romany,
"sounds almost as though you've opted for nihilism?"

Nah. That's just how it sounds.

"... self-identity and the identity of one's self as defined by others are always two distinct beings, I find that cannibalism can be avoided."

l think they're prolly exactly same thing, tho one might be chicken, the other one egg. Either way they're the same intra-dependent thing. What lm alluding to here, is the identity part, which lm starting to see as false, illusory. Its not so much about nihilistic cannabilsm for me, more a case of self-immolation, in the spirit of Ishmael lives after fighting off the big white whale of ahabs inner-demeons.

seeker,
"Can we take it then, that Trade is no quantum physicist."

l can speak for we, but in may case.. Yes. Er, and huh?

"Many women aren’t either, and never will be, regardless of how much affirmative action is legislated."

Again, huh?

http://www.lowersupport.com/

The high death rate amongst separated men is strongly associated with their mistreatment at the hands of government agencies, including the Child Support Agency (CSA), the Family Court, Legal Aid, Centrelink and their supporting bureaucracies. These agencies systematically strip fathers not just of their beloved children but of their assets and their incomes, with devastating affects on their physical and mental health. What makes this so offensive is that the bureaucrats and judges enforcing this antiquated system perpetuate the myth that they are acting "in the best interests of children".

http://www.dadsontheair.net/About/ChildSupportAgencyDeathTollCounter/tabid/57/Default.aspx

<”CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION ISSUES - STRATEGIES
WHAT CONSTITUTES EMANCIPATION TO RELEASE A PARENT FROM A CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION
STRATEGIES FOR MINIMIZING SUPPORT OBLIGATION
Planning Considerations
SOME REASONS FOR MODIFICATION (FROM PAYER'S POINT OF VIEW
CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION WHEN THERE IS AN EXISTING ORDER IN FORCE…. “>

http://www.ancpr.org/handbook.htm

http://www.ancpr.org/

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3198

“…my view is that a woman who chooses to get pregnant and to remain pregnant should, at the very least, be required to obtain a signed document from the prospective father testifying as to whether or not he is willing to be legally identified as the father of the child should a birth take place. If not, then I would argue that the 'father' has no legal liability for any birth…. “

http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm

a) The Child Support Agency does not work to the benefit of the children or to either parent of separated families. The liable parent currently pays child support on the basis of 18%, 27%, 32%, 34% and 36% of gross income (depending upon the number of children).

b) As a result, the liable parent often leaves the workforce or takes employment that is below the income taxation threshold. Currently 43.2 per cent (311,953 no.) of liable parents are effectively unemployed. (Child Support Agency’s Child Support Scheme Facts and Figures 2005-2006). The parent who is most often in need of child support is not receiving it.

http://www.ncpp.xisle.info/family.htm

Pynchme:"The parent who is most often in need of child support is not receiving it."

I suggest such parents should grow up and get a job. Only children should be entitled to child support.

SJF,

I understand exactly what you mean and many times I've thought - these people really don't want any information. They are too happy nursing their hate. I haven't seen any changes - not the least recognition of new information; just same old lies repeated and repeated.

It's a real drag to constantly feed information that seems wasted; but then I think well maybe I need to do this (time permitting - and I don't have much holiday time left btw) for others who might read what they say and believe it if there is no corresponding information to check.

James: I seriously doubt that either you or Neil Liar ever supported feminism. If either of you did; you'd know more about it and that would be reflected in your posts.

Houellebecq: I don't suppose the arrogance of any of the male posters ever bothered you. In any case, doesn't matter. I think you're arrogant; therefore we are even.

SJF - I like your suggestion as a general social convention but it would be good to also maintain lots of choice. There are cases where one name is preferable to the other just because it's a nicer name. I don't like blended names much; hyphenated is useful up to a point. I like some sort of tradition handed down from one generation to the next so that people have a sense of belonging. Your idea is a good one.

I did laugh at the hyphenation someone just did - Sydney-Funnel-Web-Spider-Bites-Finger. It was good to get a laugh off this thread :)

Pynchme,

Arrogance: An attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.

Pynchme: 'I take it you’ve never heard of the terms incidence and prevalence, or that you don’t understand them'. 'one of your dumb sites', 'I suggest that many of the men here either grow up, or starting dating each other' 'I don't know if you can grasp what a comment like that means' 'Of your most recent link (again, menz sources)'

SJF: 'all they really want to do is argue' 'POOR FELLAS, POOR MENZ ten-hanky weepie!' 'quite happy to stand accused of being just like all those howwibly howwible womenz'

See, as my point was, you both are upset about the generalisation and critisisms of feminists, but retort with generalisations of the male posters and all 'menzzz' sites'. What I see is posters blindly attacking feminism, and feminists blindly attacking posters. I'd rather see posters critiquing feminism, and feminists critiquing those arguments.

BTW: I didn't say you were arrogant, I said I saw some arrogance in your posts. Please accept the invitation (as I'm sure you will) to highlight the arrogance in my posts.

Pynchme:"http://www.lowersupport.com/"

Never heard of that site. I quote:" A FATHER HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW HIS CHILD SUPPORT IS BEING SPENT ON HIS CHILDREN AND SHOULD PAY THE MINIMUM LEGALLY POSSIBLE TO THE EX-WIFE AND SPEND THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE DIRECTLY ON THE CHILDREN."

Can't see anything there promoting paying no child support.

Pynchme:"http://www.dadsontheair.net/About/ChildSupportAgencyDeathTollCounter/tabid/57/Default.aspx"

This one highlights the number of male clients of the CSA who have taken their own lives and correlates that with the CSA's approach to collection. Nothing at all about not paying Child Support.

Pynchme:"http://www.ancpr.org/handbook.htm

http://www.ancpr.org/

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3198"

All US sites. Af you'd like to bring the US example in, perhaps you'd appreciate me lnking to the hundreds, possibly thousands, of sites published by "feminists" vilifying fathers and providing hints and tips for maximising the "take" from them?

Pynchme:"http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm"

Some sensible questions and not a single suggestion about not paying CS.

If that's the best you can do, I thank you for taking the time to make my point above so explicit: there is NO effort by Fathers' rights groups or their websites to encourage the non-payment of Child Support. In addition, if there were, they must be spactacularly useless efforts, since less than 2% of Child support remains uncollected in any given year. I'd be interested to know if the uncollected tax in any year is higher or lower than this rate, because I suspect it is of the same order.

In other words, Pynchme, it seems that 98% of men are prepared to pay through the nose to support the mother of their children, regard;ess of whether she can be bothered to get off her burgeoning arse to do so herself. You might like to have a bit more of a read of those father's rights sites you referenced and find out a bit more about what mainstream men think about your idology.

It might help you to get over your contempt for women and your overwhelming sense that men are the only gender capable of taking on responsibility.