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.