Not surprisingly no one from the divorce industry has replied to this article.

A series of studies in the US has confirmed that the majority of people are no happier after their divorce than they were before their divorce. But during their divorce the divorce industry simply took their money from them, and .after the divorce the children were normally left with one parent only. So eventually the divorce industry does not work to benefit the members of the public, but only works to benefit the members of the divorce industry.

The principle of the Family Relationship Centres seems sound enough, as it would be better to mend the marriage rather than end the marriage. But as was announced in parliament, there are on average only 2 people per day going into the already established Family Relationship Centres, and these Family Relationship Centres were located in what was believed to be areas with high levels of family breakdown.

Even worse, there are already centres where there are no male staff, and all the staff in the centre is female only. These staff must spend most of their day watching the clock and reading the Anti-Male Quarterly

I have little hope that the FRC's will make any kind of real difference while the underlying motivators for court based fights remain.

While the courts continue to reward wrong doing and punish honesty and fair play people use the courts to grab what they can and give that bastard/bitch what he/she deserves.

While the spoils of prime care are the family assets people will resist shared care - they can always hand the kids over later with no consequences.

While we continue to provide the same level of welfare support and child support to those who have gone out of their way to grab residence as we provide to those abandoned by a former partner some will grab the kids when all would be better served by shared care.

While the courts fail to respect agreements made in good faith by parties trying to avoid a nasty conflict people will use the courts to grab as much as they can.

We need some fundamental changes to the way the spoils are divided if we want to keep seperating people out of the courts, not another layer of pain and cost on the way to the courts.

R0bert

HRS, pretty good short summary of the facts of divorce. It reminds me of some old movie I saw in which a lawyer (Danny Diveto) was asked by his best friend to handle his divorce case and win - lawyer's advice: "Win? Nobody wins in divorce. There's just degrees of losing." Or words to that effect.

But on a serious note, the writer, Sharma, identifies a significant problem - "The government has never clarified whether FRCs and their staff are meant to make separation and divorce easier, or make peoples' relationships work and keep marriages together," she writes.

She then identifies a couple of the organisations which have won contracts to conduct this work. She names but two, Relationships Australia and Centacare (Catholic Church). These two organisations are very likely to have extremely different attitudes to the task at hand and without positive guidelines from administration (government), people are very likely to experience widely divergent outcomes based on nothing other than a postcode lottery.

This is a genuine problem.

Relationships Australia is a very liberal organisation, with leftist views about marriage - women oppressed, man oppressor, better off without him - whilst Centrecare could be expected to take a more conservative point of view, although not necessarily.

This matter requires genuine reflection and consideration. Perhaps each centre could be like a small boutique mall, where "customers" could evaluate services from all political persuasions and make a choice as to which one suits them best. Alternatively, each FRC should be forced to disclose their social-political bents in a written statement of disclosure to their "clients". And not in a list of meaningless neo-corporate, fuzzy, rhetorical aims and objectives, which is pretty much exactly what these organisations are presently running on their websites.

This is something the commonwealth must evaluate and address promptly, I believe.

Maximus,
It is concerning that Relationships Australia once called themselves the Marriage Guidance Council, but then changed their name.

Entering “divorce + happiness” into a search engine will normally provide 1 million or more articles and studies on divorce and happiness, but try and find a study that says that a couple is normally happier after their divorce.

I am left to wonder if any Family Relationship Centre presently describes to their clients their likely levels of happiness after their divorce.

HRS, it would be interesting to see some independant research on that topic.

From my own perspective some years after divorce I'm much happier than I was during the period leading up to seperation. There have been some very low periods along the way but living each day without the verbal and sometimes physical abuse is far better. Living with some control over the pressure and demands placed on me is better, C$A's formula is a horror and their discriminatory management of it shamefull but at least it has some limits.

I believe our son is much better off now than he was living in a home where conflict was the order of the day(and night).

I'm gaining by the pleasure of a relationship with a sane and capable woman and my son gains by seeing a healthy adult relationship.

Divorce is sad but there are worse things.

R0bert

When we married, we were in love, honest with each other and had no doubt that our marriage was going to be wonderful. But, after a few years, it wasn't working out that way. No good being critical about the situation, our personalities didn't suit and that's probably the kindest way of describing it. And no way in the world were we going to be able to stay together, regardless of whatever counselling services were available. So we parted. I was 43.

I went dancing every night and had a great social life. I met lots of people, generally in their 40s, 50s, 60s, who were widowed, separated, divorced. I noticed some things. Those who could not leave their pasts behind were usually finding it hard to move on. With many of us, children and finances etc meant that we needed to have some contact, but many simply couldn't let go and were stuffing up their futures because of it.

Another recurring theme. Ladies would often confide in me that their husbands had been great guys, except they drank too much. But they'd met a really nice guy, he did drink a bit too much, but he'd change. Yes, and pigs would fly, wouldn't they? Sometimes it's hard to be realistic, but it's the only way to move on.

I read a book [I think by Irene Kassorla] which said that there was no point getting divorced, because we would virtually marry the same person again. I realised I was getting into a new relationship with a woman who didn't look, feel or act like my ex-wife, but yes, I could see the point. There were some inappropriate similarities. Time to go! I learned to watch for this point after that.

After a while, I met a wonderful woman. She was just out of a very unsatisfactory marriage. We quickly became good friends and a few months later were together. We were inseparable for over 22 years, when I sadly lost her. We both gave each other far more than we could ever have got from our respective marriages.

cont

I've had a sweet ladyfriend for over three years. She's divorced from a terrible marriage. She has a good time with me and I can hardly believe how lucky I am to have met her.

My father wasn't a good husband to my mother. I knew it from quite an early age and realised how difficult things were for my mother, in all sorts of ways. I used to tell her to either kick him out, or leave him. But this was England in the 1940s and that wasn't feasible, or so she used to tell me. He died in 1950, when I was 16. My mother got another man two years later. He was divorced from a very unsatisfactory marriage. A great guy, very good to my mother and appreciative of what my mother had for him. I was delighted for them both.

I avoided any unnecessary contact with my ex-wife after we parted. None of my business what she was doing and better for both of us that way. But I am aware that she had some good times which she would not have had with me and I'm happy about that. We both learned to move on.

My ladyfriend and I still go dancing regularly. We have lots of dancing friends, mostly in their 50s, 60s, 70s and some in their 80s. We would often have no idea who is married, who de-facto, who have been together for a lifetime and who are comparatively new together. And, of course, who have been through one [or maybe more than one] divorce. But they're certainly a fun-loving, lively bunch of people and their obvious happiness is infectious.

We know that some of our friends have been married for 50 or 60 years or more and they're still sweethearts. To me, they're the really lucky ones. The rest of us make our own luck, the best way we can.

Robert,
I’m not sure what you mean by independent studies. Here is one conducted with 30,000 Germans over 18 years.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=34970

Many other studies have been conducted in a number of other countries also, but I have yet to find one study that conclusively says that the majority of people are happier after their divorce. There may be individual cases where people are happier, but it does appear that the majority of people are not.

There is the danger that people will be encouraged to get a divorce rather than mend the problems in their marriage, and there is a danger that Family Relationship Centres will develop an end the marriage, but not mend the marriage policy.

The main people who would want to encourage divorce would be feminists or members of the divorce industry. Most feminist organisations have very few or no males in them, and people have already tested out a number of these Family Relationship Centres. They have been in them and had a look around, and in a number of Family Relationship Centres they could see many female staff but no male staff.

So having few or no male staff is a very good indication that there are already feminists in those Family Relationship Centres, and those Family Relationship Centres could simply become fronts for the divorce industry.

There could be a simple solution to the problem, but only if the Family Relationship Centres are paid by the federal government in a certain way. A Family Relationship Centres could be paid according to the number of clients that pass through the centre, but also paid according to the level of satisfaction of those clients.

The clients of a Family Relationship Centre could be surveyed 6 or 12 months after they went through the Family Relationship Centre, and if the level of satisfaction or general happiness of the client is low, then the Family Relationship Centre gets very little money from the government.

I think that would be a fair system.

HRS, independant would be one where those doing (or paying for) the research don't have some kind of vested interest in the outcome.

Sometimes that info is hard to find.

The article you referenced suggests that happiness declines in the lead up to a divorce and rebounds some of the way afterwards but not back to some previous point. What is not stated in the summary is what the baseline is.

I'd rather see a study comparing outcomes for those who divorced vs those who stayed in a conflict ladden marriage.

Back to the article I've dealt with both RA and Centacare and I think that I've dealt with 3 men out of about 15 staff I've dealt with. Two of those men were in a single meeting.

My overall impression is that most staff are quite sexist. I had one "councelor" being quite aggressive in her attempts to quiz me about involvement in mens groups and expressing some very negative views about them. We were given a mediator for a residency dispute who was a single mum with her own children in pretty much the same circumstances as my ex was seeking for our son. If nothing else the perception of bias should preculde that.

My impression is that both feminists and paternalists can be a problem in these industries. Remember that many paternalists believe that women are inherently better suited to the day to day care of children than men are.

Equality feminists are probably a safer option than ardent paternalists.

R0bert

Robert,

I have known a number of feminists, but I have never known an equality feminist. I don’t believe they exist, but if you type “divorce + happiness” into a search engine, you will likely find thousands of studies undertaken into divorce and happiness, and you could go through those studies.

In your case with mediation, it appears that you had low levels of satisfaction with the mediation process. This also means that the mediation process has failed in some way, and you or the taxpayer should not be funding something that fails.

So I am suggesting that the government pays a Family Relationship Centre according to the number of clients that pass through that centre, and also according to the level of satisfaction of those clients.

If an organisation running a Family Relationship Centre does not achieve high levels of satisfaction with their clients, then they get less and less money from the government, and eventually they would go out of business. Another organisation could then come in to run the Family Relationship Centre, and eventually the Family Relationship Centres would begin to function adequately and provide a high level of service to their clients.

Anyway, I have work to do.

Bye for now.

HRS, what you say makes a lot of sense. FRSs should of course have some sort of industry audited evaluation based on "client" satisfaction, but they will not. I guarantee it. No such commonsense logic in this area will exist, because no government has the courage to specify a family policy - at least for now.

Governments of today are so lacklustre, so afraid of tipping the balance of preferences, that they will not commit to any overtly un-PC values. They're all a gutless lot who WILL NOT STAND UP for any values other than vested interests in academia, unions or corporations, national or international.

In my opinion we have politicians who are the lowest, trashiest scum that have ever walked the face of the planet since Louis XVI. What we have is bourgeois mediocrity en-masse.

So how do you stop it?

Simple. Men have got to start being men again.

It really is that easy.

But where are the men? Have a read of this site and you'll quickly see that real men are far and few between - yourself excluded of course. The battle for humanity lies in re-inspiring natural masculinity.

I wonder if it would be of value to use either 'manliness' or 'manfulness' in lieu of 'masculinity'.

'Masculinity' and 'femininity' have become loaded terms. Likewise I see no purpose in continually being led by the nose and using the term 'gender' rather than 'sex'.

It is time for a new deal for men and women and that is not going to come from those bureaucrats and academics who get their bread and jam from the feminism industry. We can start by rejecting the labels they use to vilify and discriminate.

HRS, "I have known a number of feminists, but I have never known an equality feminist."

They are out there - not always with my exact understanding of equality and sometimes with differeing views on issues.

Many won't make a big noise about feminism, they get the same pay for the same work and generally have the same freedoms and responsibilities as men. They do get tired of the number of small businessmen, tradies and the like who insist on talking to their hubby about their business.

They don't like the tokenism of affirmative action programs which place their gender above their skills and abilities when seeking a position.

Some will have bought into some of the lies (genderisation of DV) because those lies are so pervasive but have no sympathy for those who misuse their gender for gain.

Have a read of Patricia Pearson's book "When She Was Bad" for an example of a feminist addressing an issue which for the inequality feminists is a cornerstone of their mantra's.

R0bert

Robert
I know of many women who refuse to call themselves a feminist, because feminism represents to them bigotry, gender bias and discrimination. That’s all feminism represents to me also.

If you can imagine the situation where a Family Relationship was run entirely by male staff. That would represent some type of gender bias, but at this stage it does appear that at least some of these Family Relationship Centres are being run by a majority of females with few or no males in them.

Ultimately the Family Relationship Centres have to be run as a company or a business. If a company does not get enough clients or does not provide a high level of service that satisfies its clients, then that company goes broke and is taken over by another company that can provide better service and satisfy its clients.

That is the way businesses have been run for hundreds of years, and that is the way the Family Relationship Centres should be run also.

There is a danger that the government will start forcing people to go to a Family Relationship Centre, but that centre does not provide good service, or that centre is packed with feminists who do carry out bigotry, gender bias and discrimination. That type of situation has to be avoided.

HRS, "There is a danger that the government will start forcing people to go to a Family Relationship Centre, but that centre does not provide good service, or that centre is packed with feminists who do carry out bigotry, gender bias and discrimination."

I see two major concerns
- The bias you suggest is a real risk.
- The potential of funding being based on the number of cases "settled" in the relationship centers rather than the proportion of happy clients. This leads to the real risk of one party copping a lot of pressure (and bad advice) to try and get them to give in. Assuming that gender bias is not absolutely overwhelming then that means that the one who is trying to do the right thing is likely to find themselves getting a workover. Lack of independant legal advice, probable lack of ability to record proceedings etc combined with "experienced" councellors telling you how it is leaves a lot of scope for bad solutions for the sake of getting agreement.

You may be right that a lot of women don't call themselves feminists because of the bad smell that some extremists have given it, ask yourself how many of them would be willing to get less pay for the same work because of their gender. How many would like to have to have hubby sign business documents for transactions which were otherwise the womans business? How many would like to be sacked when the first child comes along because "a womans place is in the home"?Some equality feminists call themselves feminists, many probably don't but few women want to lose many of the equalities won by feminism.

R0bert

Robert,
The greatest improvements to women’s lives over the past 100 years have had nothing to do with feminism. These improvements have included taking away midwives at childbirth and replacing them with fully qualified doctors, which significantly brought down the number of deaths during childbirth, and greatly improved women’s life expectancy and general quality of life. Other things included immunisation programs, improved sanitation and hygiene, getting more schools built and so on.

All that cost money, but the country started from nothing. There was also another little factor, which was “populate or perish”.

And women did not have the hardest lives, as men had the hardest lives because they worked in the fields and worked in the factories, and most of the work was manual labour.

It seems that you have had a taste of the divorce industry. So would you voluntarily walk into a Family Relationship Centre if you thought there were feminists in that centre, or if you did think that there were feminist in that centre, then what kind of questions would you be asking to find out what type of feminists they were?

You can answer that, but I have found that the vast majority of women do not oppose these so called radical feminists or extremist feminists or however you want to call them. This then allows these radical type feminists to operate.

Many of these radical type feminists operate from Universities at present, but they are quite likely to start operating in places such as Family Relationship Centres also.