I would be interested to hear how you think technology plays a part in enabling parents (mothers) to remain significant in children's lives into adult life? Just resolving this article The Tethered Generation located at http://www.shrm.org/hrmagazine/articles/0507/0507cover.asp and your findings, raises some interesting thoughts....

103 is a lot, but it would be interesting to know what these students thought of their fathers, particularly the 1 in 4 who were only allowed to see their fathers every second weekend.

Or to put it another way, the 1 in 4 children in Australia who have been abducted from their fathers

What baloney! The simple fact is that most 19yo students are still financially dependant on their parents, so of COURSE their parents will be a significant influence on their lives. The study would be far better conducted on 25-29yos, who have had a chance to shape their own destiny.

Secondly, mothers probably rank higher, as most kids will ring their mums for extra money - thereby making mum a bigger influence than dad. This may account for the importance of fathers in this study, if dad pays the bills.

To be fair, those that have seperated or single parents should be excluded from the study, as the results will be skewed towards mother or father, and wont give a true reflection.

Certainly mre study could be done in this area, but lets hope anyone that undertakes it gives more than passing consideration to how the results might be affected by their focus group dynamics before they waste time and money on it.

Country Gal,
I certainly think the relevance and usefulness of social science research in Australia should actually undergo a full government enquiry. So many social science studies involve small numbers only (such as this study), and often a social science study deals heavily in qualitative research, which can become easily biased.

The usefulness and relevance of social science research at present in Australia is totally questionable.

However, I don’t think that children from separated parents should be excluded from studies, as there are now so many of those children, and the majority of them (90%) have been abducted from their fathers

So I think that excluding such children from studies would be a serious form of bias against those children

I just don't understand why anybody would be shocked or suprised that such numbers would choose their mother.

Mothers bring children into the world, they nuture them, feed them, care for them and protect them and often give them money. Sure the fathers do that to but generally the fathers tend not to have as much say in relation to things to do with the children so the children soon learn that they may as well go to their mother first. Unless of course Daddy is a pushover.

That is why mummy is a very significant other.

HRS

You are so obsessed with gender that its rendered you incapable of being objective on any subject that might include women.

Go off and get yourself a social science degree. It will broaden your mind. God only knows you need it.

... and also Jolanda, Mothers will fight big battles for their kids as well, as you would know.

Hi Liz
I remember you. You’re the high school teacher that doesn’t like men in the education system, (and then wouldn’t answer questions regards that).

I have had some experience in science, and even high school students are taught the basics of the scientific method, but whether or not the scientific method is a part of social science is totally debatable.

This is a study of 103 1st year university students, and this is supposed to represent about 200,000 19 yr old people currently in Australia.

To many social scientists, the results of the survey would represent about 200,000 19yr olds in Australia, but to many statisticians, the results of the survey would only represent the 103 1st year university students who took part in the survey.

I don’t know how many people I have known who have said that having social science taught in universities has only devalued their own degree.

Yes you are right Liz. Mothers will fight big battles for their kids, we can turn into very big Mamma Bears when our children are hurting and being targeted or treated unfairly.

The biggest issue with mothers is the negative attitude people have towards them. There seems to be no respect for mothers, if a mother stands up for her child/children they are automatically seen as being biased and/or pushy.

Society needs to change their attitude towards mothers as the majority of them take their responsbilities seriously and they will fight for thier children's right to be treated fairly.

There isn't enough community support for mothers, not even by other mothers and that is negatively impacting on the children.

Jolander,
It is very concerning that mothers are not supporting or recognizing other mothers. We have a situation where the term father has been reduced to “partner” or “non-residential parent”, and about 1 in 4 children will not see their father on Mother’s Day.

But now mothers are not supporting or recognizing mothers also.

Mothers’s Day may have to be called something else in the future.

The lack of respect for mothers lies directly at the feet of womens liberation. They never fought for status and respect and financial support for the job of motherhood instead they said that was boring and they only applauded women who were lawyers or business women. Is it any wonder that the work world is seen as more important than the job of motherhood when womens liberation itself said that it was.

It only reinforced the idea in mens minds that the work they did in the world was more important than the work women did in the world.

Single mothers are treated with a lot of disrespect in this society and that is because the word mother appears in their title. It is actually the word mother that is being disrespected as though motherhood has no value unless there is a man and a male job attached somehow. Womens liberation is also once again responsible for this disrespect of the word mother in favour of male values.

I think this is just another one of those make it up as you go things.

Like..we need RESEARCH to tell us that Mums are important to children.? Do we need some social scientist to tell us Dads are important?

Next (or is it already) we have wanna be shapers of society telling us the nuclear family or that its traditional form of mum, dad and kids is no longer relevant. Now... 2 mums... or 2 dads.. or a Dad and a cat...or Mum and a budgy.... it seems to me like a ball of wool unravelling. Some bright spark holds the end and then suddenly it falls and its all over the place.

Nope.. methinks the 'user manual' for life is the best approach.
Husbands love your wives.
Wives respect your husbands.
Treat young women as sisters in all purity.
Don't provoke your children.

Yes of course all this is from that dusty book the Bible.

But we now have not one but MANY 'Steel Axes' coming in and disrupting our traditional relationships, and we are seeing before our very eyes, the unravelling of our society, where everything is invalid unless some Social Researcher has verified "Yep.. we can do this safely" until of course the next social researcher who wants to promote a book goes in the opposite direction.

Mum,.... what is she without a Dad to support, strengthen, nourish and protect her ? I suggest she is a lonely outpost in a frozen wilderness. (same goes for Dads)
Of course some will point to the exception, or the 'brave woman who coped on her own' to disagree, but think... really think...is it good for man or woman to be alon

I would partly agree there Sharkfin and Boaz-David. The women’s liberation system wanted to devalue the father, because they believed that fathers were oppressors of women, but basically the father in the family was very important to keep the family structure operating and enable children to be born.

The Women’s liberation system has been very successful, and fathers are now termed “partner”, or “non-residential parent”, or “absent parent”, or “dead-beat dads” etc. These terms were not in use 30 years ago, but these terms have been introduced into our language to denigrate and devalue fathers.

But with the devaluing of fatherhood, motherhood eventually declines also. You simply can’t have mothers without fathers, and if you try and have nothers without fathers then the system becomes non-sustainable. So to reinstate motherhood, fatherhood also has to be reinstated also.

This article does very little to re-instate fatherhood. Instead it tries to suggest that mothers are more important than fathers, (and this is also based on a survey with miniscule and non-scientific sampling).

So articles such as this one eventually do nothing to increase the value of fathers or of mothers. The article is a continuation of archaic and non-sustainable feminist doctrine

HRS

The issue you are so morbidly obsessed with is a separate issue to the issue of Motherhood discussed in the article.

HRS, I'm surprised you missed what might be a significant finding of the results given you want to turn this thread into a custody statement. You might note the imbalance between the proportions who favored mothers and fathers and the proportion who normally end up residing with mothers and fathers post divorce. Perhaps you could take that and start a thread in the general threads area, it could lead to some interesting debate. 40/25 vs around 80/20 from memory - have fun with that.

I doubt the validity of the results with such a select and small sample and the reporting of the ranking does not tell us much about how strong the attitudes were. Obviously difficult in a short article. Did the parent who was not the most significant generally come a close second or were they out behind the Pizza delivery person somewhere?

In regard to the idea of excluding kids of seperated families from such studies, I'd rather see some reseach into the impact of the seperation on kids attitudes. I've seen some anecdotal indications that a significant percentage of kids taken away from the other parent eventually wake up to who was playing the nasty games. Keep such kids in the study but ask some questions about care arrangements as they grew up.

I'm surprised by the comments by some posters about mothers being disrespected in society - I get the point about single mums but would have thought that overall mums were at the top of the pecking order in the parenting game.

I think that there has been a shift in the last couple of years but it used to be very hard to get taken seriously as a parent if you were male. The thing that female friends complain about with tradies, car salesmen and the like where they want to speak to hubbie used to be part of the landscape for dads dealing with parenting issues. People seem to be getting more used to dads having active roles now.

R0bert

Liz,
When 1 in 4 children now only see their father every second weekend, then I would think that this factor would strongly influence any statistics on mothers and fathers.

However it is not mentioned in this article, and I am left to wonder why. Perhaps social scientists don’t want to acknowledge it.

Robert,
About the only study that I am aware of that has been conducted on separated children in Australia (or those abducted from their fathers) was a study conducted some years ago by a Professor Parkinson. I believe it was conducted on about 50 children, which is also a ridiculously minimal number of children to conduct such research on.

From memory, the attitudes of the children towards their fathers in that study were quite different to the results of the study of 103 University students.

HRS

If that is the case of 1 in 4 Dads seeing their child every second weekend, then it's a poor reflection on the Dad's that at the end of the relationship they chose that lack of involvement with their children lives.

Dads that shared parenting during marriage DO continue shared care after marriage.

Liz,
Could you please find the statistics that show that the vast majority of mothers in Australia want to be the primary breadwinner, and want the father to stay at home and look after the children. I’ve seen the statistics regards this, and that survey had a sample of many thousands of mothers.

As a caring, non-feminist and non-sexist teacher (and also a graduate of a social science course), you may find the information contained in the following web-site of interest:-
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

You ask the most irrelevant questions.

Liz, this is drifting further off topic but "Dads that shared parenting during marriage DO continue shared care after marriage." - who are you trying to kid?

Have a read of the article on the legal system, truth has little to do with what happens in the courts and there are plenty of tricks someone desperate to maximise C$A and Govt handouts can use to ensure that parenting is not shared - a sea change being a popular tactic, stiring up conflict is another (if the parents can't work together then the mother should have the care).

I currently have our son with me pretty much full time, at my ex's request. Thats in spite of a very expensive legal battle in her attempts to get almost sole care (which was not only stopped when I gave in because of the harm to my son and I being done by the conflict). About 12 months after getting her way she changed her mind.

I was heavily involved in parenting my son while we were together and at seperation we started with shared care. If you do paid work how do you prove how much of your out of hours time you spent parenting?

The courts and Relationships Australia were not interested in how much parenting I did while we were together, rather they were a never ending train on financial and emotional energy.

R0bert

Liz,
As a caring, non-feminist and non-sexist teacher, I have noticed that you do not say anything positive about men or fathers, and you do not answer questions.

Robert,
I think your experiences would be rather typical. The mother takes the children so that she becomes “primary carer”, and the father now becomes a “non-resident parent” (which is another term for secondary parent). The father then has to pay money to the mother, (which is termed child support), or he won’t be seeing the children in the future.

It is a system of child abduction followed by extortion of money from the father, but it is not generally thought of as being child abduction and extortion, because mothers are generally thought of as being the most suitable parents to raise children.

However no study to my knowledge has definitely concluded that mothers make the best parents, so it is only a myth that mothers make the best parents. As you can see from the Civitas study mentioned previously (to the gracious, non-feminist Liz), the loss of the father can affect the child in almost every way.

This article paints a rather rosy picture of mothers, but paints a rather negative picture of fathers. The article is not scientifically based, and revolves around a study that had minimal sampling.

So it is articles such as this article that continue the myth that mothers make the best parents, and that myth then makes child abduction and extortion of money from fathers acceptable in our society.

I believe that fathers are just as good parents as mothers. In some cases even better as some women get alot of PMS.

Of course when they are babies I feel the mother is what the child needs and what is best, but as they get older either a father or mother can provide quality care.

I think the system does disrespect the majority of fathers and men. I know that my husband would make just a good as parent as me.

Fathers that are 'just as good as Mothers' do cooparent after separation. Those father's that didn't coparent, who chose that non-parenting role, don't do so after separation. The courts are not just going to hand a child over to a largely absent parent.

Likewise, if the Mother made that choice not to coparent, the courts won't hand kids over under some pretense of 'fairness'.

Sorry guys, the truth is that those parents who made the choice to no coparent don't have the right to, two, three, four years down the track, demand the kids be handed over.

The fact is, it's often Dads that make that choice. Sometimes women, but mostly men.

Liz, I'm trying to work out if you are deliberatly lying or just believe the propaganda. I'm hoping it's the latter.

By the way I'm aware that women can also be done over if they are honest and have a dishonest partner. It seems that most willing to do the wrong thing wins to often.

Where gender becomes an issue is the maternal bias in residency disputes. I saw no attention to what parenting I did prior to seperation or the fact that we had about two years of shared care post seperation behind us prior to a court appearance.

What you describe is just not reality.

R0bert

Robert,
It appears that Liz doesn’t answer questions.

The family law system is a giant scam, but that scam has taken an enormous amount of money from families.

In the area of motherhood and fatherhood, then I would think both fathers and mothers are equally important when they are together operating as a couple, and this is despite what the children might say. I think there are a lot of things that fathers do that children may not recognise.

I’m a father and I now appreciate many of the things my father did, although I did not fully appreciate him when I was not a father.

With single fathers and mothers, then you may find the following interesting.
http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5310.html

That survey was carried out around 1996 in the US, but a similar pattern is happening in Australia. At present there are about 1/6 th the number of single fathers than single mothers, but usually single fathers have higher rates of employment and work longer hours. The number of hours they spend with child care is not that much less than with single mothers (Eg in Australia, single fathers work about 16 hrs longer each week, but spend about 4 hrs a week less in child care time than single mothers).

So usually more money is coming in, for minimal loss in child care time. Under the Marxist/feminist ideal, there is destruction of the nuclear family and the raising of the children by one parent only. But under this ideal, the best parent to raise the children may in fact be the father.

Neither mothers nor fathers necessarily make the best parent - each individual in a relationship of family has something different to offer. For me, I dole out the discipline and the rough play, while my husband gets lots of cuddles and kisses from our toddler. We often laugh that we are a back-the-front household (as I am also the main income-earner, though do most of the out-of-hours childcare too). I am not sure whether this is nature or nurture - it would be interesting to find out, though I dont think this is possible.

I was raised by a single father (after mothers death), so firmly believe that dads make great and caring parents, whether with a partner or on their own. My dad though will still insist that women are better with babies (although he was quite capable with mine when a newborn).

HRS, I dont believe that kids of seperated parents should be excluded from studies - you misunderstood my point. I just think they should have been excluded from this study because of the context of the question. In deciding whether mum or dad is more important, its blatantly obvious to me that kids from single-parent families will mostly choose the parent that they reside/d with. So, yes they should be in studies, but not this one (at least not the way the study was framed).

R0bert, the tide is starting to turn. I know a few dads that have recently won custody battles (and they were battles), and are now being paid child-support by their ex-wives. It is happening, and more often. Its something that should be decided on the merits of each individual, not on a belief system that mum or dad is better.

Countrygal

The decision on residence, not 'custody', made in Family Court, is and was never based on a 'belief decision' about Mum being better than Dad, the decision is always made on the history of residence, and if a child is thriving in that environment.

Men gaining residence over women, is more frequent than people realise. In fact, of that small percentage of separated couples that do go the full extreme, men frequently gain residence.

The majority of women have residence in cases where the decision was made without going to court. Often the women were left holding the baby.

And remember, everyone's experience is different. Your experience of coparenting with your husband is not relevant to another couple's experience. That's probably why you're still together.

RObert

It's not propoganda. It's fact. Men often come back to get the kids years after they abandoned their parenting load. MEN choose the every second weekend parenting schedule. They change their mind when they get their lives back together, particularly when they get a girlfriend, and then decide they want the kids with them.

It's extremely common.

Sorry if the truth hurts

Sounds like your case might have been similar. So why then do you think that women may not experience what you have experienced?

Country Gal,
I’m sorry to hear about your mother. In the case of your father it appears that he became a single parent because of necessity, but he was just as capable of parenting.

I have never seen any evidence to say that fathers are not as capable at looking after children as mothers, although their parenting styles may be different.

Liz,
If it is a “fact” or “truth”, then could you reference the study that says that it is a “fact” or “truth” As a teacher and a graduate of a social science course, you must believe in science, and you must believe in the scientific method (if the scientific method is included in social science).

But I have read through many of the major studies carried out in Australia, including studies conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and many of the studies from the HILDA survey. I cannot remember seeing anything that you have suggested about fathers. I have also seen many studies conducted in NZ, the US, Canada and the UK, but again I cannot remember any study that ever concluded what you believe is “fact” or “truth”.

Liz, you misread what I wrote as "co-parenting" and make the assumption that this is why my husband and I are still together. You are wrong on both counts. Did you read the bit where I wrote that I do the bulk of the childcare work (out of work hours). I qualify this with out of work hours because I do work (and so does my husband), so our child goes to childcare during the working week. Not ideal, but a necessity. I look after our child on the weekends (my husband works normally 6 1/2 days a week), do the washing, clean up after everyone, organise the baby's meals, do bedtime, get everyone up in the morning and our child packed up and off to daycare. My husband has a bath with our child most nights and sometimes comes to the supermarket to help keep her occupied. Hardly what I would call co-parenting. But it works for us. As for the reason for still being together - huh! We were together for 7 1/2 years before starting a family, so I would suggest it is something other than parenting skills.

What you say about residence being left with the mother and not contested is probably because it is beyond the means of most families to take to court. The most recent case that I have had anything to do with (final asset split still being argued over), cost around $45,000 ON ONE SIDE ONLY, just to hear the custody argument. The asset split has so far cost one around $60,000 and the other $200,000 over net assets of around $500,000. I would suggest few could fund this so if it cant be worked out amicably, the men shrug their shoulders and give up.

Dont get me wrong, I have NO doubt that there are men out there that neither want residence nor deserve it. But it very much sounds to me like you've been burned and been left very bitter.

Countrygal

I got the gist that you're pretty happy with the support he gives and the role he plays.

I was married for eight years prior to becoming a parent. Many marriages break up overnight with the arrival of a child. It's a common trigger of marriage breakups, that and financial conflict.

'What you say about residence being left with the mother and not contested is probably because it is beyond the means of most families to take to court.'

Actually, that's not the case at all. Many people find themselves in court regardless of whether they can afford it or not. That's because they have no say if the other party choose to go to court.

These couples usually frequently go to the Federal Magistrate's Court, not the Family Law Court.

The common description of the respondent in these cases are women whose expartners have instigated court proceedings. The men choose to represent themselves. Women find their settlements (and often the family wealth can be quite insignficant) eaten up in legal fees. These men often are in new relationships, or they delegate their Mother's as more suitable carers than the Mother. Such arrogance to think they can choose who will play Mother.

The reason residence is not contested is because it is the choice of the father to leave the children with their mother.

Men choose every second weekend. That's what the majority of men decide.

From what you are writing it appears you assume women get the majority of marital wealth. That's not the case.

What you think you know is not necessarily the full picture, particuarly if you are determined to believe 'men shrug their shoulders and give up'.

That comment demonstrates how little you know about the issue but how willing you are to believe men are victims. You're being biased, particularly with the 'burnt and bitter' comment. That's typical rhetorical thrown at women.

I've read your comments on single mothers on another thread, and I thought your comments were uninformed.

Liz,
I must say I’m completely fascinated by yourself.

You’re a teacher and often left in charge of children, but you have not qualified anything you have ever said about fathers, and you have not said a single positive word about fathers.

A public enquiry was held into family law some years ago. That is why they developed Family Relationship Centres, because the family law system was so gender biased.

I’m also completely fascinated by the fact that feminists continue to try and malign and devalue men, and try and say that fathers are not as significant as mothers and so on.

But men and women are a part of the natural world, and nature is very economic. If men were not as significant as women, then nature would not have men. But nature continues to produce 50% females and 50% males.

Maybe feminists should read biology books, rather than feminist propaganda.

Liz, you are entitled to think as you like about my comments, as I am about yours.

I dont think of men as victims at all, but I dont think of women as victims either. In the vast majority of cases, it takes two to tango. Yes one may be more at fault than the other in the final breakup reason, but rarely are they truly evil.

The custodial parent ends up with the majority of the family wealth that was held prior to the seperation. Usually the custodial parent gets 70-80% of net assets (including most assets tied up in companies and trusts too). If custody is shared, then the asset split will be more even. If there are no dependant kids, the split is 50:50. Superannuation is usually split 50:50 no matter what.

I've also seen some very amicable divorces. Although all the ones I can think of recently didnt have small children involved, which might have helped a bit - less emotion and all (and 50/50 asset split).

Just try to keep in mind Liz, that not all men are bad (and actually very few of them are). And I am not pro-man, just pro-people. I have similarly argued quite strongly with men on other threads that they need to stop being so bitter and remember that not all women are bad (and indeed few are). I do agree with HRS though - someone that is so severely sexist as you appear to be has no place in our school system (as indeed there is no place for racists in such establishments).

Countrygal

There's wonderful men out there. You don't have to remind me. I've been around a decade or two longer than you and there's truly brilliant men out there.

There's also some appalling women, who tend to attach themselves to these mens rights campaigns, and they're pretty unethical men.

What you've said about the custodial parent ending 'up with the majority of the family wealth' is simply not true.

You really don't know what your talking about Countrygal. You seem to be gaining your knowledge from barbeque gossip. You've just accepted this information as 'truth'. That's why I think you're biased.

Best to not enter into subjects you're not informed on.

Liz you are rather fond of saying that things that things which are all to often true are "simply not true". What's your stake in this?

My stake is as a dad who found a system that assumed that the mother should get most of the custody. A system that was so tied in legal protocols that it had little interest in truth. A system that provides financial incentives for parents with few skills or who don't like paid work to try and gain most of the residency to increase the benefits to themselves. A system where residency at the time of settlement can make a significant difference to finacial outcomes with no recourse if the situation changes afterwards.

I've been involved in one of the mens rights groups, not currently - I suspect that they are lifesavers for many people. My own experience is that the group I was in pushes for equality not special treatment for men.

I'm confident that I did not see any situation where there was leadership or widespread support for inequality.

I've suggested previously that you look at the submissions to the inquiry into child residency following seperation. You will find it was the mothers groups who were opposing shared care not the fathers groups. Before you respond with a comment about child safety you might also look at the stats on substantiated child abuse and who does it.

R0bert

Liz, my experience is not frm BBQ gossip, but as a professional accountant. I am the second stop a client makes when deciding to seperate (the first stop being the lawyer). I have advised both men and women in this area (the financial side of it). As a result I am kept up to date with the progress and various demands, and thus normally find out what is happening as far as custody (or residence) goes, and child support. One recently was a classic case of the wife not knowing the business. She keeps asking for "just the home loan paidout - I know you're worth a lot more than that, but its all I want". What she doesnt know (and doesnt want to hear about) is that the husband is worth only $250,000 total, and she wants $270,000 paid off the home loan. His business has been losing money for the last 5 years, and its being exaggerated by the fact that he continually has to take time off work to attend mediation and conciliation conferences up to 3 hours away. This is not unusual. I have also advised women on how to structure their business assets to protect them if they think things are shaky.

I beg to differ but it seems that you are the one who has gained their opinions from the BBQ (or water cooler).

Liz,
As an educator, you are not very illuminating, and have yet to adequately qualify what you say about fathers.

I am left to ponder on where you get your information from.

I heard recently on the ABC that a number of schools no longer celebrate father’s day. This is because so many children no longer see their fathers. But if these schools are honest and non-gender prejudiced then eventually they would have to stop celebrating mother’s day also.

So the systematic devaluing of fatherhood will eventually devalue motherhood also.

Countrygal

You are kidding yourself to think that as an accountant, if you do happen to be one, that you are the 'next stop' for someone going through a divorce.

Accountants do not counsel on divorce issues. They are not privy to ALL information shared by both sides in a divorce.

And again, you are giving an anecdote, that may or may not be true, presenting a divorcing woman in an unfavourable light, and therefore that is meant to back up your 'expert' status on the topic.

It's simplistic rhetoric you are so dogmatically gripping on to.

You're attempt to place some sort of professional 'expertise' on divorce issues is staggering in its ignorance.

Liz, at least she is providing some basis for her views. You continue to make claims that go completely against the reality of our family law system and I've not seen any place where you have identified your stake in this ir the basis for your own views.

R0bert

Liz, for business clients, often the first stop is the accountants and the second the lawyers. Business-people tend to treat their accountants as part of the family, and as a result we hear everything. Any major family event has an impact on the business structure and finances. Accountants are about much more than tax. We often hear if there is a suspicion that divorce might be on the cards, as people will act at that time to try to protect their assets (no good waiting until things are in motion!).

I really dont think that I showed the woman in the earlier example in a bad light. She isnt money-grabbing, she just doesnt understand the business and the true financial position. As a result she is going to end up very badly burned, which I dont think is a good thing. Because she doesnt understand it, she is listening to bad advice from her lawyers (I am fairly sure that she is not consulting an accountant, more's the pity), and is running up big legal bills trying to get money that is not there. I think its very sad for both sides. Another client is going through the court system at the moment fighting over the valuation of properties, which Sydney valuers put $1.6million on, but if were sold off now, even seperately as small blocks (generally more saleable and more valuable), they would be lucky to get $800,000 for. The lunacy of this just blows me away.

But enough of what I deal with on a weekly basis. As HRS asked, what are your qualifications for making observations about such matters? You are pretty quick to shoot down anyone else for not being qualified to comment, but very reticient to speak up about yourself. About time you came out with it.

Countrygal

My Dad was a CPA, with his own business. I never heard him speak with such authority on divorce matters such as yourself, nor attempt to promote some concept of gender inequality.

Having an accountant is one thing, as many people do. To treat an accountant as a confidante in a marital break up or seek advice is a fanciful claim.

It's quite extraordinary that you represent women as not knowing what the marital wealth is and further that they make unreasonable demands upon exhusbands or discuss these issues with their accountants.

I have heard of accountants helping one partner hide their money.

Liz,
I would think accountants get to know about what goes on within family law, as most of family law is about money, (or who gets what and who has to pay money to see their own children). That is family law.

But you have not yet qualified or substantiated your previous negative comments about fathers.

The following is interesting. It gives some information about a social science research project about to start that looks at fathers and their children.

“Involvement of fathers with their children is beneficial for children while they are growing up as it helps their developing self-esteem, learning and socialising," Ms Morel said.

There were also long-term benefits, such as helping children gain more satisfaction from their lives later on and being less prone to psychological distress.”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Study-examines-fatherchild-relations/2007/05/22/1179601392546.html

So this already seems to go against the research of the 103 1st year University students, who said that they regard their mothers as being more significant than their mothers. So the question now becomes :- “When will social science researchers ever develop consensus amongst themselves?”

Or maybe social science researchers do not want to develop consensus amongst themselves, but simply want more public funding so that they can carry out more research without ever developing consensus.

I would say that an accountant would have a pretty good idea of the culture and the status quo if they had a wide range of clientelle.

I know that if I was seperating, the first person that I would want to speak to is my accountant. Solicitors come last.

I too think that some woman have no idea what things are worth and they have an urealistic idea about how much money they should expect to get and how much control they should have over their children and ex-husband.

What I dont understand is why it is so difficult for things to be processed and dealt with fair?

Jolanda,
The first step is now supposed to be to go to a Family Relationship Centre, to see if the marriage can be repaired. Some believe that over 70% of failed marriages could have been repaired.

However I don't think feminists want marriages to be repaired, and I don't think feminists want fathers to have any more contact with their children other than every second weekend and half the school holidays (or the current 80/20 system).

I think most parents would say that looking after their children on the weekends and during the school holidays is more difficult than looking after their children on school days when the children spend most of the day at school.

So the fathers can have the children on the weekends and during the school holidays when the children are not at school, but the mothers have the children when they spend most of the day at school.

But of course the myth is that fathers are not important, and fathers are not as good as mothers when it comes to parenting.

I think feminists want to keep that myth alive for as long as possible.

Jolanda

What you think you would do if you were going through a divorce does not offer meaningful substance for this debate. When you become a divorced woman, join in. In the mean time, you are contributing to ignorant rhetoric on women who find themselves the subject of criticism by people, such as yourself, who do not know them, but due to their gender, decide you're the expert on their situation and are inappropriately opinionated.

As for young HRS ... feminism and divorce are two unrelated topics. I suppose it makes it easy for you to blame all your woes on those dastardly 'feminists' and not yourself.

Liz. Do you think that I live in a bubble?

Liz,
As a non-discriminatory, impartial, and non-feminist teacher, I’m now wondering how you have determined that I am young, and I’m also wondering if you have anything against young people.

I think the article is very feminist, and feminism has much to do with divorce and extortion of money.

I have known very few feminist who have said anything good about fathers. In fact, I was just listening to a feminist from an Australia University on the ABC radio, and they spoke about fathers, but of course they said nothing good about fathers. It appears to be obligatory for academic feminists to say nothing good about fathers.

I can understand the feminist logic. To a feminist, fathers are no good, but their money is good. So feminists have to devalue fathers, to make it easier to extort money from fathers and abduct their children.

This article does not really say anything positive about fathers, and I would regard the article as feminist.