I've been to that website--can't find any stats on it. Never listen to any research that doesn't give the stats.

When the misfortune of a broken family unit occurs, the government will lend a helping hand to mum because she cannot look after herself and her children. This is called a sole parent pension. She is also entitled to various other modest benefits which attach to the children.

Dad on the other hand, is expected to look after himself. Why? Because he has only himself to support doesn't he? Actually, no, through CS he also has to support his family but without any relief or assistance from the government. Worse, they effectively punish him for what help he does offer:

My case: I am paying $530 a fortnight in child support for my children. My ex is on a sole parent pension (which is where virtually all mothers with young children end up after separation), so deserves my support in raising the kids, no question. The reality is, however, that the government reduces her pension entitlements at 50c in the dollar for any money I pay in CS above approx 1600 in child support. The effect is, of the $530 that I'm obliged to pay, only $300 actually gets to my kids.

Continued...

While I understand that if people are earning money, then any social welfare support they are receiving ought to be wound back. But I, A TAX PAYER, am paying money which I earned and have already paid tax on, FOR MY KIDS, and the government is using that to justify reducing my ex's welfare payments. That's wrong. By that logic they ought also be reducing her payments if I give the kids Christmas presents or pay my children's medical expenses. That is just plain wrong.

The whole assessment on your gross income is a disgrace. Yes some people structure their businesses so they can virtually earn no net income, however this is a very small percentage of fathers. As it stands, for every extra dollar I earn I am paying 27% in child support, and 43.5% in income tax (including the Medicare levy) or only 30c in the dollar. So if I, in an effort to make ends meet, work overtime or a second job, let say earning the generous amount of say $25, I'd actually only be earning $7.50 for myself, an hour. Oh, but yes, I should think of how I'm helping the kids with an extra $6.75 an hour.. but no, after the government has gouged a further share of 5o cents in the dollar through reductions in the ex's pension, they only receive $3.375. So effectively, even taking into account the money which goes to my children, I'm paying 56.5% tax. That is just wrong.

Why are some NC parents getting depressed?

Little prospect of improving their position.
Few can afford to establish a home large enough to allow their kids to stay with them.
No sense of voluntary contribution to their family. They can barely afford to do what the law obliges them.
Virtually no say in how all their hard earned money is spent on the kids.
Knowing that even if you’re the better parent, you're stuck being the better bread winner.

No, these aren't all true for every NC parent (95% Dad) but they are true for many