If 80% reached settlement through mediation before, compared to 50-60% now, the question is what proportion used mediation before?

Having negotiated short term and long term contracts previously, there is a huge difference in methods used. In a break up with no children, or alimony, this is a once off division of assets where an ADR is unlikely to produce results unless both parties are committed.

However, where there are long term committments, an adverserial court room battle is unlikely to achieve final and lasting results accepted by both parties, and to the financial ruin of both those parties.

So in the case of once off settlements I agree with the author, but not otherwise.

I am astounded by John Zeleznikow's assertion that Courts "... deal with other goals in the civil justice system, such as truth, correctness, openness, transparency and accountability". Since when were Courts concerned with truth?. It is usually the first casualty of any proceedings and is definitely not sought by those engaged in proceedings. Correctness is the silly procedures that lawyers have created among themselves to try to mystify proceedings and prevent others accessing the system for themselves. Transparency - well tell that one to any Family Court Judge and wait for him to fall off his chair - no one knows what goes on behind the doors of secretive Family Courts and no one is allowed to tell - Justice is not being seen to be done - but then Courts are not concerned with Justice, only who wins and who loses - thats how the lawyers make their money. And accountability? - when was the last witness brought before a Court for perjury yet false and misleading evidence is apparent all the time, particularly from so-called `Expert' witnesses.

Chaz my impressions of the legal system when it comes to family law is similar to what you have said.

I don't think that there are easy answers, part of the problem is the winner takes all aspects of child residency. For some it's get the kids and the property goes with it, for others it's loose the kids and loose everything. People who might not otherwise want a legal battle find that the stakes are to high to ignore.

I've not had dealings with those doing the mediation but was forced into dealing with Relationships Australia some years ago and did not find them at all helpful. They made little or no attempt to hide gender bias. Being employed I had to be absent from work far to regularly to attend various sessions with RA at a time when I was not performing at my best anyway due to the emotional pain of the rest of the process. Thanbkfully I had a tolerant management.

I had not abused or neglected my child, I'd always had an active role in his life and I was forced into a long and expensive process to defend continuing to have a meaningful role in his life which was destructive to all involved. It seems strange when I read about a reluctance to remove children from genuinely abusive situations that the family law system leaves so much scope for removing kids from responsible and caring parents.

I've often wondered how much harm is done to children by the association of children with assets in the property settlement, C$A and other benefits post seperation. There must be a better way.

R0bert

RObert - you seem to be one of that very rare breed - fathers who really care for their kids. Sadly there are others who masquerade as such but whose real motivations are as you say more to do with finance and property or to continue their domineering ways, and who form groups such as Father4Tyranny and Fathers4Domination.
Any system is only as good as the competence and attitudes of those charged with operating the system and unfortunately those who run the legal and mediation system are woefully lacking in both. Lawyers charging huge fees for what is at best a mediocre service and mediators and Family Reporters who are allowed to rely entirely on personal biases and prejudices. Objectivity and impartiality are not evident in much of what they do. When the system itself is founded on flawed legislation i.e. the Family Law Act, then it is bound to be a recipe for many disasters which are of course occurring with frighteningly and ever increasing frequency.
But the worst aspect of all of this is that children's rights under international laws are constantly flouted and violated by the law and by those implementing the law, particularly their right to be heard in decisions affecting their lives and to be protected from abuse and exploitation - it amazes me that Rudd has the impertinence to criticise other countries for human rights abuses when such abuses are occurring daily in Australian Courts. Adultism Rules!. and father's rights are paramount above all other considerations.

In a system that we used to have, and lost in 1976, with the Family Law Act 1975, there was a provision in New South Wales for compulsory jury trials, in the Supreme Court if requested. There is no provision in the Family Law Act 1975 for jury trials, so there can be no judicial proceedings. This should have been ended with the mandate given to Big Mal, but in reality, the grant to lawyers of judicial power is Liberal Policy, accepted by the Labor Party at that time when led by a barrister, and approved by Lionel Murphy.

It has been the greatest boon to lawyers fortunes since they got back into Parliament. This article talks about mediation working sixty percent of the time. When jury trials were compulsory, as they were in 1900, ninety five percent settled out of court. That means by mediation. With a Judge, everyone is a liar, and no one really tells the truth in the Family Court. They do not tell the truth in the Federal Magistrates Court either, because there is no reason to do so. There is no way that a person can lie to 12 people and get away with it. A bare faced liar with a law degree and accreditation as a Family Lawyer can lie all day long and the Judge will not stop him.

Affidavits are the tools of liars. When both sides use affidavits, the lies are extreme. Costs are enormous, but if a person must face the Lord, in a court, ( note the lack of a capital letter) in the form of a Justice, with twelve disciples drawn from your local community sitting together as Jesus Christ, in accordance with Matthew 18 verse 20 of the Holy Bible, and repeat the lie orally, the lie shrivels and dies.

The Holy Spirit knows when a person is telling the truth, and when a jury is present, there is an act of Holy Worship going on. The Labor Party knew there was a problem. Between 1993 and 1996 they legislated to fix it: but were blocked

PTB
Facing the Lord in a Court will make no difference to the truth. Forget the fact that you are proposing a fictional character (from an atheist point of view) as a paragon of truth, there will always be those who lie or distort the truth for personal gain with or without the fear of a God entity.

Facing the Lord within the Church system did not deter the paedophiles nor those that would extort their parishioners, how will inclusion of the Lord in the justice system be any different?

It all still comes down to personal self respect or one's personal honour code no matter how that code is derived (through religious belief or otherwise).

You be the judge. Capital letters are important in the comprehension of the English language. Read S 79 Constitution and it says: The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. Federal jurisdiction means the Federal judicial power must be being exercised. A court must exercise a judicial function: To do so it must have judges, or it is non compliant with s 79 Constitution. No matter how you shake and dance, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear, or get a Judge out of judges.

On the 7th July 2009, the High Court in Pape, stated that S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) is an Act that binds.

The principles governing whether s 15A of the Acts Interpretation Act is to be applied to read down a statutory provision that in some operations would be beyond legislative power are not controversial. They are conveniently described in the joint reasons of five Justices in the Industrial Relations Act Case.

If this is so, then the Family Law Act 1975 must be read down, to exclude the appointment of Judges and the creation of Courts. This den of thieves and liars has been rampaging illegally through the lives and families of the members of the Commonwealth, for far too long. On top of that we have the Child Support Agency. This is used by unscrupulous women, who have entered Binding Financial Agreements with their former husbands, but still want revenge. It has nothing to do with justice, just revenge. Simply because a former husband has started to make money after losing his former wife, the former wife wants to keep her binding agreement and the benefits, but get the Child Support Agency to hound her former husband for more.

The Labor Party in 1986 enacted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Between 1993 and 1995 it amended the Trade Practices Act 1974 to ban the exclusion of ordinary people from the administration of justice. By Covering Clause 5 that applies to all courts: no exceptions.

Many sheeple discussing family law forget that many others in the debate are radical extremists of the worst kind, primarily involved in grooming children for abuse. Mediation in so called confidence simply means that those not even attempting to negotiate in good faith are never seen to have misbehaved at the trial stage.

Chaz I've not seen any reason to think I'm that rare. I was involved with one of the mens groups for some time after seperation, frankly there was no one else I was aware of to turn to for help. The men I met there were for the most part heart broken at a system which valued their capacity to earn far beyond the value it placed on active involvement in their childrens lives. They were tired of being portrayed as abusers, as only being interested in money while their ex's who had grabbed most of the family assets as well as an ongoing stream of income were portrayed as being above all that and only interested in the childrens welfare.

I've never seen reason to believe that either gender is intrinsically more noble or honest that the other. Individuals of both genders are capable of great good and great evil (leaving aside the third gender discussion). Parents of both genders are capable of placing their children above their own needs and parents of both genders are capable of using their children for their own ends.

The system with it's winner takes all and it's adverserial nature makes it almost essential for people to take the financial implications into account when residency decisions are being made. That's unfortunate but it's reality.

We are drifting off topic but the points being discussed relate to some of the reasons for so much conflict in family law and part of the reason it all gets so difficult.

I'd like you to consider how offensive "and who form groups such as Father4Tyranny and Fathers4Domination" is to fathers who have found fathers groups the only support they get when dealing with a system which was far more interested in their wallet than their relationship with their children. Both fathers groups and mothers groups have some who are using the system to strike out at the other side but also those who need the support and advice in an area which can be crippling.

R0bert

Robert I find it offensive that the legislation and its implementation by Courts is concerned only with parental rights, particularly what are seen as `Father’s Rights’ and gives little regard to children’s needs and wishes and rights. Children are treated by this law merely as possessions to be divided up along with the other goods and chattels of the parents. The very title of the Act, the Family Law (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act indicates it is not primarily concerned about children despite its clever wording, or the bracketed element would state (Children’s Needs, Wishes, and Rights).
In practice the father’s rights now have paramouncy and precedency over all other considerations – see recent cases where children and their mothers have been ordered back to live in the Queensland Outback and the Northern Territory merely because the fathers happened to be working in those locations. If the fathers move around Australia will the children and their mothers have to move again with them, solely to give the fathers their contact rights?. If the mothers had been MPs based in Canberra and with constituencies in Sydney and Perth, would they have been ordered by the Courts to go to live in North Queensland and Northern Territories and would thereby have been unable to carry out their Parliamentary and constituency duties.?.
The present legislation is primarily concerned with father’s rights to contact regardless of whether the father is dangerously violent and abusive, as has been seen where children have been seriously abused and even killed. Father’s rights groups are now obstructing any changes as they want this tyranny and dominance in law to continue to be in their favour. It is not equality nor justice that they seek.
The Family Law Act as currently written, per se’, is in breach of the international convention on children’s rights and in its implementation is frequently in violation of those rights. Yet the present government have the nerve to protest about human rights abuses in other countries!.
Adultism - which is one of the most common and severe forms of discrimination in our society.

Chaz you are so tied up in the mothers rights intepretation of what's happening that you are completely ignoring a big part of the picture. When I was with the mens group I knew at least one father who would have to drive 1500km to see his children because the mother had moved away and taken the children with her. Sometimes the mother would not show to the agreed contact point and be uncontactable so the father did a 3000km round trip for nothing. Not an abuser or a violent man just someone with an ex who enjoyed the power and domination that came with "owning" the children. Another who moved after an ex moved interstate with the children only to have to return because CSA continued to assess him on a capital city capacity to earn not the earning ability that went with a sea change. I saw numerous horror stories in a similar vein where men who loved their children were being torn to pieces under the pretense of childrens best interest which was really about mothers wants and interests.

Both sides have problems, I really don't know a good answer for those who have been living in remote areas where there are genuine practical difficulties for all to remain in the area. It's a very messy area but an overly genderised approach does not help. Your attacks on the mens movement are offensive and unjustified.

Have a look at the stats on who perpetrates substantiated abuse and neglect of children, single parent female lead households are significantly overrepresented for the number of children in those households (although the last time I saw the rate for single parent male lead households we only fared slightly better when the number of children in that type of household was considered).

It's not about men being abusers only interested in money and women being saints only interested in their children welfare. It's about human beings sometimes getting it right and other times getting it wrong when dealing with difficult situations.

R0bert

Robert My major concern is regarding the breaches and violations of children’s rights which are apparent in the contents of the Family Law legislation and the practices of the Courts. The `Gender Wars’ issues are of secondary and minor concern.

If the examples you have cited of men’s suffering in these matters are correct, I’m afraid can offer very little sympathy for a father who is mildly inconvenienced by driving 3000 km because of failures of mothers to implement Court decisions, or another who sought to avoid his financial responsibilities for his children, when placed against the abuses and even deaths suffered by children as a consequence of Court decisions based on the father’s rights to contact and a right to `a `meaningful relationship’ with his children. There really is no comparison.

I do study child abuse statistics in great detail and what you have quoted is a gross misrepresentation of fact.

Neglect of children was always a separate category in such statistics for many decades as there are serious questions to be raised regarding whether child `neglect’ can be categorised as abuse as in the vast majority of such cases, neglect is not a deliberate or intended act by the parent and is thereby unlike other forms of abuse, but is a direct consequence of inadequacy or mismanagement of income, largely brought about by the diversion of family income into alcohol, drugs, and gambling, or the failures of a non-resident parent to meet their financial responsibilities for their children post-separation. I’m sure I don’t have to state which of the genders was mainly responsible for such diversions or failures but mothers are usually blamed for this form of `abuse’ as the primary care-giver when the causes are the father’s failure to provide adequately.

However in the 1990s the child protection authorities realised by including neglect as a category of abuse, then this would inflate child abuse figures leading to a political panic and would thereby attract increased resources for those agencies. The debate regarding whether neglect constitutes abuse is still a matter of considerable dispute within the relevant professions.

Poor chazP, does not understand that this issue has never been about the rights of fathers, but the right of children to have a healthy relationship with their father.

If you wish to groom a child for abuse then by all means take it away from it's biological father. This sad fact has been well known for decades, well documented, scientifically proven.

Formerswag - References please for the scientifically conducted research to support your contention that "If you wish to groom a child for abuse then by all means take it away from it's biological father. This sad fact has been well known for decades, well documented, scientifically proven".
And if, as you claim, it is "the right of children to have a healthy relationship with their father", perhaps you would state whether that should apply where the father is a danger to the wellbeing of the child or a toxic influence on the child, as has occurred with considerable frequency after recent Family Court decisions and has led to serious abuses and deaths of children at the hands of their `biological' fathers?. Should a child also have to go and live at the other end of Australia or even overseas if the father chooses to move his abode as Courts have recently decided in order to facilitate the `biological' father's contact with the child, thereby uprooting the child from their friends, close family, school, leisure and recreational interests etc.?. And what if a child does not want a `meaningful relationship' with a biological father?. What then?. Should the child's right to decide be disregarded?.

Formernag - P.S. You state that it is the right of a child to have a healthy relationship with their father. Can you tell me where that is written in the Family Law Act, or for that matter where any right of a child under international law is written in the Act?. Unless it is not so written, then it is not enforceable nor can redress be obtained if such a right is violated.
I can see lots of rights of parents in the Act - the right to have residency of a child, the right to have a `meaningful relationship' with a child. the right to have contact with a child. etc. etc.
And a parent can choose whether or not s/he has residency, contact or a meaningful relationshp with the child whilst a child does not have any of those choices but has to do so if a Court so orders. In effect children are treated merely as possessions to be divided up along with the other joint possessions according to the rights and demands of the parents and which of them can afford the cleverest lawyer to argue their case.
Or are you merely making the assumption that a child's rights are synonymous with the parents' rights?. If so, then that is a hugely false premise.

Poor dear chazP, you attack me for not quoting any specific statistical surveys into child abuse, etc, then go on making blanket assertions about men without providing any evidence yourself. Yes there are some dysfunctional men out there who have abused some children, but they are outnumbered by dysfunctional women abusing children.

Radical Extremist Feminazis have been forcing our children to be the collateral damage in the "gender wars" for decades now. Everybody knows this. I have met many "adult children" or "survivors of child abuse" during my life and the end results are always the same, regardless of the type of abuse or its severity.

As you should be aware the rights of the child are laid out in the UN charter and family law has attempted unsuccessfully to follow this. The rights of deadbeat single mothers to neglect and abuse their children should not be trumping those of children, or fathers.

Feminism has been hijacked by socialists, lesbians and communists for the express purpose of destroying the family and therefore capitalism. Prominent feminists have freely admitted this publicly many times. It is about spreading hatred and mistrust between men and women through "paedophiles under the beds" rumours.

Sadly feminism has abused far more women and girls than were ever abused by men. They often assert that God is in fact female and i believe them. Who else but a woman would so comprehensively abuse other women, girls, then say, with a straight face, "He did it"?

Formersag – I did not attack you in any way – I simply asked some questions of you to justify your assertions and contentions and to provide the `science’ which you arrogantly claimed supported your viewpoints. Nor did I make any “blanket assertions about men”. In the light of your complete failure to provide any such evidence or `science’ it may be reasonably concluded therefore that there is no such evidence and your earlier statements are merely the meanderings of an unstable mind.

Nor did you attempt to answer my questions regarding the discrimination in the Family Law against children and the violations of their rights, except to assert that, “the Family Law has attempted to unsuccessfully follow this”. It may be reasonably concluded therefore that you are, albeit begrudgingly, accepting my contentions in this regard..

Nor did I make any arguments representing a feminist viewpoint which would warrant the ferocity of your response attacking those who may have such a viewpoint, so I shall make no attempt to respond to your rabid rantings regarding their feministic views and influences. Again you are merely trying to drag this discussion into the Gender Wars debate.

I am fully versed in the contents of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and my standpoint is and always has been, that such rights are being violated and denied by the Family Law Act and by the Family Courts and therefore Australia is committing serious abuses of the human rights of children as long as such a law continues to be in operation, whilst hypocritically accusing other countries of human rights abuses. Attempts are usually made by the Family Courts to mask such abuses of children’s rights by claiming it is “in the best interests of the child”. Of course the child has had no say whatsoever in such decisions regarding who they will be forced into residency with, or who will have contact with them, or who they will be forced to have a `meaningful relationship’ with - Classic Adultism.

Poor dear chazP, does the P stand for propaganda? Did you just repeat yourself as every one of your posting has been doing, regurgitating the same old stuff over and over and over again without quoting a single fact? Was it me who bought the gender wars into it or somebody else?

Dear Sad Formershag – I have said consistently that the evidence to support my arguments regarding the denials and violations of children’s rights are in the Family Law (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 and reports of the decisions of the Family Courts. Please take the trouble to read the Act and some of those reports and you will find that the Act is concerned solely with the rights of parents and nowhere (a sin of omission) does it mention any respective rights of children in matters of residency, contact, and choice of whether, or not, they wish to have a `meaningful relationship' with a parent. Accordingly the Family Courts give paramountcy and precedency to the rights of parents. Yet it is supposedly about children and their `Best interests’.

The rancour and bitterness in your rants against females would clearly indicate that you have suffered some unspeakable horror at the hands of a female at some time. Some females tend to be like that when they are dissatisfied, disappointed, or unfulfilled by a male’s performance. But this is something I tend to find very often in most of those advancing and advocating the cause of father’s `rights’ in a proctalgic manner. Please get over it and I can assure you that you will have a much happier life and please do try to see these difficulties from the children’s viewpoint. Good wishes.

Formersnag, Please do not spread this viral abusers rights plague using the word "father" as an excuse. These "mens rights" do not speak for me but only speaks for men who want to use it as an excuse to intimidate women and children into accepting something that you would never ask for. The Facts are that the "mens rights" groups are made up of nothing but a bunch of abusers who did not get their way, so they lied, cheated and intimidated government to obtain the shared parenting law - a scam for abusers to have all of the loopholes so that they can keep perpetrating in private. Everybody knows the stats that the FRs brought about were nothing but numbers found off a cornflakes packet. The cats out of the bag and no one is going to back off no matter how much verbal diarrhea you dispense.

Dear chazP & bobtwat, you have been taking the words right out of my mouth all along. I could never have said any of it better myself. You destroy the feminist movement every time you repeat the same stuff we have been hearing for 40 years now and all made up of stats that came out of the corn flake packet exactly as you said.

I can recommend "Co-dependent No More" by Melody Beatey to you both as a guide to understanding what went wrong in your relationships. That's the micro Co-dependence or mind games that you played with your ex's, Macro Co-dependence is feminism or the global mind games that womanhood has been playing with mankind. Try also reading the article "7 year ache" in the Sunday Mail, fascinating stuff.

As your asking about my welfare? 1 marriage + 2 de-factos, 2 cases i left, 1 case, i through here out. All 3 miss my cooking, foot rubs and being multi orgasmic. Its not about me but the abuse of my children by women, that i had to watch. I have attended men's groups that were about recovery and moving on, whereas my ex's have never done a days counselling and are still in denial, like yourselves.

Compulsory mediation is a wonderful strategy, which would be working perfectly in all cases before the family court if only, it was not done in confidence so that parents negotiating in bad faith could be exposed for it later at the trial stage.

PS, search my "formersnag" profile on RSVP Internet dating site, send me a kiss and an email with your mobile number and we could catch up for coffee one day.

Formersnag

Hilarious - I checked out your RSVP profile.

1. Why haven't you used a recent photo?

2. Why do you claim to have no children?

And you're 51 and are only interested in women 25 to 43? At 25 I was never interested in men old enough to be my father and now at 42, well my partner is 37. Why don't you want someone closer to your own age? You might find you have more in common and actually achieve a successful relationship.

http://www.rsvp.com.au/search/nameSearchAction.jsp?searchStr=formersnag

As for caring about children, you write nothing about that except at the very end where you claim to have written about "Abuse of Children & Adult-Children with Special Abilities" - hmmmmm doesn't fit with any of your previous self-description.

I am not saying I doubt that you have had an abusive partner, I do doubt that you have had three.

To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, "To be fail with one wife may be regarded as a misfortune, but to fail with 3 looks like incompetence."

Childless, self-obsessed, "years of counselling" Fractelle, telling others how to live their lives. Hilarious? Gut-busting...

chazp and cronies
Stats from the child protection agency in WA 2006-2007 from a sample of 2 million people show that child abuse and neglect is carried out by biological mothers at double the rate of biological fathers and if you include mums new BF at 3 triple the rate. These figures correlate directly with figures from the australian institute of criminology 2006-2007 which show that of 22 child homicides 11 were perpetrated by the biological mother and 11 by a male family member 5 of these by mums new BF. Of course feminasty propaganda spin doctors like yourself conveniently ignore solid evidentiary statistics like this and pick and choose what suits your own twisted agendas.Statistics from the NSW bureau of crime show between 1998 and 2007 the number of women charged with domestic violence almost tripled rising from approx 900 to 2336 suppose you will ignore this as well. Anyone who reads this should have a look at the facebook site "family law campaign, lets protect our children", They have an in memoriam on their site of children killed by their PARENTS every case is a child killed by its father, not one killed by its mother,yet a quick google will turn up many children killed by mothers. They express disbelief that a child could be left in the care of a father who killed him yet only recently a mother killed her own child after the court left the child in her care despite her having already tried once to kill the child and having known significant psychological problems. They state that 1 in 3 girls will be sexually abused by the age of 18 yet i have been unable to find ANY statistics that show sexual abuse at anything remotely approaching these rates. My 19 yo daughter has dozens of female friends and to the best of my knowledge not a single one has been sexually abused. A well known german leader from the 1930s-40s would be proud of you " ignore any evidence which conflicts with your own agendas and delete anyone who disagrees with you".

Gday eyeinthesky, the nearest stat i can give you is American and a little dated but includes all cases of assault both sexual and physical against women of all ages including so called under reporting. This was arrived at by checking all medical records from hospital emergency wards and GPs, then dividing into the female population base. Wait for it, not 2/3s as the women's groups claim but .01% or 1 in 1000.

Nobody wants to see any female being hurt,even if they deserve it, but the facts are always out of alignment whenever a feminist is speaking. Furthermore domestic violence and child abuse are getting worse as a direct result of giving them what they asked for years ago.

Fractelle etc, i changed my profile from having children, to having none as an experiment to see if it would increase my positive response rate to kisses and emails. Hey presto it did, seems women think a man with children is likely to be financially crippled by the CSA and they are looking for another wallet rather than a man. The female age thing is simply out of date as i haven't used RSVP for a while, i normally go for women between 4 & 20 years younger than myself as i would like to have more children 1 day and women age on average 10 years faster than men do.

Besides dears i am one of the nice guys who would prefer to believe that the male chauvinist pigs were not correct all along. There is an increasing number of men at the right wing end of the men's movement who think Baxter detention centre could be reopened as a rehabilitation resource for feminists who could be taught useful life skills like sewing, cooking, knitting, adequate parenting skills and how to pleasure men.

Formersnag

Thanks for the generosity of your response to my cheeky post. While I do disagree with the women ageing faster than men statement, I take on board all that you have said by way of explanation, maybe you have learned to apply some wisdom on selection of women friends.

On your last paragraph, have you been spying on A-septic? I am sure he'd love to see me incarcerated in a back to the 50's how-to-be-submissive re-education camp. Poor man, he appears to have made even worse choices in women than you.

Well, some of us can learn and I have even though it did take a long time, so don't expect an email from me as I believe you may have some more of life's lessons still to learn. One of which I will supply right now, women are human beings who just happened to be born female - men and women are much more alike than different.

BOBTWAT.
I think we will leave the dispensing of verbal diarrhea to you since you are so adept at it.If you have sufficient intelligence perhaps you will be able to look up the statistics i pointed out in my previous post, and NO you won't get them from Mr KELLOGG. [not blonde are you] ?. I am a member of several mens groups, i am NOT an abuser and i DID get my own way.
I fought to rescue my daughter from her abusing and neglecting mother for 3 years, the reason it took so long being the anti father bias in the system, something you would no doubt approve of as it protects abusing and neglecting mothers and forces children to live with them. When i got custody of my daughter she was underweight and in bad health, she was unable to do even basic tasks like wash herself, she was unable to do even basic maths not even her times tables, she was unable to read or write even basic words, she did the year 3 basic skills test, finished bottom in the school and was placed in a special class for SLOW children,she was 8 yo. This was the broken child i was given courtesy of her mother and the FLS. In the end her mother was given supervised access every second sunday [ bet that really breaks your heart].
After doing the year 7 basic skills test and being on the point of entering high school i received a letter that she was on a list for another special class, this time it was a class for GIFTED AND TALENTED children, she is currently doing an honours degree in psychology at university and consistently achieving distinctions and high distinctions for her work. This is what a FATHER can do for his child although i suppose YOU would have preferred that she stay with her abusive mother. I would venture to suggest that you will have a hard time convincing HER that she would have been better off with her mother.

eyeinthesky, thanks for telling some of your's and your daughters story. I've been wondering what drives Bobtwat and Chaz's badly misinformed views of mens groups.

Most of the men I dealt with were there because they wanted a chance to be fathers not just providers (as summarised by Chaz's intepretation of a father who relocated to try and be near his children as "sought to avoid his financial responsibilities for his children"). They were there because of disgust with a system which treated the mothers convenience and wants as vital but showed the most callous disregard for fathers needs and lives (considering 3000km round trip's where a father did not get to spend time with children as "mildly inconvenienced").

Those kind of attitudes were unfortunately not uncommon in the family law industry, C$A etc.

There are extremists, there are those who seek to use the system to avoid responsibility or for personal gain. They exist regardless as both mothers and fathers.

Some could learn from a borrowed and modified version of Fractelle's lesson "men are human beings who just happened to be born male - men and women are much more alike than different".

I've been trying to work out if there is an appropriate response to Bobtwat's words http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9151#146366 . I struggle to understand what has happened to someone to cause them to lash out like that. I doubt that anything you or I say will change that level of hate.

As one who was part of a mens group at a time when I really needed the support and who cares deeply for his child (and who has also seen a massive turn around in that childs life for the better) it's deeply hurtfull to read such hatfilled comments directed at all involved in men's groups. I hope one day Bobtwat opens his or her eye's enough to see just how wrong those words are and finds a way to take them back.

R0bert

funnily enough i can see to a certain extent where bobtwat is coming from. I have recently become engaged to a lovely gal, she endured 19 years of an abusive [ not violent] marriage, although they had their differences they were able to work things out as regards the best interests of the children. One daughter is currently doing her PHD, the other daughter has married a fantastic bloke and has just presented her with her first grandchild, her son who lives with her father by nmutual aggreement has a whole pile of 'high academic achievement ceretificates' all done with no family court lawyers getting fat. Its just a pity that parents can't just sit down together with no animosity and work out what is in the best interests of the children without any sexual connotations instead of having to wage war as i had to do.

gday eyeinthesky,robert & other gentlemen, the radical, lesbian, feminazi, paedophiles of whom you speak have several sad, sick sources, including severe mental illness, extreme left wing politics, sadest of all their propaganda has been around and taught in universities for 40 years now. Imagine being being one of the few females who was abused by a dysfunctional man then going to university and doing women's studies where an equally sick woman teaches you more of this bile then gives you a degree in social work.

These women are there, they are queer, they want your wives and daughters. They have infiltrated all key areas of our government, media and society. A couple of weeks ago the Sunday Mail ran an article about disturbing stats on a large increase in middle class mothers using cocaine at home, which the female journalist turned into a joke. If the survey had been about more fathers using drugs there would have been an almighty rant about deadbeat dads taking the food out of their children's mouths.

Formersnag we appear to have very different views on feminism. Whilst I've got a strong distaste for some intepretations of feminism (and the silence from others when I think they should speak up) I support the idea of equality of opportunity for both genders. I support the struggle against assumptions that women because of their gender are less able to manage their own lives or make adult decisions.

I think it's damaging to attack all of feminism, it's creates conflict where there may not otherwise be conflict.

R0bert

Formersnag: << These women are there, they are queer, they want your wives and daughters >>

OMG - Lock up your wives and daughters!

We men are under attack, not only from the insidious feminists, but also from predatory and rapacious lesbians!

Raise the drawbridge, man the barricades, batten down the hatches. It could well be the end of civilisation, nay, life as we know it!

Thanks for the warning F-snag, next time I go out for a night on the town with my lesbian friends I'll remember to wear a chastity belt and no more inviting them over when I baby-sit my niece and nephew - who knows what nefarious plans these evil, evil lesbian feminazi paedophiles may have brewing.

F-snag there is a reason you don't have much success with your relationships, just give me some time to think (being a girly that's a big ask) but when I figure it out I'll let you know.

;-?

robert, c j morgan, fractelle, etc, just because i don't hate all women does not mean that i don't accept the inconvenient truth. Which is that there are thousands of women out there in Australia just like chazP & bobtwat. They have swallowed the radical, extremist, feminazi propaganda hook, line & sinker. They genuinely hate, loath & despise all men, believing wholeheartedly that we are all domestically violent, evil oppressors, rapists, Paedophiles etc. These same sick people have been at the forefront of the feminazi movement producing their cornflake packet statistics and telling deliberate, premeditated lies about all men and what we are supposed to have done.

Christianity has the ten commandments as the basis of its faith. feminism however has not 1 single article of its faith which is even slightly true as we have just been discussing, every single word of it from day 1 has been total lies. The mean streets of suburban OZ never were paved with the bones of dead women and children slaughtered in their millions by gun toting, blood thirsty, crazed, evil, men.

IT WAS ALL A LIE!

fractelle i have met a number of women with younger men, it was always about domination, control & never ended well. i note that you have used "light hearted sarcasm" in response to my postings but remain silent about chazP, bobtwat, etc.

PS last year my over 90 auntie Nellie died, she had a career as a rocket scientist on the Woomera rocket range, but i can assure you she would have given her left tit if she could have been put up on a pedestal and worshipped by a man who could have blessed her with babies in the post war baby boom. She like many other women of that era had a "career" because a generation of men her own age were slaughtered so that you could be a spoiled suburban princess like "Kath & Kim". The above will 1 day be published as part of a collection of short stories about women and girls being abused by other women like Cinderella was.

Too right formersnag. My own mother who died years ago would be turning in her grave if she could see what is going on now. She was from the generation of REAL women who were quite happy to fulfill their biological role of bringing up the kids etc. And my dad adored her and would have done anything for her, doesn't mean to say that they would'nt have had their differences but in those days parents/partners would work hard to keep things together instead of leaving in a huff at the first hint of trouble, like so many women do these days, knowing full well that they will get everything their way.Although i could never condone violence to a woman or man, many women just want everything and i believe bring a lot of their troubles on themselves with their selfish bitchy ways. They seem to want equality in everything,but expect special treatment as far as the children are concerned. The womens rights movement has done a great deal to further the cause of womens rights in general, most of it long overdue, however modern day feminists are not as interested in furthering womens rights, as they are in stripping men/fathers of theirs and we need to fight them at every opportunity.

Formersnag, eyeinthesky, agreed that there are thousands out there who think like Chazp and bobtwat but there are millions who are more willing and able to be fairer. Quite a few of those will be feminists.

I've been very disappointed at how often feminists fail to criticise those who write supposedly from the woman's side. I don't assume that's because they agree (just as I don't agree with every post I don't comment on).

I think fighting feminists at every opportunity just results in fights with those you may actually have very little disagreement with. Attacking all of feminism is likely to make it that much harder for feminists to take anything you have to say seriously. People get defensive and stop listening when they are attacked with broad attacks when they may be willing to listen to specific criticisms of a movement they are part of or value.

R0bert

ROBERT. I never said we should attack all feminists.As i stated many have done a great deal of good for furthering womens rights and i have no argument with them. However many of the modern day radical feminists are more interested in stripping men/fathers of their rights and it is those that i feel we should fight as what they have done to date with their social engineering agendas has in many ways led to the breakdown of the traditional family unit which has served mankind well for thousands of years and the ones to suffer in so many cases are our children.

eyeinthesky, perhaps I took "however modern day feminists are not as interested in furthering womens rights, as they are in stripping men/fathers of theirs and we need to fight them at every opportunity."

I do appreciate that you have acknowledge the important role feminism has played but in a post supporting one by Formersnag where he claims " feminism however has not 1 single article of its faith which is even slightly true as we have just been discussing, every single word of it from day 1 has been total lies."

I get the bit that many of the intepretations of social history, power balances etc depend on the starting point of view but I think the types of attacks Formersnag and others make on feminism really hinder our ability to discuss legitimate concerns with moderates. For right or wrong that type of stuff shows more brightly on the radar than ChazP and bobtwat's attacks on mens groups (and those fathers who are or have been part of them).

R0bert

ROBERT regarding attacks on feminism by formersnag etc. I would venture to suggest that the only reason they shine out more brightly on the radar. is that to a great extent the media is dominated by feminist journalists like caroline overington and barbara biggs {to name just 2}who unfairly use their positions to put a feminist point of view. In addition to this most of our universities which produce many of our social workers, psychologists etc are also feminist controlled, when you add this to the current government which almost totally panders to the feminist lobby it's surely no surprise that such attacks shine out more brightly on the radar as you put it, not because they are any more numerous or vitriolic than the rants by the likes of chaz p or bobtwat but purely because they are highlighted more and always recieve more prominence. It's the same in almost anything. You have only to recall the coverage of the story of darcy freeman who threw his child off the westgate bridge. Look at the coverage that got in the media just because it was a father who was the perpetrator, yet only 6 months previously a mother jumped with her child off the same bridge killing the child and the incident recieved only a fraction of the coverage.I'm sorry but i can make no apologies for saying that we must fight this blatant anti man/father bias and discrimination whenever and wherever it occurs.

1. How does one differentiate between moderate and radical feminists?

2. It's not surprising that more women are responsible for neglect since about 75% of child care is undertaken by women.

3. Of deaths of children, women are more likely to be responsible for the deaths of children under one year and men responsible for the deaths of older children. Again, women do most of the child rearing.

4. The greatest amount of killing of children by men is in the context of relationship breakdown, in spite and revenge - often making good on threats that brought about the relationship breakdown in the first place.

5. Is it preferable that women and children just shut the hell up and let men beat, rape and kill them? If feminists in the 1970s hadn't raised opposition to family violence, who would have?

6. In my main job, my main client group is 50-60% male. Of those, a conservative 50% to a more realistic 75% have experienced child sexual abuse. Of all of those cases over a number of years, only one involved a female perpetrator.

7. It isn't feminists who are the enemy of all fathers, it's men, including some fathers, who abuse and sometimes kill people who thought they could trust them.

8. Feminism is concerned with patterns of power and control in society and systems and cultural beliefs that support patterns of power and control that do harm to women and children (both male and female).

9. Many feminists, like myself, are devoted to loving spouses and children. Many good men stand up and distance themselves from those who do bad things.

10. Your enemy is not women, nor feminists, it's the men amongst you whose behaviour, rather than being condemned by you, is minimized, excused and blamed on others. Simply launching an anti feminism campaign will not stop such men from hurting others.

11. If feminism disappeared tomorrow, what would you propose to do to stop family violence?

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/6/6/0/%7B66025EB4-DC26-4B37-803B-BCC1EA184951%7Dti53.pdf

Excellent post Pynchme.

Fact: there are violent women and men, men tend to express their rage physically, women by neglect and rejection - generalisations of course but they are issues with which we must acknowledge instead of this pointless exercise in blame.

F-snag appears to be yet another unfortunate who had his world upset by a member of the opposite sex and therefore blames all women who dare to hold any opinion contrary to his own.

Pynchme your point; that the major cause of violence and subjugation of men is other men, is routinely ignored. I have pointed this out in the past and will try again:

"Types-of-perpetrators

Most men (89% or 430,000) who had been physically assaulted said that the perpetrator was a man. A smaller proportion (16% or 79,500) of men were physically assaulted by a woman. Almost half (48%) of the men physically assaulted by a man said that there was more than one person involved in the incident. In contrast, 90% of men physically assaulted by a woman said there was only one person involved.

Of women who experienced physical assault, 81% (195,000) said that the perpetrator was a man, with 27% (66,500) reporting that the perpetrator was a woman. The majority (93%) of women physically assaulted by a man reported that there was only one person involved in the incident, as did 79% of those physically assaulted by a woman.

Relationship-to-perpetrator

Around two-thirds (66%) of men physically assaulted during the last 12 months said that the perpetrator was a stranger (table S13.3). In contrast, women were less likely to be physically assaulted by a stranger (22%) than by someone they knew (82%). Almost a third (31%) of women physically assaulted said that the perpetrator was a current or previous partner, and 37% reported their attacker as being a family member or friend."

This is significant:

"Significantly more men (68%) than women (52%) who were physically assaulted by a male perpetrator during the 12 months prior to interview in the survey, reported that they did not consider this violence to be a crime."

IN my post above I made the final point that many men don't even acknowledge assault on them by another male as a crime. This would fit in with the fact that even though the bulk of powerful positions through-out the world are held by men this is not acknowledged by some men as being as oppressive to them as it is to women.

The focus by men such as F-snag is that any inroads into power made by women is perceived as a greater threat, than the status quo. Again if violence is perpetrated by a woman it is considered a greater problem than the fact that the majority of violence both in the home and outside is committed by men.

Bringing the perception that embittered men have of women to a local level, if a woman proffers her opinion on sites such as OLO she is derided as a "feminazi" etc and claims are made that women have "infiltrated (sic) all key areas of our government, media and society" as made by F-snag on Friday, 24 July 2009 10:35:40 AM.

This perception that "women have taken over" is used again and again in the blame game - never do the people making these claims ever stop to consider that those who control politics and big business - the majority of whom are men, have a vested interest in maintaining the current power structures. Far easier to blame "feminists" for all their woes.

"How does one differentiate between moderate and radical feminists?"

As I said, if the moderates won't speak up in opposition to the radicals, there is only one kind. I'm glad to see you agree with me that the radicals are now the only game in town and that the moderates are at best gutless in not challenging the pronouncements of those radicals.

"It's not surprising that more women are responsible for neglect since about 75% of child care is undertaken by women. "

Over 90% of serious neglect of children is found to be perpetrated by their mothers, especially where the biological father is absent. The best way to reduce child neglect is to have the biological father involved.

"Of deaths of children, women are more likely to be responsible for the deaths of children under one year and men responsible for the deaths of older children. Again, women do most of the child rearing."

And again, that must change if children are to be properly protected. The best protection a child can have is his/her father - the mother is much more likely to cause them harm.

"The greatest amount of killing of children by men is in the context of relationship breakdown, in spite and revenge - often making good on threats that brought about the relationship breakdown in the first place."

And the greatest amount of deliberate killing of children by their mothers is in the same context, often later claiming some form of mental breakdown and trying to blame the father for being "violent", regardless of any substantiation. IOW, a very good reason to minimise the conflict around separation and divorce. A good start would be the disbanding of social ills like the Qld Women's Legal Aid, which actively promotes such conflict.

"Is it preferable that women and children just shut the hell up and let men beat, rape and kill them? If feminists in the 1970s hadn't raised opposition to family violence, who would have?"

We don't live in the 1970s. Should fathers just shut up and let mothers beat, neglect and kill their children?

Pynchme, 1, Take note Robert & C J Morgan, there are no moderate feminists & never were. Moderate women are not into feminazism. They knew that they always had equality even before they got the right to vote. Henry Makow Phd studied the history of modern post war feminazism tracing it back to socialist & communist women who had fled Nazi Germany for New York. In the 50's & 60's these bitter, twisted, frustrated women now also in their 50's & 60's post menopausal, sick. Reacted to the cold war/McCarthy, etc with a new way to destroy the capitalist pigs, by renaming them male chauvinist pigs. A new propaganda was born to divide & conquer by destroying the family unit of western democracy.

2, And these women are failing miserably at parenting as a direct result of Feminazi/left wing policy over the last 40 years or do you want to deny that child abuse/DV have been worsening recently. Both parents working and single mothers is your idea, not mine, nor any chauvinist's either.

3, Who cares what age these poor children are when they are murdered? The latest confirmed stats show that biological fathers are responsible for 25% of child deaths, mothers 75%. More twisting of truth and psychobabble to try and rationalise the daily abuse of children by deadbeat single mothers.

4, Men in those and most DV circumstances are usually suffering from "Battered Partner Syndrome" after years of DV from her. Feminazi's define DV as including verbal, emotional, financial, abuse, throw in intensive psychological torture or head #$%* mind games on a hard working man as well and you have a bomb waiting to go off.

5, Everybody of both genders always stood up and tried to stop it. Read a dictionary, the words gentleman & chivalry have been around for thousands of years as has the "fairy tale" Cinderella about a women being saved from female DV by a man.

6, If you specialise in counseling men who have been abused by men then that is all you will see?

1/a, the other common type of feminazi was abused as a child/woman by a man, never received appropriate treatment, went to university did a subject called "women's studies" (fractelle i thought half world population were women with same needs as men? are you seriously suggesting we should have "men's studies" or that women have special needs?) after being further infected with years of feminazi propaganda (on top of a severe dose of untreated "borderline personality disorder") these women then go out into the world with degrees in social talk, law, counseling, criminology, journalism, etc, looking for opportunities to get their revenge on men, change the world, etc, and if children are collateral damage, then so be it. "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette"

6/a, What red blooded teenage boy is going to complain about getting his rocks off, just because he was under age and the woman was over age? Go out into the normal, healthy, heterosexual male population and you will find plenty of well adjusted functional men whose lives were not ruined by their earlier sexual experiences with older women. Does that make it right when a boy becomes teachers pet, if he is not ruined by it?

6/b, How about lesbians & bisexual women working in DV refuges where they have access to vulnerable women & girls? How about if they are also madams who could be recruiting staff? How about a brothel receptionist being a girl guide leader?

7, Taking my words again, its not men who are the enemy of moderate women, its Feminazis traumatising all females with scary stories about all men being barstards. Governments & Big Business all over the world have been fawning after feminiazism because it keeps the sheeple under control plus with women working/controlling both incomes they are wasting more money on unnecessary luxury items for their children, thereby abusing them with over indulgence and keeping "hardly normal" rich.

8, Read 7, Feminazism has been successfully worsening those power structures of yours for 40 years and you still don't get it, more new age psychobabble.

Formersnag: << They knew that they always had equality even before they got the right to vote. >>

Enough said, methinks.

CJ

<< They knew that they always had equality even before they got the right to vote. >>

Champagne comedy. Hilarious.

Formersnag, I feel sorry for you, you have no idea at all, do you? I will try to be kinder to you in future.

Pynchme,

1.
Radical feminists don't shave or wax their body hair. They also talk with a more shrieking tone in their voice. Hey have you heard about the Constitutional Feminist? See link below...

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/the_constitutional_feminist/

4.
Definately. Spite and Revenge. Women who hurt children on the other hand are in need of help/sympathy, as women are more naturally maternal and will always put the kids first. But not more naturally maternal if it's used as a reason women may be better suited to certain jobs.

5. Sadly, Nobody.

8.'...that do harm to women and children (both male and female).'

Well that's honest at least. No mention of harm to men. That's their lookout I suppose. Fair enough too. But the amount of times I've heard *fem*inists say *fem*inism is about equality I've lost count.

I'm interested though, at what age does feminism decide that the poor helpless male child, merely a victim of the powerful, has now turned into the powerful abusive man that doesn't deserve any help? You'know like how prostitutes are assumed victims of abuse, but all their clients have had rosy childhoods.

9.
I like this. It always confuses me how lefties pick and choose which groups should have to do this. Muslims anyone? Should all Muslims have to stand up and distance themselves from Terrorism?

Formersnag,

'these women are failing miserably at parenting'
How are the fathers doing BTW?

I take it you were a former snag? I can see where the bitterness comes from then. SNAG was never meant to be taken seriously man. I mean, Sensitive New Age Guy! Men throughout the ages have always been sensitive, and 'New Age' was a fad to make misfit space cadet Tarot readers feel 'cool' for a short time.

Maybe you're one of the many weak wimpy men who thought this SNAG faze would mean being a shy needy timid little flower with no self esteem, desperate to please and appease women in any way would have their day in the sun. Bzzz, Wrong! Women are smarter than that and nobody likes a doormat.

Gosh. These sad little anti-feminism threads just keep on and on and on ... Oh, well. I've got a spare 7 minutes.

R0bert

‘I've been very disappointed at how often feminists fail to criticise those who write supposedly from the woman's side.’

Life’s full of disappointments, R0bert - particularly when you keep waiting for people to do what they've been doing all along, but were too myopic to notice. But, hey, I’ll take pity on you. How’s this?

I, SJF, do solemnly herebye and henceforthe renounceth alle feministe persons of dysposytions most extreme who seek to write in subjective mannerisms most reprehensyble of those most wretched and pityable of gender creature temperaments not-male, and do herebye and henceforth condemn such extremiste feminist persons to everlasting torments moste foule.

CJ Morgan

You’ve had a bit of sock-puppet identification experience. Waddya think … Formersnag and Antiwomen?

Bornagainbratwurst

If you are not the Antichrist’s sockpuppet, you and he really must do lunch. I know a great little restaurant that guarantees all the food it serves has never been touched by a feminist.

Hooleybeck

I really do hope that one day you will find something to say that is not a direct cut and paste from Antifeminism for Dummies.

Sick
Juvenile
Feminist

That's a bit harsh. I think SJF is really funny. She reinforces every feminist stereotype there is. Whenever someone tells you that those gender studies freaks you see at Uni all grow up all you have to do is point out SJFs ramblings.

eyeinthesky

‘Sick
Juvenile
Feminist’

I like that …

Then there’s social justice [and] freedom, sexist jocular fuddie-duddies and seven jaundiced ferrets.

The sad awful truth is ... S, J and F are not even my initials. Someone else got those.

What would the rad fems and the family court know about SOCIAL JUSTICE.

SJF: << You’ve had a bit of sock-puppet identification experience. Waddya think … Formersnag and Antiwomen? >>

I don't think so - Antiwomen's language is more personally venomous than Formersnag's blather.

Unfortunately, these topics at OLO seem to bring quite a few bitter and twisted men out from under their rocks. I've wondered at times whether they are directed here from one of the loser men's sites.

Also, I don't think Howlingberk's really one of them - he just likes to stir sh!t :)

Apologies, pynchme, i had some other fish to fry and never got around to finishing an answer to your 10 point post.

9, read my answer to #5 again, maybe this time you will remember that there have been gentlemen around forever and the problems you have been trying to blow out of all proportion, always were a minority situation.

10, my enemy may not be women, but lesbian, feminazi, paedophiles are the enemy of everybody, including you. I do condemn the behaviour of dysfunctional men, but feminazism has been making that problem worse, not better. I do not excuse them, but, that does not mean, they are mentally ill, for no reason at all.

11, i would solve all of those problems, your concerned about quickly and easily as follows. Shut down all "women's studies" subjects in all tertiary education, get rid of all female social workers and uni academics teaching it, who are left wing feminazi's, retaining only those people of both genders who are heterosexual religious right wingers and still happily married to their first partner, next i would give a tax cut to all concerned citizens who are willing to assist police with witness statements (that way when any women or children are occasionally bashed for real, there would be no need for DVO's because the offender, could be charged properly with assault, etc and be dealt with in a real court of law)

But i notice that neither you, nor any of your fellow travellers, have ever bothered to, actually, read or reply to anything, that i, or any other more moderate, concerned fathers have ever written.

Patriarchal systems (i.e male dominated) have controlled most societies in the world for over 2,000 years and continue to do so through organised religions, politics, the legal system, the media, industry and commerce. There is no institution in any society which is female dominated (nor would I necessarily wish it to be) - ergo, feminism has completely failed to have any major impact on these institutions so lets not waste any more time on a futile discussion of the influence of feminism in seeking social egalitarianism between the genders. I would have thought that this was self-evident to any reasonably intelligent person who had studied world social histories.
I also consider it tiresome and wasteful of intellectual energies to be allowing those embittered by an experience with an exceptional set of circumstances involving one male/female, to hijack the debate by drawing assumptions that because one individual of one gender acts in a particular way, then all individuals of that gender are like that. Let them take their personal bile and venom elsewhere and re-focus on the discussion that the current Family Laws are discriminatory and harmful towards children. If they choose not to do so, then I cannot see any further point in those wanting to have a reasoned and intelligent debate continuing to constantly have to correct their opinions from their grossly twisted perspective. It is merely oxygenating their twisted minds.

ChazP:"re-focus on the discussion that the current Family Laws are discriminatory and harmful towards children."

We've had that discussion. They're not. Glad to have cleared that up for you and Elspeth.

Now, perhaps we can move on to the far more useful discussion about how the debate around the best interests of children in divorce has been hijacked by a few man-hating, self-serving women trying to arrange their lives so someone else pays their way...

So Antiseptic you know nothing of the hundreds of children who are being abused and even killed, subsequent and consequent to decisions on contact and residency by the Family Courts, not even about the meagre small number reported in the media. You only have knowledge of one case involving a financial award. I would counsel you against trying to speak with authority on a matter on which you clearly have no knowledge.

As for the financial issue post separation, If males are being so unfairly treated, then why are over 300,000 children in Australia having to rely on taxpayers to maintain them?. Such financial neglect and abuse of children by parents is intolerable and unacceptable. And you obviously believe that `parental responsibility’ post separation does not include financial responsibility.

You’re clearly talking thorugh your pocket Antiseptic.

chazp. My daughter was made to go hungry,and dressed in little more than rags, NOT because i abdicated my parental responsibility, i paid over $10.000 in child support while i was fighting for custody, every cent i was required to pay by the CSA, as well as funding my own court battle, but because the ex chose to spend the child support on booze down at the pub.This is why MY daughter was reliant on the taxpayer to maintain her.You talk about the HUNDREDS of children being abused under the new laws, what about the THOUSANDS of children being abused under the old laws, children like my own daughter who was abused for years because under the old laws her father was only allowed contact every second weekend and was allowed no input in decisions regarding her upbringing. Don't try the BS on me like you did with antiseptic,about only having knowledge of one case, in my own town there are literally dozens of children in the same boat as my daughter was. Only recently a 14 yo girl along with her MOTHER were caught soliciting men in one of the hotels.What about the recent case of the mother who let her 11/12 yo daughter sleep around with her much older BF, her father tried to warn DOCS but was ignored. He was given custody but only when it was too late and his daughter was pregnant. You talk about the meagre amount of father perpetrated abuse reported in the media, what about the even more meagre amount of MOTHER perpetrated abuse reported in the media. As i posted elsewhere how many recall the name DARCY FREEMAN, and compare this to the number of people who can recall the name of the mother who jumped off the same bridge killing her child only a few months before. The reason being one perpetrated by the father received prime coverage for days, while the other perpetrated by the mother received hardly any coverage. Just as you accuse antiseptic of talking through his pocket, i suggest that you are talking through something else.

Poor chazP, I'm really not sure which one of you feminazi's, is the craziest, most evil, or stupid? We are not having a verbal discussion between 2 people at a pub or cafe. This is "in writing" (as the lawyers would say, get it in writing) on the Internet, for all to see.

1, If you try to ignore, what we are debating, (it is merely oxygenating their twisted minds) then your silence, says, that you agree with us, wholeheartedly? Which BTW is how feminazism got started. We men thought, when you gurlies had finished venting, you might grow up, and get over yourselves, but, we, men, were very, wrong about that, weren't we.

2, If you keep repeating the same old propaganda, (deliberate, premeditated, lies) over & over & over again, in spite of the facts and evidence we keep presenting to you, then everybody will see that too?

3, If you try the sarcasm, like SJF, fractelle & c j morgan? With the little selective quote, of, 1 line out of context, followed by abuse/labelling and another silly joke, then everybody will see that as well.

4, If you attempt a proper debate, like pynchme or houellebeque? Go through our comments line by line, or 10 point style then, you still fail, because, your back to, repeating your lies, stats, propaganda, big silly words, that you have all been drivelling on with over & over & over & over again.

Their never was any patriarchy, its about who has the money/power and some of them are women as you well know. The bureaucracy, media, politics are full of women. Many industries are female dominated, eg, social work, family law and we both know, that, is about grooming children for abuse by lesbian, feminazi, paedophiles.

If you think i am so nasty, why not try "thepunch" article on "pregnancy competition" yesterday, see my comment there.

Formersnag, I've asked you this before but you haven't responded. Since you've made the same allegation in this thread I'll repeat it:

Do you have the slightest shred of evidence of lesbian paedophilia? If you do you, you should take it to the police - however, I strongly suspect it's all a product of your twisted imagination.

I think you should put up or shut up.

Farmersnag – I would not dignify most of your rant with a reply, but must respond to the last part.
i.e. “Their never was any patriarchy, its about who has the money/power and some of them are women as you well know. The bureaucracy, media, politics are full of women. Many industries are female dominated, eg, social work, family law and we both know, that, is about grooming children for abuse by lesbian, feminazi, paedophiles.”

How many female Popes and Ayatollahs, have there been?. How many female Prime Ministers of Australia and Presidents of America have there been (one British Prime Minister was no big event)?. The current Chief Justice is female (though with some contrary views about Family law) – but how many other Chief Justices have been female in the last hundred years?. And what proportion of lawyers are female?. Name five female CEOs of Australian companies?. Yes females are well represented in Social work but only at lower levels of management and practice – the upper echelons are still male-dominated. Where are all the female media moguls such as Murdoch and Packer?. Or for that matter, female Heads of TV Channels?.

Come on Farmersnag, get in touch with reality. Religion, Politics, the Law, Media, Police, Industry and Commerce are all male-dominated and controlled – fortunately for most of the time they exercise a form of benign, benevolent, dictatorship of women and children, or allow a token representation in such positions of power, but if their position is seriously challenged then they move very quickly and oppressively to stamp out any attempts at change which might reduce or even remove their powers.

That’s a Patriarchy!.

As for your last comment, I do not “know that”. It is pure fantasy on your part and CJM has already challenged you to produce evidence to support your assertions. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

chazPropaganda, more lies. Which type, of feminazi are you? 1, emotionally unstable, 2, mentally retarded, or 3, socio/psychopath, 4, there are no others.

"The iron lady" proved, how crap women can be, there have been numerous female politicians, in oz, proven incompetent, corrupt, and drummed out of office like Goanna Bliar will be, the Victorian police force, has a female commissioner, the media is full of female journalists, like Caroline Overington, who turned a disturbing report about increased cocaine use, by middle class mums, at home, into a joke, so she could continue protecting her sista's in the paedophile ring. Go to your local newsagent, look at the fine print on the inside cover, the list the names of staff? heaps of female names, even in the porno mags? Females dont work as hard as men, thats why less of them, make it to the top, but of course you knew that. Fixing gender bias in the workplace is easy, just sterilise them so they can't have babies and force them to work in jobs with more stress, responsibility, etc, then women will be equal to men.

Female popes? you want to know about the catholic church "charitable" organisation which encouraged an attractive young woman with intellectual disability to hang around with drug users? clapped out prostitutes? thieves? They conned her out of her entire pension, plus cash in the hand, from a part time job, introduced her to male friends of theirs? One of the "females" even deliberately infected her with herpes, i saw all that first hand and plenty more besides. Oh, BTW the management of said "charity" are female as was the manager of the "refuge". Just like in eyeintheskye's case none of them wanted to here about any reports on offer.

9 year old girl, male front line DOCS worker, knows she is in danger with dysfunctional family, recommends that she stay with foster family and not be forced home for a weekend visit, he is overruled by female management, girl gets gang banged, Why wasn't the DOCS manager, tried beside the youths who raped her?

Formersnag, I think you should take your information to the police.

I'm sure they'll know what to do with you.

c j morgan, have you forgotten what SJF said about you, because you are a man, and dared to assist a woman, who thinks, she doesn't need your help? She is so mentally ill, she even hates you for that.

Of course everybody i have encountered in the labour/green coalition, is either profoundly evil or stupid. You would have to be, to cover up rampant child abuse, as you have been doing for 20 years now. Another metro-sexual, male, apologist. Gotten in touch with your feminine side yet? Rub it hard enough, and it just might turn into a clitoris for you. Maybe then you will be happy, you poor, sad, woman, trapped in a man's body.

There have been thousands of cases, just like the ones you have heard mentioned by myself and eyeinthesky, in all states and territories as you well know, because you are a part of the labour/green coalition, covering it up. Haven't you heard about the "Heiner report" being shredded by cabinet, late at night? You are a "child abuse denier", and therefore equally guilty.

As you well know, the labour/green coalition, authorities have used all manner of ways to cover up, including fake charges against the men, trying to protect the children being abused.

OH BTW, have you worked out yet that the only people in favour of an ETS are the loony, left, bureaucrats dreaming about all the taxes they will be able to waste, and wallstreet, dreaming about the "bonuses" they will make, trading in carbon default swaps, derivative forestry futures, shares in timbercorp, great southern, etc. Isn't that how, the GFC started in the first place? OH yes, i forgot, the next "great depression" is exactly what you want!

Don't worry your pretty little head, c j, it is all, going into the class action i am organising for the "left behind generations". Which will be blowing up in your face before the next federal election.

F-snag

I know that a woman does not have to suffer from a mental illness to not want anything to do with the likes of you. Nothing SJF says comes close to the slimy, unsubstantiated bilge you spout.

Do you reread your posts before loading onto OLO?

<< Rub it hard enough, and it just might turn into a clitoris for you >>

What-tha?

Because CJ asked you for evidence of your claims?

Snag: <"I do condemn the behaviour of dysfunctional men, but feminazism has been making that problem worse, not better.">

1. How has feminism made the problem worse? (Do you really mean - feminism has uncovered the problem that existed/exists?)

2. How do you propose to stop "dysfunctional men" from doing harm to women and childre

Pynchme, Feminism never uncovered a problem, that was being ignored, their have always been some, dysfunctional families, breeding some, dysfunctional people, of both genders, along with entire cultures, living by a code, we would consider barbaric . Words like gentleman and chivalry, however, have also been around for thousands of years. Strip away the "fairy floss" and "Cinderella" is a simple tale of domestic violence, where an innocent girl is neglected/abused by her wicked step mother and the "mean girls". (remember that movie?)

1, feminism has encouraged women to be, even more confrontational, in their relationships, than, they, always have been. Read some Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, all of which predates feminism or even suffragette's. Feminism has brought about a DV industry which trains women to respond, with even more, head, #$%*, mind games. While simultaneously promoting, ineffective, anger management classes for violent men, who, really, need it, and nonviolent men, falsely accused.

2, offer a tax cut to active, or concerned, "good citizens", for doing their bit, voting, jury duty, not smoking, clean up oz day, etc, coming forward to police, "witnessing", when somebody of either gender is being assaulted, so that violent offenders can be charged properly in a real court with real crimes, instead of these silly DVO/AVO's that make it all worse, and have been miss used, by child abusers, to cover their tracks.

Fractelle, "methinks the pot, calls the kettle black" (BTW isn't that one of those "old wives tales").

My first experience of OLO, was this, very, article, a few weeks ago, "as you said", RObert, and, some others, were being polite, fair, reasonable, no labelling, name calling, and then your colleagues commented without specifying minority, radical, extremists, like i do, but "all men, fathers, groups, being abusers rights, apologists" etc.

Snag,

I am quite a fan of both Oscar Wilde and of Shakespeare; though not all feminists would be. Their works reflect much of the social reality of their time, even though they were rebels in some sense (especially Wilde, of course), they also showed the constraints of the social roles that existed.

Snag: <"Feminism has brought about a DV industry ...">

Feminists didn't tell men to hit women and children or how to terrorize them into fearful obedience to male will. Certain types of men created the DV "industry".

Feminism exposed it and finally made it possible for abused women and children to escape impossible situations - not that they have always managed to successfully escape the enraged male in their life.

You accuse women of playing mind games - and some do. However, you think that just because a bloke uses his brute strength, that he doesn't use mind games as well?

I'm sorry but I can't grasp what you're trying to say about AVOs, so can't comment on that.

What's your opinion about DV and child sexual abuse - How would you keep women and children safe - how do you think you could prevent a fellow from beating his wife or sexually assaulting his son or daughter if you came to know that it was happening?

You might call the authorities (as you propose in your post) - but what proof do you think would convince you and how would you keep the woman or children safe while it was being worked out?

How do you propose right now to stop other men from doing harm?

Pynchme, i have already answered your questions, but will try again.

Femanazism, did, tell, dysfunctional, men to hit women/children, by encouraging women to, react, to, men, in a provocative manner, that is guaranteed, to escalate the violence, rather than cool it down.

In your first sentence you acknowledged that Shakespeare exposed DV, so femanazism could not have exposed anything, if it already existed and was common knowledge for thousands of years. BTW the very, "constraints of, those social roles" encouraged marriage, to be more successful, than, it is now, therefore, keeping child abuse to a minimum. Whereas, femanazism was designed to destroy good or healthy relations, between men and women, by spreading mistrust and hatred, with fairy stories, about, "ALL", men, being liars, bastards, etc. As a direct result, of femanazism, relationships regularly fail, in larger numbers, leaving more children, open to, more, abuse, which, is now in, pandemic proportions, compered to the 50's.

Some, men, use mind games, i met one, (in men's group, and we made sure, he knew, that we, disapproved, and he, needed therapy) he was a stone, cold, socio psychopath, (as a result, of having been abused, as a child, by women) but these type of men are less than 5% of the male population. Whereas the number of neurotic women using head, #$%*, mind, games is more than 90% of all women in all relationships.

An AVO/DVO, will never stop a mentally ill, violent person, of either gender, from hurting people, but successful convictions, for real crimes, in real courts, will put violent offenders in jail. I do realise, that you don't, actually, want this to happen, as we would get too many violent, crazy, women in jail, and the "sista's in the hood" are primarily concerned, with protecting, the rights, of deadbeat, single mothers, to neglect/abuse their children, and blame shifting games.

Nobody wants, to see women or children, being hurt, even if on occasions, they may, deserve it, but you need to remember, that innocent children and men, being neglected/abused is an infinitely bigger problem.

What do you, propose, doing about that?

Shorter formersnag: "No, I don't have any evidence for my outrageous claims whatsoever. I'll just have another lunatic rant anyway".

BTW - I don't get the impression SJF hates me, or anybody else for that matter. Where did you get that idea?

<< Another metro-sexual, male, apologist. >>

Hardly. I'm a bloke who lives in the bush and who's pretty happy in life, unlike you.

So Snag your solution to DV is that women submit to threats and abuse. What you fail to realize is that most women who are abused do anything *but aggravate the man who terrorizes them - they spend their lives walking on eggshells and still end up getting flattened any time the bloke is enraged by whatever else is happening in his life.

No person "deserves" assault. No excuses.

Btw - Shakespeare - The shrew was still to be tamed wasn't she.
Portia was smarter than Shylock and the male lawyers, but she had to pretend to be male - as a woman she had to hide her cleverness.

No literary form exposed DV - they showed it as acceptable and normal. Feminist analysis provided an alternative vision of women as people with the same right to self-expression as male citizens.

As for calling CJ a metereosexual something or other; he is a male who is clearly unafraid of women. You could take a lesson.

I have never seen any female poster refer to CJ derogatorily, as you claim. Do you have a link?

Pynchme, What do you propose to do, about 50,000 Australian children being seriously, neglected and abused by their deadbeat, single, mothers? (of course this is an extremely conservative figure, covering the very worst cases, the real, figure would be half a million)

Should DOCS place them with their biological fathers? To see if they can do a better job of parenting than their deadbeat, single, mothers, have been doing so far? All investigation, so far, into the limited number of "COD" children resident with their fathers, has of course, found that they are, doing a better job. Should DOCS be placing them with, yet another deadbeat, single, mother, looking to increase her centre link payments, by fostering? As DOCS in NSW have been doing. Should DOCS be trying other relatives of the children? To see if Grandparents, Uncles, Aunts, etc, can, do better, than these children have been getting so far? Perhaps the biological father might do a better job, if he was living with his parents or his siblings?

Do you support the idea of these children, from the, "Left Behind Generations" mounting a class action against Governments, who failed in their "duty of care", to protect them from their deadbeat, single, mothers, despite repeated, credible, compulsory, reporting to DOCS of severe, cases of neglect and abuse?

Do you support the improvement of the Adoption system in Australia so that successfully married couples with fertility problems, (caused by feminism) can adopt some of these children?

I think every effort should be made to place a child with it's biological father if the mother is unfit. Unfortunately when i was going to court for custody of my daughter Families SA/DOCS seemed to do everything in their power to force her to live with her abusive mother, and from what i see and hear things are not much different today. The government's baby bonus has made the child neglect and abuse situation even worse with thousands of teenage girls, some hardly more than children themselves, having kids just for the money.Once the money runs out and the mothers are faced with the realization of the awesome responsibility of raising a child many will just dump their kids where they can or leave them alone at home [like my own daughter was left] while they go out, having a good time. I don't know if a class action against the government would do any good as DOCS seem to behave with the same arrogance and doctine of non accountability regardless of which government is in power.I do believe however that DOCS and their individual social workers should very much be made accountable in cases where their decisions have contributed to the neglect,abuse or death of a child.
Pynchme does have a point about abusive men though. My beautiful new fiancee went through 19 years of an abusive marriage, her husband would'nt let her go out with freinds, or even get her drivers licence and would abuse her every opportunity. When i first met her she was that downtrodden she would'nt even look me in the eye.