Country Gal,

There is almost no difference in the hours being worked by men and women (when paid and unpaid work are combined). The main difference is the type of work being carried out, and in various studies I have seen, it definitely appears that this is the way women want it. I have seen no study to suggest otherwise.

Men do more paid work, and in that work there are now job reviews and high expectations of continuous improvement in productivity.

Unpaid work has minimal job reviews, and minimal expectations of continuous improvements in productivity.

Sri would not have come out very well with a job review, and if she was being paid, she probably would have been given the sack a long time ago.

Men are doing the more arduous, demanding and stressful work, and always have. They are naturally supplied with a special hormone called testosterone to enable them to cope.

Nearly everything is built by a male or invented by a male. In return, men are now being given a kick in the teeth by feminists, the Family Law system and quite a lot of average women in society, or these women are being taught by feminists to use men and then discard them at will (after taking their money and their children of course).

I don’t think that society will last very long in these circumstances.

HRS you are right.

Only 0.6% had a physical injury.

In the economic cost of DV to society, what they did was take a very small sample size and then multiplied those costs by the much used statistic of 1 in 4.

Thus an error get multiplied by a huge factor, and the figure quoted of billions of dollars looks impressive. Basically it is a snow job.

As country gal demonstrated there are a lot of women who feel or believe that they are better people than men, so have a hard time accepting that perhaps they could be wrong.(occasionally)

I think around 30% of mothers are actually what is known as maternal gate keepers and some really do get their noses out of joint.

Nobody wins, with the arguement who is more worse off, than the other.

A poster wrote that whoever gets the kids gets the bulk of the assets.

That's simply not true.

It is largely dependent on the individual circumstances of the couple. What they are now earning. What their future earning potential is. What their ability is to provide for themselves and their children. What costs will arise due to the individual circumstances and needs of the children, wife, and husband.

AT the end of the day, if the marital wealth is largely insignificant, the settlement difference is usually nsignificant as well.

The more significant the marital wealth, the more likely the chances of the split being 50/50, regardless of who the childen reside with. And I'm talking about high-income earners here. Not Greg and Laura Norman type wealth.

'I have since learned from a local Women’s Support Group that this phenomenon – of violent men taking out DVOs against the very wives they have abused – is increasing at an alarming rate.'

Mlk

This type of strategy is common because of the subversive mens' 'support' groups that have flourished in recent years. They coach the members on these strategies.

Country Gal, re your proposal from Wednesday, 22 August 2007 1:25:27 PM. On the surface it makes good sense. Like most proposals in this area there would be some practical issues to overcome (repayments depending on the proportion owned vs borrowed, cost of maintenance, ability to borrow against part of the value of the property so the other party to finance the purchase of another home etc) but those kind of issues should be able to be worked out without extreme difficulty.

Liz, when I was involved with a mens group the message was very clear only use a DVO/AVO if the other party has been violent. It was generally believed that womens groups were coaching women to use them as a tool to gain control of the kids and property. I've no doubt that some men are misusing them, others will be using them as a counter to malicious claims made against them just as some women will be doing both those actions.

In the mean time those who have genuinely been victims of abuse are believed less because of the abuse of a system put in place to try and help.

R0bert

Liz
Why don’t you invite one of these “subversive mens' support' groups” to one of your “Women’s Support Group” meetings, and have a combined meeting.

I have only heard of a few men’s groups, but they are all open to women.

In fact the Men’s Rights Agency is run by a woman. The Lone Father’s Association has 30% female membership and 50% of the executive is female. I think there is the Dad in Distress organisation that has also formed the Mums in Distress group. And there is the Fatherhood Foundation that is run by a pastor and his wife.

So I don’t think they are “male patriarchy” or a danger to “women and their children”, or maybe its “women and their property”.