Pynchme: “I note the blatant devaluing of caring for children as worthwhile activity and of mothers/parents who prioritize that. Yet many men such as some posters here have the audacity to blame their woes on feminists and to puzzle over why so many women want to dump their sorry asses and stay as far away from them as possible.”

I take it that “sorry asses” does not refer to contrite parts of their anatomy, but rather to a useless whole. Nice. Above that, you did acknowledge useful men such as CJ and Flood, so I guess it’s OK. Gives an impression of balance.

Men do get involved in caring for their children, and I’m sure more would do so if allowed to. Remember that we live in society in which they could be harassed for taking pictures of their own children in public places. Don’t also forget that at least as many women as men prefer to segregate duties and to specialise in certain areas in the business of running their family. This includes a whole range of female behaviours from lady of leisure or maternal gatekeeper, all the way to senior partner. Usual distributions of sad and useful asses here too. Some get dumped. No gender has a monopoly on this despite the feminist inspired myths.

Had a look at your CS calculator link, and noticed that the latest round of reforms implemented by Howard government have changed the current situation that slightly dates my comments above in my last post. Ran the calculator for 2005 and 2006 and in my situation (standard formula, mother provides full care for 1 child and father for 2 children), came up with significant differences for those years than was actually the case. My CSA total for the 2 years was 35300, while the calculator estimates 24500. Big difference.

continued ...

I expected the calculator to use the earlier formula and calculate something very close to the actual that was paid for those 2 years. To some extent it did use a different formula, because the calculated amounts were different for each year (as well as for 2008), but it was still very wrong for those prior years. Typical incompetence I guess.

Rhetorical as it may seem, my question is this: If we are equal parents under the law, and mother is healthy and capable, children healthy and have no special needs, how can a standard formula produce outcomes that do not require the mother to do her fair share of parenting. Doesn’t even expect one third. Would this indicate I was right to dump her sorry ass or that the state is justified in systematically punishing children and their fathers in order to validate her ass? Where does a feminist stand?

Professional women have to decide whether to change their name to their husband's surname on marriage because their license to practice is in the name they qualified with. It's very difficult to change your bank account, drivers license, passport, professional registration upon marriage or divorce. In some fields where reputation is everything women simply can't change their name upon marriage without losing the goodwill they have built up.

Women still suffer from discrimination in Australia with 24 year old female graduates earning 25% lower wages than 24 year old men. Women still pay the same university fees for the same qualification - probably with higher marks than their male counter parts.
Australian women still don't have control over their reproductive life with access to RU486 being limited and sectors of the community trying to raise barriers to abortion.

Many Australian professional women are still denied jobs because they are trying to do a "man's job".

And when the marriage goes bust its usually the women left rearing the children.

Pynchme:"People who have their spouse and kiddies with them would generally pay higher rent than a single living alone, who can do fine with smaller accommodation"

It's interesting that you assume a father would only require single-persnon's accommodation. I guess the kids can sleep on the floor when they are with him...

Pynchme:"Each parent pays for their own rent. "

No, the custodial parent, especially if she chooses not to work, has an entitlement to rent subsidy, while the NCP does not. In addition, the NCP has to pay for premises that will be fully utilised only occasionally, thus incurring more expense than he would otherwise have. As I showed earlier, a CP can have a much higher net income than a NCP, yet a much lower gross, thanks to CS and tax-exempted benefits.

Pynchme:"it could just as well be thought that it was a way to harrass your ex and to reduce your financial burden."

You really don't think much of women, do you? No doubt you find it difficult to conceive of a woman being capable of actually initiating anything at all, but that's still what happened. All I did was respond, in every case. Some women are actually quite competent, you know, despite your constant efforts to belittle them.

Pynchme:"Did you fight just as hard to care for and spend time with your children while you were still married to their mother?"

Why on Earth would I have had to fight to do that? You have a very peculiar view of what constitutes a normal relationship.

Pynchme:"blatant devaluing of caring for children as worthwhile activity "

Me (on 24/01/09):"It's assuredly necessary work"

The value of the task is not at issue, it's the performance standard that's in question.

billie:"Women still suffer from discrimination in Australia with 24 year old female graduates earning 25% lower wages than 24 year old men."

mycareer.com doesn't make any mention of that. http://content.mycareer.com.au/salary-centre/graduate/.
What is your source?

billie:"when the marriage goes bust its usually the women left rearing the children"

You failed to mention that in most cases that's because they want it that way and will fight tooth and nail to protect their right to do so. To then turn around and complain because they've succeeded in what they set out to do is the height of hypocrisy. for too long women have been given carte blanche to behave abominably toward the fathers of their children, safe in the knowledge that their custody of the children translates directly to personal immunity from any punitive measures should he seek redress. It also translates into access to a massive support network, much of which is staffed by bigoted feminist ideologues.

Meanwhile, the father is left bereft, fending for himself against a frequently multi-pronged legal and administrative asault, often State-funded. He has the choice of going broke over legal fees with an uncertain outcome or simply acquiescing to whatever is demanded. Unsurprisingly, most comply.

Antiseptic - the Mycareer statistics would be more meaningful if they quoted the median wage for each sector and quoted teacher and nursing salaries as these occupations require university qualifications.
I was referring to the ACER survey published last week http://www.acer.edu.au/1/?/news-item-short/lsay55

When marriages fail women generally end up with the children. Men who don't see it coming may be good at angst but that doesn't make them reliable caring parents per se. Frankly some of the emoting divorced men on this forum convince me that they are too psychologically damaged to be allowed near their own children without supervision.