Billie: “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”

With family laws (domestic violence, family and child support) in this country privileging women you can be as arrogant and callous towards fathers, who have been unjustly separated from their children, as you like. Yes, in this country we have “easy unilateral separation/divorce” thanks largely to the Labor Government starting with Whitlam. Children are only an issue after the fact and that is pre-determined in the vast majority cases.

If you want to understand what I am talking about I suggest you read “Kangaroo Court” Family Law in Australia, by John Hirst, Quarterly Essay Issue 17, 2005.

Antiseptic: Just to jog your memory, here is your full remark re: raising children: "It's assuredly necessary work, but I don't think that the productivity of those women who choose it as a career is up to much."

It's not just that though, but in combination with stupidities about women getting off their butts to work and James' inanity that adequate income for a woman would be ascertained by how often she could buy new shoes, and so on... It's clear that you blokes have no idea what's involved in raising children and that you have only one narrow frame of reference for women - that you're incapable or stubbornly determined not to see all the different types of women that there are or how much women contribute.

Just to bring you back from the Lala-land of he-victims; any citizen is entitled to rental assistance; depending on income. If you need assistance, try talking to a customer service officer to see what the eligibility requirements in your situation would be. The DOH also takes into account size of residence for visiting children. Again, nobody pays two rents and so on as you claim.

As to fighting for time with your children. Let's then use the term, "interest" or even "want". When you were married to their mother, were you as comparably determined to spend time with your children as you have been since divorce. It's also interesting that none of you dare think about why women seek divorce - like you all are such princes that another person should be honoured to devote their lives to your needs (and get told they're a worthless parasite for their trouble).

As to the younger men. Most in my acquaintance really like the women with whom they work and spend other time regardless of whether they're in an intimate relationship or not. I think they have a chance of choosing their life partners for compatibility on many levels and therefore their relationships have a much better chance of succeeding.

Seeker: I'm not sure what you're asking.

If you're talking about your personal situation (did you say that you care full-time for two and she for one child?) then you'd have to explain how your child support payments were determined and what method you chose - like did you go through the CSA or make some private arrangement? Even so I am not conversant with or very interested in CSA matters. As I said, as the main earner, I have always regarded it as my responsibility and pleasure to pay whatever is needed towards support of my children and their father. He works part time when he wants to. I couldn't tell you what he earns or does with it. It doesn't matter. He has been a stirling parent of our children and a great homemaker. I have only succeeded in my earning capacity because he has relieved me of having to worry about childcare and household matters.

Anyone who devalues the importance of and amount of labour involved in raising children and homemaking is a "sorry ass". It just so happens that on this thread, it's been male posters who have been doing that. I think that reflects pretty much how such work is seen and regarded by many men. The notable exceptions would be men who have actually worked as primary care givers (like the father of my children once they reached a certain age; widowers; some divorced fellows).

For many having partial visitation, it's more a matter of dropping the kids off with their mother or getting the girlfriend to babysit. As such, I'm not surprised that their partners dumped their sorry asses. It seems to me that they blame feminism for making it possible for women to leave an untenable or even perhaps an unsafe situation (to the extent that they can); instead of questioning why the women would want to leave at all. Some no doubt leave for frivolous reasons but even then the children still need some measure of financial security. I don't see why providing that is a source of perceived victimization.

pynchme,

You make a lot of assumptions...

'I think that reflects pretty much how such work is seen and regarded by many men. '

'another person should be honoured to devote their lives to your needs'

'For many having partial visitation, it's more a matter of dropping the kids off with their mother or getting the girlfriend to babysit.'

'it could just as well be thought that it was a way to harrass your ex and to reduce your financial burden.' (That was pretty hurtful I think)

There's some pretty unbalanced and unfair generalisations about men there. You rightly point out the bias in anti's opinion of women, but your opinion of men seems pretty much on a par with him. Sure you throw out the odd disclaimer which anti doesn't (normally for younger men only, or the 'millenium men' that are the exception to the rule) but I think your comments generally reflect a very low opinion of men.

You say '...statistics that tell us that the majority of men are good fellas; I would lose faith', but from a lot of the assumptions and generalisations of men you use I think your view of men is really skewed nearly as much as antis. That's probably why you both argue so much.

With regards to the 'blatant devaluing of caring for children as worthwhile activity and of mothers/parents who prioritize that.'

As I said, I agree with you on that.

But in your posts, and in quite a few divorced women I have spoken too, I see a blatant devaluing of providing financially for the family as worthwhile activity and of fathers who prioritize that.

'Did you fight just as hard to care for and spend time with your children while you were still married '

This is a convenient position of a lot of women. 'Now we are split up you suddenly want to see the children?'. Never mind that the reason the ex doesn't have the relationship with the kids you do is because he was earning the family money. This is most often a joint decision in family roles made by the couple from the beginning.

But somehow after the split, when the man is extradited from the family, it is somehow wrong for him to want to hold on to some semblance of his family that is still intact, and to want to make it flourish. To try and have some good come out of the trauma of his relationship breakdown by wanting to spend time with the part of the family that still love him. But no, he's just being selfish now if he isn't still happy to play provider without being able to enjoy the resulting benefits for the family unit that has now ruptured.

It's dripping in the same callousness from antiseptic that offends you so.

BOTH roles in the family are equally important. Just because a man is absent to earn the family money doesn't mean he loves the kids any less than the mother. It could even be said he loves them more because his role doesn't have the emotional payoff of getting direct feedback of love in return for his efforts.

Houellebecq,

Well said.