Sam said;
"Of course I could not bend to that, and it started a process where one discovery was the above said fear, which had no rationale basis so had to originate from childhood, and until I started making it consciously aware and excluding it to look further is when a real process of moving forward began in dealing with the reality before me..."

I have read the book 'Iron John' by Robert Bly and if I remember correctly, there is something about a boy having to steal the key from under his mothers pillow before he can become a independant man.

Now I think I'll have to re-read it.

Lizzie4,

I can remember a time when my young son was crawling that I thought it was time he learnt how to negotiate the stairs safely. There were other times as well when I felt it was time for him to learn. Of course I got into trouble from his mother because she thought I was teaching him how to do things, which I was, but trying to teach him how to do it safely, like going up or down the stairs.

I don't understand how I knew he was ready for the next step, it is just that I did.

It is interesting listening to Warren Farrell taking about fathers and children. He raises some interesting points about fathering that do not really get covered in discussions.

MLK

You need to catch up on your feminism ideology which says that such practices as FGM are quite OK as long as those practices are controlled by women (you can safely assume that does not include the adolescent victim).

Feminists do see the practices I cited as examples as 'problematical', which means simply that is political to accept them even though they conflict with what feminists say elsewhere. 'Problematical' is feminist speak for difficulty in rationalising these awful practices.

Go back through OLO and you will see at least one article on the subject of multiculturalism and (western) feminism.

Lizzie, sorry about the delay in response to your comments - I've been having a think about them. I suspect that there is some truth in the idea but also a significant component of social expectations, maternal gatekeeping and practical issues (lack of access to paternity leave etc).

We are in a transition period where many men are trying to get the freedom to spend more time as fathers and fighting a reluctance to release them from their traditional responsibilities (if the mother works generally that is for more money for the family rather than to reduce the pressure on the father to provide). In my experience the last few years have seen a much wider acceptance of dads doing the hands on stuff for the care of their kids.

There was an interesting article today in the Courier Mail http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21290482-23272,00.html on this.

It's probably a bit like women suffering at work because of a perception that they will leave work to become full time mothers (and not return). Sometimes it's true but when applied to people that don't work that way grossly unfair. In my experience of dealing with the FMC, RA, C$A etc my actual role as a parent and the choices I'd made seemed to play little part.

Guy's often bitch about C$A because it's one of the final indignities, you loose your kids and then the government forces you to subsidise the choices of the person who took those kids. Again there seems to be little interest in what led to the situation - contested custody is treated no differently to one parent leaving the other with the kids. There are no checks in the system to ensure that C$A monies benefit the kids.

For the record I've now got prime care of my son - and am still supposed to pay some child support.

R0bert

An interesting article RObert and thank you for providing the link. I have also been thinking about my comments and hope that they do not come across as blaming men for their position as women are often blamed for attacks, etc.

I have been thinking about FL and remember reading about changes because of the perception that men were escaping their financial responsibilities. My perception at the time was that the changes fitted in with the neoliberalist ideologies of the Howard Government in that ideal government intervention is minimal and people should take responsibility for their own situations. I think that's what I meant when I commented earlier that femininst theory had been hijacked. It is not really to support women, but rather is in the interests of the government. So that the government doesn't have to support those women and children. To cut costs. Does that make sense?

I really dislike reducing things to economics but that seems to be the way life is measured these days. My own ex complained that I only see him to fix things for me and to mow my lawn! But as I pointed out, that is all he is offering and if he left the lawnmower here, I would mow my own lawn! I included him in family get-togethers and dinners, but he has chosen to opt out because his new girlfriend does not like him to see me even though it is in the non-threatening family context. Sometimes you just can't win.

Family law is a difficult problem RObert and one of the most difficult things about it is that these types of laws have to do with the private sphere which cannot be regulated. Everyone is different and I rail against those who can put things neatly in a box and say this is the way it should be just because others choose it. Just be glad you have your son and money is just money and it is a small price to pay. I cannot imagine what it would be like not to have my children in my life.

Seeing this thread is moving along the lines of economics I'll follow.

In 1985 Lenore Weitzman published the Divorce Revolution in which she published her reseach which showed that;

" the year after divorce women's standard of living decreased by a whopping 73 percent while men enjoyed an increase of 43 percent"

However Weitzmans findings were faulty is putting it mildly.
http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

Now this finding captured the attention of the media in this country and a few years later the Child Support act was introduced.

Barry Williams who was on the original committee said that the percentages for child support were not based on any research and would have been much higher. For example 20% for one child rather than the current 17%.

Melaine Phillips 'The Sex Change Society" wrote,

"The goal of these authors remained the redistribution of labour and wealth within the family, form men to women. Yet they conceded they had to do so without alienating the majority of people by the attitudes which appeared to be hostile to men. The way they would do this was to emphasise the 'interest of children'.

Child support analysis
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/

Supports Lizzie's assertion that it is more about governments cutting costs. for example in Australia family tax benefit is reduced by 50 cents for every dollar recieved in child support.

The current push for CSA to deem fathers income, is not really about recovering child support money. It is about the government recovering social security payments, done under the guise of the best interests of the children.

For example married men are free to work part-time, change careers to lower paid positions. Child support payers are not free to make these choices.

Lizzie4,

As JamesH also points out, I think there is a lot of truth in the economic explanation for FL - both in terms of supporting of women and children, as well as the FL industry. As you indicate, the government could be playing a more direct role in supporting these women and children, but it is clear that it is intentionally avoiding responsibility for personal and economic lifestyle choices even when its policies are seen to be encouraging them. Equally wrong and perhaps more so, the systematic holding individual men responsible without proper consideration of relevant facts. To muddy the waters, we have no-fault divorce and best interests of children. Under a more equitable system, one would at least expect some gender parity in the numbers of divorce applications.

Hence, I do not agree with “Family law is a difficult problem RObert and one of the most difficult things about it is that these types of laws have to do with the private sphere which cannot be regulated.” This is exactly what FL pretends to do, and does it very badly.

It’s paternal preference for punishing men to mask responsibility and shift wealth, will not only prove unsustainable, but unhelpful to feminism. Blind belief in maternal goodness disadvantages children, yet governments continue perpetuating these underlying falsehoods. Nowhere is it more blatantly obvious as in it’s support for paternity fraud. Counter intuitive as it may seem, child abuse is on the rise. So is poverty