If the National Marriage Day breakfast was about celebrating marriage, as opposed to a hubristic grave dance celebrating the exclusion of same sex couples from equal respect under Australian law, then why was it held on the anniversary of the Howard Government's ban on same-sex marriage.

If marriage is solely about the raising of children, and not a celebration of the commitment of the enduring love between two people, then why do we allow convicted rapists and murderers, and even known child abusers to marry- in some jurisdictions before they have even completed their sentences.

What exactly is it that a heterosexual rapist or murderer can provide a child that a loving, same-sex couple cannot- please do not tell me it's a gender role model.

Classic.

'Suddenly, in my demented state of mind, I had a brilliant idea. Here I was driving along a lonely country road, lined by big tall gum trees. What if I was to take off my seat belt and run into one of those beautiful trees at high speed? It would surely look like an accident. I had a large life insurance policy. I could provide better in my death than in my life. That’s when I heard my two-year-old son cry out “daddy” from the back seat.'

So you were ready to risk killing your two-year-old because of a dented ego. Great father!

'That is what happened to me all those years ago on a country road when my two-year-old son called out “Daddy” from the back seat of the car as I was contemplating suicide.

No. What you meant to say is 'That is what happened to me all those years ago on a country road when my two-year-old son called out “Daddy” from the back seat of the car as I was contemplating a MURDER suicide.'

'Eleven-year-old Brad said, “Fathers should spend more time with their children and less time at work”. '

Hey Brad, you better keep quiet about that play station you want for Christmas then, or else pressure mummy with some emotional blackmail to go out and earn some extra money to compensate for the lost wages.

If Mr Potts wants to promote a perverted view of marriage s bit. He should however leave kids out of the equation. Enough kids are abused now without bringing in your sick philosophy that will only increase the numbers.

Houellebecq, writes 'So you were ready to risk killing your two-year-old because of a dented ego. Great father!'
Don't forget to mention the thousands of mothers who murder their unborn simply for convenience or ego (it is my right). I suppose you call these great mothers.

Warwick writes 'Maybe our society is beginning to listen to the cry of our children.'

I hope so but I don't see a lot of evidence from posters on OLO. They seem far more interested in me and me than concern for children. Those who have the courage to take up the responsibility of fathers to love, discipline and provide for their children are true heroes in today's emasculated society. Keep up the good work Warwick.

runner- "Enough kids are abused now"

And who is doing the abusing? In the vast majority of cases heterosexual identifying family members- "Up to 90 per cent of child sex abuse the result of incest - report" AAP

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,25824189-1702,00.html

Marriage does not stop sexual abuse. Sexual abuse often occurs inside marriages. The idea that letting gays and lesbians marry would increase abuse is without evidence or merit.

Not sure what "sick philosophy" you're referring to. Is it really that strange that gay and lesbian people who were raised by married parents and have heterosexual friends and siblings who are married would value marriage too?

Yes and this "love"-revolution is being promoted by essentially the same self-righteous groupings that are about to launch the Jesus and Life advertising campaign in Sydney.

And who of course in the context of New Zealand politics were behind the campaign for a no vote re the campaign to outlaw smacking. Speaking of which--what happens when you smack or hit someone/anyone?

They recoil in fear and pain, which makes them incapable of being emotionally vulnerable or loving in the present moment.

Do that often enough, and consistently, then the child unconsciously, automatically, and instinctively recoils into fear, and (repressed) anger based self-possession. And thus becomes incapable of being a loving presence, or even of receiving love.

And as an adult will thus staunchly assert that smacking or corporal punishment didnt harm me at all.

One of the best books on this topic is reviewed here.

http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm

The old cruelties have a very long hell-deep pedigree and even a much longer shelf-life.

Gosh guys, how distracted can we get from the core of this article? Abuse - Same sex marriage - smacking - yadayadayada....
I read the essence of Warwick's article as being about Dads being there for their children... about sticking together through thick and thin. Forget politics. Let's talk about individual lives. My birth mum & dad gave me up for adoption, my adopted dad chose another woman and materialism over our family/us kids. My life has been poorer – and I'm not meaning financially – for not having a father who at least tried at consistent, unending love and involvement in his kids' lives.
What child would really choose a Play Station over a father who is there for them?
People matter. I think deep down if most of us really weighed things up and made a conscious decision – rather than being swept along by the individualistic, materialistic lie much of our society sells us – we'd rather be relationally rich than materially rich.
The heart of the matter is we individually and on a broader community basis need a father and mother who'll love us and be there for us.
I say go the love revolution.

"Call it a renewal of fatherhood, family revival or a love revolution, but whatever you call it, if it continues, there will be empty gaols dotted all over the Australian landscape and that would be a big win for our nation, our families and our children."

Err....not quite Mr Marsh. One loving parent is sufficient to keep a child out of gaol. I can vouch for that! Many prominent and famous people in society have been raised by one dutiful parent.

Far better to have one caring parent than two where one is a mongrel and that mongrel's unacceptable behaviour is witnessed by tiny children.

If as you claim, kids are in gaol because the fathers aren't around, then you will need to ask the absent fathers why they've abandoned their children and why the sole parent isn't coping. Perhaps one or both are unfit to be parents.

On the other hand, the more responsible young dads of today are nurturing their young far more so than yesteryears's fathers and it is a pleasure to witness their participation in child-rearing.

And I support Andrew Potts assumption. Gays in stable relationships are fully entitled to provide a loving home for children. While there remains a paucity of published information on gays with children, the research that is available and the empirical evidence reveals that these kids are well balanced and happy individuals.

Only the ill-informed could confuse gays with incestuous paedophiles, lurking behind a mask of heterosexuality.

Mr. Marsh is very naive if he believes that Fatherless households are one of the main reasons people are incarcerated.

Not having a positive male role model could very well have been part of some prisoners problems, however, substance abuse would outrank this, as well as the mental health issues that follow the substance abuse.

These problems are certainly not the sole domain of fatherless households. If that were so, would we not have had an outbreak of lawlessness after the World Wars, when there were so many Fathers killed on the battlefields?

I am happy to see fathers more involved with their children these days, but I certainly don't believe that all, or even most, fatherless households give rise to criminal children.

I too am glad that Mr. Marsh did not deliberately crash his car and murder his son, and I think it was the wrong story to bring up at the moment, given the tragic deaths of two children by their father's suicide/murder actions in W.A.

Suzie,

I think you're misreading the statistics. If U.S. statistics confirm that 78% of Us prisoners grew up in single parent housholds then that is a fact. That doesn't mean 78% of children from single parent homes end up in jail or that there aren't children from single parent homes who do well. It simple means that if you wanted to take one social predicator of a child's liklihood to end up in jail then coming from a single parent family might be a good start.

The contentious thing about this is of course that the single parent is almost always female and the 'jailbird' is male. Women will do everything possible to avoid this fact because is points to the bleeding obvious, which is that male children need a male role model. When it comes to role models for girls we constantly hear about the need for good role models and how important it is for girls to see successful women. But when it comes to boys, women resolutely deny any connection between role models and good outcomes. As practically all primary school teachers are female, and single mums tends have friends who are also single mums, the only role model many of these boys find are other boys they meet on the street. Once boys hit puberty at around 12 or 13 they are already bigger than their mum and become increasingly hard for their mums to control. The hard thing for women to understand is that boys are hardwired to respect size. They respect a male because he is bigger and stronger than them. And nomatter what women say, boys want to grow up to be a man and find it very hard to see their mother as a role model (if there is no male present). They don't want to grow up to be a 'sassy' strong women.

cont...

Of course the real reason for this unwillingness to admit the bleeding obvious is that women see children as their possessions. Pretty much all men would admit that mothers have a strong bond with their babies but there is a point where boys realise they don't want to grow up to become their mother. With a father they then have a much greater chance of finding role models in the wrong places. It's such a shame that feminists in particular are willing to allow generations of boys to flounder because of their own greed and search for power.

Houellebecq, an interesting POV, do you work with suicide survivors? I have little doubt with my experiences with suicide survivors that they don’t think at the time of the incident, the pain and suffering caused for those left behind, and very little care if they take someone with them or psychologically damage someone they don’t even know.

It is real easy to attack the author here without experience, I guess! What is hard to do, is to understand the emotional state of mind of ones self at the time and recognise any signal that could change ones mind from the contemplated act.

"Up to 90 per cent of child sex abuse the result of incest - report" AAP
Incest by siblings, close relatives and step family, in fact a very small percentage is from biological parents.
DeptChildProtection of WA data shows that 75% of abuse circumstances where a child is abused by a parent the mother is the perpetrator. The AIC data in the National Homicide Monitoring Program shows 75% of child homicides were committed by a mother or a step father.

Suzeonline “Not having a positive male role model could very well have been part of some prisoners problems, however, substance abuse would outrank this, as well as the mental health issues that follow the substance abuse.”
Research shows a major predictor for substance abuse is “a single parent household”
“I think it was the wrong story to bring up at the moment, given the tragic deaths of two children by their father's suicide/murder actions in W.A.”
ahh guilty until proven innocent. What if it was just a tragic accident...

Late 30s mum, you are right on! How can we miss the really important message of dads being there for their kids. Warwick Marsh, this is a wonderful article. Oh that men had a chance to be heard just a little more often, rather than just a token gesture each fathers' day.

As alluded to in your article, so many men find that ultimately the only way to be 'heard' is to suicide. The wrong way out, but one that I've certainly considered.

Keep it up Warwick!

Malcolm Pryor.

Well done Warwick!

We need more people like you to stand up for family values and oppose the gradualism which wrongly purports that we would all be much better off by throwing all our values out the window and adopting an "anything goes" approach.

It is great to see a new movement of young people trying to make a difference and stand up for a higher set of standards and reject the failing hedonistic values thrust upon us by the media as normal.

What a moving testament to a father's love by Warick Marsh, timely also in the current climate of father denigration by populist media. As a single full-time father of two beautiful children I am astonished at the refusal to extend goodwill to dads who are routinely portrayed as thugs, abusers, bufoons, irresponsible and discardable. One thing is for sure these negative views are not those of the children, most of whom love thier fathers dearly. Perhaps this Father's Day we adults can become like the children and join the love revolution.

For those who want the ONLY PUBLISHED AUSTRALIAN FACTS on child abuse by biological parents, here it is:

http://www.mensrights.com.au/dads_not_the_demons.pdf

Read these official figures, accept them, and move on to the truth that hundreds of thousands of dads are loving, responsible carers of children

I don't think anyone is saying that there are not hundreds of thousands of loving dads out there. There always has been.

Mothers and fathers are important to children but more importantly the calibre of the parents.

Incarceration of prisoners is more to do with demographics and economic disparity than just stating many come from fatherless homes. Perhaps in some cases if the fathers had been at home they might be dead or still incarcerated. You cannot make a comment until you know the calibre of the absent fathers (or mother if the situation reversed).

The best condition for children is two loving people to care for them in a stable environment but if one of the parents is a dog, then the better parent on their own is always the better option.

Why are same sex couples considered as lacking in values. Where does this nonsense come from?

The recent changes to Family Law does indeed make a big difference for fathers who wish to be more involved, as they should be, in their children's lives.

There has always been a cultural stereotype that the mother is the best person to raise the children, but it is pleasing to see men gain more equality in this respect. The real problem is deadbeat mothers and fathers. What do we do to give support to those children?

RossM

Adolescent sibling incest has always prevailed, however, the difference between young siblings playing “rudies” and the act of sexual penetration is a serious matter and parents should be educating their children on sexually inappropriate behaviour.

“DeptChildProtection of WA data shows that 75% of abuse circumstances where a child is abused by a parent the mother is the perpetrator.”

Your claim masks the overall reality. In July, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported that as much as 90 percent of child sex abuse is the result of incest with the perpetrators often being the victim's adolescent brother.

However, “estimating the extent of the abuse was difficult as there had been comparatively little focus on the issue of adolescent sibling incest. Estimates of the proportion of intrafamilial abuse which occurs between people from the same generation range from 40 to 90 percent."

In addition, Mr Marsh’s red herrings on incarcerations, has sacrificed reality for the sake of political correctness.

Indigenous adults are now 13 times more likely than non-Indigenous adults to be sent to gaol, and they’re much more likely to reoffend. In the Northern Territory, the Government plans to build a new 1,000 bed gaol to accommodate an ever-increasing prison population.

“Per head of population, the Northern Territory gaols more people than any other jurisdiction. Three times more than WA, which has the next highest rate of imprisonment, and seven times more than Victoria. And of the Territory’s gaol population, more than 80 percent are Aboriginal.

“The worst performer — Western Australia — jails black males at more than eight times the rate of South Africa during apartheid.

“In 2003, the teenage (15–19 years) birth rate among Indigenous women was more than four times the overall Australian teenage birth rate."

It is widely recognized that a very high proportion of incarcerated indigenous women have a history of untreated sexual abuse and victimization and the black male is not taking personal responsibility for his abusive behaviour.

The endeavours of black and white leaders have failed and Mr Marsh’s cherry picking and glaring omissions on societal groupings have not been helpful.

I had similar feelings of wanting to end it all myself many years ago. I had spent almost 3 years and driven myself almost to the point of bankruptcy fighting through the courts trying to rescue my daughter from her abusive and neglecting mother while the likes of families sa the police and the family court stood by and did nothing. No one cared about what my daughter was going through and one day i found myself actually pulling over into the path of an oncoming semi trailer such was my despair at a system that puts such little value on a childs welfare and a fathers love. It was bloody scary to say the least and it was only the realisation that my daughter would have absolutely no one to bat for her if i died that stopped me. So glad i did pull back from the brink. Eventually i did win my battle, and managed to take my daughter from a feral child in a class for slow children after years with her mother, to now doing an honours degree at university.
Facts are facts, up to 75% of kids getting into trouble with the law ARE from single parent families. 85%-90% of single parent households ARE headed by single mothers. Fathers have always been the traditional disciplinarians in the family.
SUZEONLINE i would have thought the reasons that there was no outbreak of lawlessness after the world wars would be obvious. It was a far different world then. Since the 1960s the radical feminists have poisoned our society with their social engineering agendas and in doing so have destroyed many of the traditional values which held a family together. The result is what you see around you today.

This story from Warwick Marsh is great - it is good to read some good news stories. He chose to be there for his children than to think of merely what was his own selfish idea - suicide is NEVER a good idea, no matter how bleak things seem to be. It is great to read of somebody like Warwick Marsh who loves children and loves fathers loving their children.

Eyeinthesky >". Since the 1960s the radical feminists have poisoned our society with their social engineering agendas and in doing so have destroyed many of the traditional values which held a family together. The result is what you see around you today."

Even though feminism is supposed to have taken over the world, why is it that women are still blamed for everything? Crime, sexual abuse, suicides, and murders perpetrated by men are all seen as 'driven to it by women' by some men in our society.

For God's sake, why doesn't everyone just take responsibility for their own actions?

I am not a man hater or a feminist and in fact I am very happy with the men in my life because my husband, father, and brothers are all good law abiding citizens and fathers.

The real problems I have are with the poor children of our society who are being used as pawns between warring men and women.

I won't shut up until I see a better outcome for children.
If that makes me a rabid feminist in some peoples eyes, well that is their problem.

SUZEONLINE.
I don't recall calling YOU a man hater or a feminist. As regards the abuse of children the facts are that sexual abuse is the only area where the number of male/father perpetrators are greater than the number of females/mothers. In all other areas including child neglect, infanticide and child murder the number of mother perpetrators is very significantly higher than the number of father perpetrators and i challenge you to provide genuine proof to the contrary. Like you i am very happy with the women in my life, my beautiful daughter is very well aware of the importance of a loving father in a childs life,and the difference i made to her own life. My lovely new fiancee who went through 19 years of an abusive marriage herself now knows what it is like to have a good supportive partner in her life. When i met her she was that downtrodden she wouldn't even look me in the eye, she does now. I had a lot of support from women during my custody battle, many were thoroughly disgusted at the anti father bias in the system and what i had to go through to get some measure of justice for my daughter. As regards people being responsible for their own actions, despite all the abuse and neglect she put my daughter through, her mother was NEVER held accountable for her actions, in fact she was rewarded for the abuse and neglect of our daughter, by the powers that be recommending that my daughter stay there for 3 years. I however am completely prepared to be accountable for mine. There IS a direct correlation between the rise of radical feminism and the start of the breakdown of traditional family values in the 60s and the rise in drug use and violence in our society which started at exactly that time in history, if you can't even understand history itself then that is your problem.

I really wanted to enjoy this essay, because we don't get enough articles on OLO that question and challenge our society's distancing of men from their children. (I suspect that's not OLO's fault. Just a lack of men willing to do the challenging, when it's so much easier to take cheap shots at feminism.)

However, this essay really got up my nose, as it came across to me as another one of those overly sentimental tropes about how children are there to give nourishment and meaning to the lives of their parents.

Suzeonline

'These problems are certainly not the sole domain of fatherless households. If that were so, would we not have had an outbreak of lawlessness after the World Wars, when there were so many Fathers killed on the battlefields?'

Exactly. Another one of those little double standards we've come to know and love. When it comes to war, sport and business, it's fine for a father to shoot through on his parental responsibilities for months and/or years at a time, because a guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do.

Ditto, all those idolised cricketers and other sports jocks who spend much the year chasing balls around in faraway countries, while their children mainly get to watch them on tellie. Ditto, politicians, CEOs and all those other Type A workaholics who tell themselves that they are working their 90-hour weeks and spending their otherwise quality family time nursing laptops in business class.

This irony was also lost on John Howard when he condemned the growing epidemic of fatherless sons in his announcement on shared-parenting legislation. The fact that his own sons probably hardly ever saw him during his Prime Ministerial years, or the fact that a lot of daughters are growing up fatherless as well, obviously didn't influence his government's decision. But then, he just left all that to Janet. That's what wives are for.

“Saved through their love for their children.” I thought the idea was that fathers sustain their children, rather than the other way around. At least, that’s how my father saw it.

The use of the word “saved” is fairly loaded here. The incident described sounds more to me like being “saved” by an attack of common sense, but of course, that’s not nearly as romantic, or rhetorically useful, as being saved by love for one’s offspring.

In any event, deciding not to murder your child and kill yourself doesn’t sound particularly special to me. We’re all walking talking breathing evidence that fathers overcome these urges every day.

Curious that five of the Marsh barrackers above (felix_fortunatus, Jason Thompson, Wally32, cmpmal, Late30sMum) have signed on to OLO in the last 36 hours, specifically to engage in a bit of p1ssing in Warwick’s pocket.

It’s worth remembering what our Federal Health Minister said about Warwick Marsh’s writings last November: “These comments, relating in the main to homosexuality, are unacceptable and repugnant.” http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24711420-29277,00.html

It would be much easier to endorse Marsh’s sentiments about love and fatherhood if fewer of his organisation’s tax-deductible resources were directed against fathers who happen to be gay.

Wow, all the deliciously baiting comments above.

What would happen if we simply ignored them all and celebrated fathers anyway rather than denigrating straight or gay males, assassinating Marsh, or promoting folklore about abusive dads.

No. This the eve before Fathers Day I'd like to say this-

"happy fathers day to all the wonderful loving fathers in the country!"

Lets just ignore the haters above for just 24hrs. ;-)

Paul G.

Thank you Warwick for drawing our attention to what is important - a timely article that I thoroughly enjoyed reading.

I don't get how and your honest depiction of a despair that drives many over the edge has made you a target for abuse ... perhaps that is why male suicide is so prevalent in this country - because so many men are not able to find support when they try to honestly confront their worst fears ... good on you for realising, in time, what was most important to you.

I am not sure how this forum it turned into a debate on same sex marriage - but if we are going there then it would be poignant to point out that the statistics for long term gay relationships are hardly supportive of encouraging same sex parenting ... did I last read that most gay men have around 10 to 49 partners? ... and in the UK new peer reviewed research says that children who are brought up in by gay parents are most likely to be gay themselves (Sociologist, Patricia Morgan). The report found numerous inaccuracies in related research i.e. most compare gay parents against single parents and none have been honest enough to compare gay parenting outcomes against the benefits of a heterosexual family ... until now

The above doesn't make me homophobic - or a member of the religious right - it makes me a student of current literature on a topic that is vital for us all to understand

As fathers and mothers we can do no less that fight for whatever is in the BEST interest of our children - we owe this to them and to their children after them ...

I am heartened to hear that there is a wind of change in the air and a shift in values back to the strengthening of families - I am glad that young people waking up to the social indoctrination they have been subject to and that marriage is being fought for.

Protagoras, it is not a claim, it is factual data released by the Department of Child Protection WA. Even this report states that indigenous children are over represented in WA as abuse victims, could it be because indigenous populations are highly represented in WA and the NT? I don’t doubt for one second the AIC facts you stated about child sexual abuse.

Suzieonline, “I won’t shut up until I see a better outcome for children” The only way that is going to occur is to stop laying blame on fathers as a group, especially post separation. The reality is that children are being abused by people supposed to be protecting them.

The latest NHMP report http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/B/%7BFFB9E49F-160F-43FC-B98D-6BC510DC2AFD%7Dmr01.pdf from the AIC “in 22 incidents a “male family member” was the perpetrator in a certain number of incidents and “mothers” the remainder. A complaint about the category “male family member” revealed an error in the report in data transposition.

Email from Jack Dearden AIC 22/01/2009
Your request alerted us to an error within the NHMP 2006-07 Annual Report. Homicide statistics differ if they are reported on the victims’ relationship with their offender or offenders’ relation with the victim. In this case, there was a transcription error as we moved between the two. Instead of 7 homicides involving a mother and 15 involving male family members killing a child as originally stated, 11 homicides involved a mother and 11 homicides involved a male family member killing a child in 2006-07.

Regarding your request, of the 11 homicides that involved a male family member, 6 involved biological fathers of the child and 5 were de-facto partners of the mother, who lived with the child. One biological father murdered two children.
We acknowledge the usage of male family member and mother is not a useful way of classifying relationship between a child homicide victim and their offender. In future reports we will employ classifications that provide a more detailed classification of the relationship between child victims and offenders.

Thanks for your article Warwick. I appreciate the work you do for others and society at great personal cost. I am honoured to know you: you are indeed a man of courage, commitment and honour. Happy Fathers Day... Warwick and all you dads out there!

Well spotted, woulfe. I was wondering why the unmistakeable odour of fundy Christian bulldust seemed to surround this saccharine piece. It's interesting that he's brought his own cheer squad with him - undoubtedly from among the homophobic ranks of his 'Australian Heart Ministries'.

As a father and grandfather, I agree that it's the responsibility of fathers to sustain and protect their kids, rather than for kids to 'save' their dads. Men who suicide and kill their kids while they're at it are the worst of losers, and while pitiable they deserve little sympathy.

Yes, fathers and fatherhood should be celebrated, but this disingenuous piece of propaganda isn't the way to do it, in this father's view.

CJMorgan:"Men who suicide and kill their kids while they're at it are the worst of losers, and while pitiable they deserve little sympathy."

Thanks for that, CJ, a truly inspiring contribution. No doubt you think that women (who don't usually suicide themselves, just kill the kids then claim depression made them do it) are universally poor victims driven to it by a man.

It's becoming increasingly obvious you just don't like men, little fella.

"Little man" syndrome, perhaps?

An interesting piece, Warwick. As a father who's been through the mill, I know where you're coming from. The whole process took years off my life and if I'd not had some very good friends, it may well have lead me to the despair you describe.

Keep up the good work and don't let the comments of the ignoranti bother you.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the sentiment in Warwick's piece. He wrotes from a father's point of view and his own personal story should be told if it helps other fathers.

Tackling Warwick on particular comments about fatherless households and impact on incarceration figures is not to bait him or to abuse him as some have extravagantly described.

It is interesting that if this article had been written by a Wendy Marsh about mothers and motherless households and/or PND, posters like Antiseptic would be arguing victim mentality and raising all the important aspects of fatherhood in response and how feminism is ruling and ruining the world. I think even Anti would admit to as much.

I can understand why there has been a movement by men to fight for more equality in the area of Family Law. It has been skewed towards mothers for years. But equally so feminism did not arise out of the fog without cause.

As another poster said above, lets celebrate fatherhood, motherhood and children without prejudice to gender or sexuality.

Antiwomen: << It's becoming increasingly obvious you just don't like men, little fella. >>

I don't like anybody who kills children, male or female. I also don't like men who blame women for their own inadequacies, and focus their unresolved anger at their failed relationships on to women in general, and bleat on incessantly about how awful mothers and feminists are.

Like I said, by all means celebrate fathers and fatherhood, but don't do so in order to push another insidious agenda. I'm a father and I resent being conscripted into campaigns that push a homophobic religious agenda, or indeed seek to reverse the gains made by women to redress gender inequality in recent decades.

Well said CJMorgan..
>"Like I said, by all means celebrate fathers and fatherhood, but don't do so in order to push another insidious agenda."

A voice of reason in an otherwise hateful campaign waged on these pages against gay men, single mothers, and women in general.

Happy fathers day to all those fathers out there who rise above the hatefulness expressed here and just get on with being wonderful fathers and wonderful men in general- like my husband and father!

In our extended family we rejoice in the homely, commercial humbug-free nature of Father's Day. It is very different to Mother's Day and that reflects I think essential differences between men and women and their expectations. No presents, sugar-coated cards, chocolates and bouquets from us for the menfolk, just the honest thanks, a good meal and the informal get-together with children everwhere. Although the proudly given handmade gifts from Kindy and Pre-School are always a delight. Men and fathers don't need fuss to show how much we care, the hug or pat on the shoulder is enough.

A tradition we have is red and white roses on the tables for our mid-afternoon bbq or ploughman's lunch (always depends on how hot the season is): red rose buds for the fathers who are alive and white to remember for those who are departed.

I found this message and poem provided by John Sampson, New York State Senator quite moving, expressing as it does recognition for fathers and all men who are helpers, mentors and friends of youth and support and guide them through life. This is for all of you:

http://www.nysenate.gov/report/happy-fathers-day

Australia should develop its own traditions for Father's Day. The marketers' dream of a commercialised Fathers' Day (ties, chocolates and glitz) is inappropriate and objectionable to men. Fatherhood can only be celebrated on an individual basis and by the family. Marketing (similar to Mother's Day) just makes men look foolish and diminishes the sacrifice and quiet achievement they are renouned for.

Oops, that should be 'renowned'. Enjoy yourselves and thanks.

Cornflower

<< Australia should develop its own traditions for Father's Day. The marketers' dream of a commercialised Fathers' Day (ties, chocolates and glitz) is inappropriate and objectionable to men. Fatherhood can only be celebrated on an individual basis and by the family. >>

And you place a link to a piece of saccharine USA pap? You are a constant puzzle, Cornflower.

Anyway

Happy Father's Day to:

My brother-in-law - I love my niece and nephew, they are a credit to both their parents.

The father of my best friend's first baby (born last Monday 31st August), I know you are going to be a fantastic dad as you continue to be with the children from your former marriage.

I hope everyone makes a big fuss over you - you all deserve it.

CJ Morgan and suzeonline,

It never ceases to amaze me that people who would identify as following an 'inclusive' agenda use words like "insidious" and "hateful" to describe people who hold different opinions to themselves. As with many on the left, it seems your 'tolerance' only extends as far as those who agree with you.

CJ Morgan you are particularly worrying. You call people who push a model of the family which has existed for over 2000 years and has formed the foundation of our civilisation 'insidious'. What is wrong with you? I'm not even Christian and have no problem with Gay marriage but at least I'm tolerant enough to accept differing views.

Happy Father's day to all the fathers out there - even the intolerant ones.

On the contrary Dane, I enjoy sparring with people with differing views on these pages.

The people I don't enjoy are those with hate and bitterness spewing from their words.

I don't imagine people who have such negative thoughts would ever have an unbiased debate anyway.

You are right though, I should say happy fathers day to all fathers, not just the happy ones!

I too shall join in wishing all the loving dads a happy fathers' day. Well done guys.

To the missing dads, who've raised the national child support debt to $1 billion, I send a great big raspberry - phhhhhhhhhh! May Karma be kind to you when the bits start falling off and you're all alone!

The posters of CJ and his like are typical of people with small minded dogmas who are totally intolerant of what is good and wholesome. It would have to have something to do with failure in their own life. He accuses those who promote the traditional family as homophobic and yet it often the promoters of this disgusting lifestyle who are first to put forward their prejudice poison. This post is no difference. How any sane person could see homosexual parents as a healthy choice in society is beyond belief and yet the small number of these people seem to have such a loud voice in media and also here on OLO. Warwicks story is one of love commitment and honesty while his knockers seem only interested in trying to prove some unproven and warped theories that kids don't really need a father and mothers. They deny nature at its most basic.

Rebekah- "I last read that most gay men have around 10 to 49 partners"

Many, many heterosexual men have had more than 10 partners- of those that haven't it's not for want of trying. Many of those men will go on to be great fathers and husbands.

If we all agree that marriage strengthens the bonds of heterosexual relationships, why would it not have the same effect on same gendered ones?

"in the UK new peer reviewed research says that children who are brought up in by gay parents are most likely to be gay themselves (Sociologist, Patricia Morgan)".

Patricia Morgan is a well documented conservative activist and that study was published by the Christian Institute- a notorious British far-right group with an avowedly anti-homosexual agenda. I can find no information that confirms the study was peer reviewed.

In addition, that study is over SEVEN YEARS old- which in research terms is aeons ago. There have been hundreds of studies in the meantime, all over the world, the majority of which have shown that on average, children with same-gendered parents do as well as those with heterosexual parents. Children with same-sex parents are not more likely to be gay- they are simply more likely to be open and comfortable about it if they are. If a parent's sexuality was able to influence a child's there would be no gay people.

"The above doesn't make me homophobic"

Correct- you are not afraid of gay people, you are a heterosexual supremacist.

Readers might be interested to know that Warwick's Fatherhood Foundation released a document a few years ago in which it was claimed that gay, lesbian and bisexual people were mentally ill and suffering from "gender disorientation pathology".

Never heard of "gender disorientation pathology"? That's because its a made up disorder that is not recognised by any psychological or psychiatric body in the world and has never appeared in the DSM.

So as much as we all should value fathers, you'll excuse me if I put as much stock in Mr Marsh's opinions as I do the Church of Scientology's.

CORNFLOWER. A lovely post about how you celebrate fathers day. I have just recieved a card from my daughter who i fought for,for so long to rescue from her abusive and neglecting mother and brought up myself and who is going through university on a shoestring budget because i spent all my money in the family court.It reads as follows;
DEAR DAD. I'm sorry i couldn't buy you a present this year but i hope this letter will mean more to you than any gift ever could. This year has made me realise how much you mean to me and how different my life would be if you were no longer here. When you went in for your operation [i had open heart surgery] i couldn't help but think of all the things you'd miss if you didn't pull through. Without you i would never have made it to where i am today, and more than anyone i want you to be at my graduation. It will be as much your achievement as mine. If you hadn't fought for me and made all the sacrifices you did, who knows where i would be today. I want you to be there when i get married to walk me down the aisle. If i have children some day i want them to know you, i want you to love them and encourage them to follow their dreams as you did for me. Words can't describe how truly devastated i'd be if you missed any of these things. I also can't express how happy i am that you've finally found daphne. You deserve a happily ever after as corny as that sounds.I hope you have an awesome fathers day. Love always S.

What greater gift could a father wish for. HAPPY FATHERS DAY TO ALL.

Thank you for a great, love based, article, and for the positive, love based, comments of those, allegedly right wing, patriarchy denying, men.

Thank you, also, to the hate based, left wing, lesbian, femanazi, paedophile, comments as well, long may you continue, to ignore, the facts, or try to twist them into your sick, child abuse agenda. You do more to destroy femanazism every time you repeat the fact less, propaganda over, & over, & over again.

The same tactics repeatedly, also undoes your cause, "blame the victim", "accuse the victim, first, of exactly, what you, yourself, have been doing", "and always play the aboriginal card, because, the sick way, you people compere them to the entire white society, instead of comparing them to poor white trash where dysfunctionality, child abuse and neglect is just as bad".

When will you take responsibility, for deadbeat, single, mothers who manufacture, dysfunctional children, by soaking their bodies, before, during conception, pregnancy, and breast feeding, in tobacco, alcohol, drugs, glue, petrol, etc, leaving both, genders, pre programmed for violence.

Gentlemen, if you enjoyed the article, i can thoroughly recommend "Father and Child Reunion" by Dr. Warren Farrell to you as well.

Well look you all over here in the serious section.[smile]

As well as being a parent to our own two (nearly grown) children, my husband has so far wiped the noses, dried the tears and taught 110 little souls how to laugh at falling over, bounce on a trampoline, give another child a cuddle when hurt and how to applaud when another wins the game. He has been a temporary father to these small children and in many cases maybe the only one they ever knew.

So to a wonderful man, an amazing father and my best friend.

Happy Fathers Day Honey.

Anti

What I'm curious to know is why certain groups from both genders are so eager to demonise the other sex and claim that they are worse parents. Surely such generalisations can not add much to the debate. Perhaps the answer is that some parents are wonderful people, others are terrible scum who should never have had children.

Obviously we find some men and women who are brilliant and some men and women who are truly terrible... This has to do with individuals...

Jason Thompson,

Mate I don't know all your circumstances but I know and understand the guts you've got to take on two youngsters by yourself.

I've shared your story and understand the statistics you've supplied.

Mine are now both off my hands and reasonably successful.

The worst moments I can recall were when well-meaning mothers interrogated my daughter in an attempt to see if I was molesting her. It's a discrimination I never really came to understand or accept, and one I've never spoken about. I hope, if you have a daughter, both she and you never experience such disgracefulness.

Well done and keep up the good work, the rewards you'll see in the future and will make the effort worth more than you probably yet realise.

My youngsters today gave me two tickets to see Fleetwood Mac in December ... they know I've loved Stevie Nix ... all these years.

Firstly, Happy Fathers Day to all you Dads!
I don't need to spout statistics and philosophies to state that a happy home is one in which the husband loves his wife and has an active, loving role in the life of his kids.
Where the governing principle is not "give & take" but "give & receive".
I can say the above without fear of contradiction because I live in that happy home.
Here’s to all the Dads that give of their time, their love, their experience and wisdom - not just of their salary - KEEP THE LOVE REVOLUTION GOING!

My whole life I've never liked to hear everything from a man's point of view. Who is man to boast? Who has all the answers? What matters most is what the Almighty Creator has to say and he makes no mistakes. I came from a broken home when I was 3yrs old I was fortunate to have a great mum to raise us as kids to get by, then I had a great Stepfather when I was 12 years old. I am now married with three children and my firstborn son I remember looking him in the eyes as a baby and prayed I never want to see you come from a broken home thru divorce like I did. I want you to be proud to call your dad, Dad. I wanted to be proud to call my son, Son. It's sad to see society views have so far strayed to being so selfish and think about their own wants/needs and not the best for the children. Children I believe have a right to have proper parents Father and Mother as how it was always from the beginning.People need to stop and think that even nature has it as it always was.It's disappointing to hear the views of some people that show hatred to Warwick and what he believes in making this world a better place for children and to help parents become greater parents, fathers become greater fathers, mothers become greater mothers giving people a much better chance of having great children. I believe it was the Almighty Creator that intervened and changed your destiny. An amazing story I was touched reading it. This Fathers day I wish all the dads a great fathers day.

ninaf:"What I'm curious to know is why certain groups from both genders are so eager to demonise the other sex and claim that they are worse parents."

That's a bit disingenuous, Nina. As you well know, there is a strong organised movement of "single" mothers that has arisen out of the Feminist movement, not to mention the massively organised Feminist movement itself. The "mainstream" feminist movement has won massive gains over the past 40 years or so, largely by focussing on the worst of male behaviour and comparing it to the "feminine ideal", which not coincidentally includes the nurturing role, especially motherhood.

That focus on male misbehaviour has lead to vilification of men becoming the norm. As a secondary consideration, there has long been a "secret women's business" denigrating men. The endless "mere male" stories that my Mum and nan used to cackle over with their friends existed lomg before Feminism and made it much easier for those who seek to vilify men to suit an agenda.

A woman in a poor marriage, a mother going through a conflictive marriage break-up and a radical feminist who wants to see "an end to patriarchy" have an obvious confluence of interests, which organised feminism has exploited ruthlessly.

Part of that exploitation has been the development of a simple anti-male dialectic (based largely on the "mere male", but considerably darker) that is easily adapted to almost any situation in which men and women are in conflict and in which the man is always cast as violent, sexually depraved, controlling, a poor parent, selfish, while the woman is either essentially pure, or so downtrodden as to have no meaningful capacity for self-determination. It's a corruption of the Marxist Labour/Capital dichotomy.

As a result of all of that, some men like myself have responded by pointing out that not all women are paragons and that for every bad male example there is a countervailing female one.

It's a shame that the subject has become so commercialised.

I had a lovely Father's Day yesterday. My kids all live hundreds of kilometers away, but my day started with phone calls from them and opening the gifts that my youngest two sent me. I'll see them next week when I go to Brisbane and stay with them at my ex's while she is overseas for a couple of weeks.

I had to open the business for a few hours, after which I attended a Father's Day barbecue organised by the local fishing club - kids everywhere, mums, dads, grandads and even single blokes. Much beer and burgers consumed, babies cuddled and sprogs and rugrats running everywhere. Amazingly, there wasn't a mention of the "love revolution" or the "Almighty Creator" - but much discussion of fishing, which is what I went and did afterwards.

dane, I didn't say that the rash of new users who've shown up here in support of the blessed Warwick were insidious, rather it's their godbothering, homophobic agenda that is. However, they might well be insidious and hateful personally as well - so let's find out:

So, Late30sMum, cmpmal, Wally32, Jason Thompson, felix_fortunatus, PaulG, Rebekah, Adrian Adair, MartinsS, Mike T - how did you all happen upon this article at OLO, and decide to register and comment in support of it, given that none of you have ever posted anything here before?

Be honest please - no bearing false witness...

Dear CJ,
So by registering at OLO recently, agreeing that fathers need to love their families and by wishing all the Dads out there a happy Fathers Day I have a "godbothering, homophobic agenda"... that’s really sad. And patently untrue.
Perhaps CJ you need to look at what your agenda is and why you look to pull down rather than build up.
I’m glad that you enjoyed your Fathers Day. Let others enjoy theirs without your insinuations of "they might well be insidious and hateful personally as well".
LONG LIVE THE (LOVE) REVOLUTION!

WTF? I'm not a God type either I found this article through a search on fathers. Theres some kind of subtext or personality thing going on here that I just dont get, maybe an anti Christian thing? To be honest I couldn't give a rats.

Happy fathers day for yesterday - even for paranoid CJ. Glad you had a great day with the rugrats etc.

Excellent article! There will always be bad examples of fathers, mothers,marriages....but it doesn't change the fact that the father and mother and children model has worked for centuries and is the way we should live. The answer is not to change the model by introducing same sex marriage an the like but to ensure that we are the best fathers and mothers and children we can be. To that end we need more education about how to be a good a good father, a good mother, a good child...Unfortunately it doesn't always come naturally - particularly if our role models growing up weren't exemplary. I challenge those who write the curricula for our schools to build these life skills in. Teach them what a good father looks like, what a good mother looks like, what a good child looks like...Well done Warwick! You have been honest about what you went through. That takes guts!

Yeah the Godbothering honophobic agenda is one out of the hat. Half the people CJ is accusing of same never said a word about either topic. Maybe CJ has an anti christian, pro-gay and anti W. Marsh agenda, hmmm

I agree with the general thrust of the article in that no matter how big a loser you are, don't commit suicide if you have children, it's messy.

I also did not realise there were so many people that apparently do online searches about fathers and are so passionate about it that they feel the need to register and comment on every article that they see on the subject.

Anti:”That focus on male misbehaviour has lead to vilification of men becoming the norm. As a secondary consideration, there has long been a "secret women's business" denigrating men. The endless "mere male" stories that my Mum and nan used to cackle over with their friends existed long before Feminism and made it much easier for those who seek to vilify men to suit an agenda.”

I get it Anti, I grew up listening to my father and uncles go on about useless women and how they shouldn’t be allowed in the workforce to take men’s jobs, only good for one thing etc. Money saved for my brother and handed over at 18, car at 16, thoughts of higher schooling for boys only.

It’s horrible what they did to us.

Michael O'Donohue and Michael Webb support National Marriage Day and all pro life issues, along with public ownership as part of the Pre Split patriotic Labor agenda.
Join with us now to ensure that both the ALP and the Coalition do not get the chance to sell short either natural marriage or our public assets.

http://www.dlpnsw.com/

Personally I'm happy to believe that there are as many abusive, vindictive women out there as there are abusive vindictive men but when it comes down to it, the abuse that women dish out tends to be psychological and its scars psychological, whereas the abuse that men dish out leaves scars that tend to be of the kind that are far easily recognised by the courts and police.

Not that physical retaliation is ever a justified response to psychological abuse. The only justified response is to leave your partner if they refuse to seek counselling- preferably before there are kids in the picture.

No one should ever feel an obligation to get married or have kids, and if they aren't suited to it, should not feel or be made to feel that there is something missing from their lives because of it- there are lots of other worthwhile callings on this Earth.

Every person who is considering having kids should be encouraged to ask themselves some very hard questions about whether they really have the skills and aptitudes required for the task.

Having a child in the hope that it will transform a partner is probably the worst reason one could bring a life into the world and a sure sign of trouble ahead.

Most often, marriages fail because people who should have never gotten married to each other did, and child neglect and abuse occurs because people who never should have had children did.

Thankfully, with parenting in the gay community, those who have neither the aptitude nor inclination to raise a family are under no social pressure to do so, so those gay and lesbian couples that do have kids tend to be the committed ones and the cream of the crop- the hurdles they have to jump through in order to have a child ensure they've thought things through properly and made all the right preparations.

Andrew wrote: 'the abuse that women dish out tends to be psychological and its scars psychological, whereas the abuse that men dish out leaves scars..'

Thats more traditional folklore regarding the 'softer sex' rarely physically abusing, at least not today. Contemporary Aussie research and crime stats tell that women are equally *physically* violent against males/children, and indeed in against other women in public places. In other words the ol line that men physically abuse / women emotionally abuse is a misleading cliche.

The government facts on "physical violence" against children provides conclusive proof:

http://www.mensrights.com.au/dads_not_the_demons.pdf

These official government figures show that women are in fact more violent towards children than males. Thats right more, even if marginally.

Until we accept that women are violent the children will continue to be disbelieved when they disclose that mum bashes them. Do we want this?

Piper

Men and women have probably been sniping at each other for centuries. What has changed has been the rise of feminism. It is no longer socially acceptable to discuss women in the same way that those men in your family used to. I doubt that you know many men who still denigrate women in that way. On the other hand, we are still getting a pretty dim portrayal of men from a variety of sources.

Television routinely denigrates men in a variety of ways, partly because men don't watch as much television except sport and advertisers know that men don't control much spending. Current affairs and crime programs like their victims to be female and their villans to be male. Soapies and comedies are full of unhealthy relationships, where female chatacters constantly abuse male characters for wrongdoing. Much advertising follows the same pattern.

Many articles and posts on OLO also paint an unfairly poor view of men and these forums give us a chance to defend ourselves. If others portray domestic violence as men bashing women, then some of us blokes will defend ourselves by discussing data and personal experience that shows that women are just as violent.
Others might insist that sexual assault must always be seen as male villans assaulting female victims. Many incidents have shown this model to be flawed and some of us feel a need to say something in the defence of the men involved.
We are also routinely told that men are lazy and don't contribute enough to their families. Some of us blokes know this is unfair and wist to discuss the extra paid work that many men do.
Others might insist that men tend to be overpaid. Many studies have found that this is due to men having extra experience and working longer hours.

We don't go out of our way to criticise women, we just see a need to counter untrue statements made by others that criticise men unfairly.

As several commenters want to laud the potential abilities of gays as good parents (a sentiment I do not disagree with) they should be included in this conversation about physical violence. Unfortunately I do not know the prevalence of violence in gay relationships. Does anyone know the *official* violence levels proven in gay relationships/families?

Andrew M Potts

Just a further comment on your post. When my sons were in primary school, the teacher brought her gay brother into school to talk to the kids about life as a homosexual (it was an alternative school). At question time, when he was asked what was the worst thing about being gay, his answer was the liklihood of never having children.

Not the discrimination suffered, or the reaction from parents and community or the pervasive risk of assault. It was the greatly reduced opportunity to have children. It certainly made my sons think - and me too when they later told me about it.

Jason you ask

'Does anyone know the *official* violence levels proven in gay relationships/families?'

I think you can be sure that just like the disease rate among homosexuals is kept secret so would the levels of violence and length of relationships be kept silent. Speak to any honest doctor and you might get some truth. Any honest study would be immediately labeled homophobic especially by our national broadcasters.

Jason Thompson

'Contemporary Aussie research and crime stats tell that women are equally *physically* violent against males/children, and indeed in against other women in public places'

This myth has come up many times on OLO. The 'research' you refer to is based on a deeply flawed methodology called Conflict Tactics Scale which has been heavily peddled by conservative, anti-feminism think-tanks to promote a false 'hidden epidemic' of violence by women against men.

I've outlined the flaws in this methodology several times on OLO. So I won't go into them again here. However, anyone interested in reading further, this is one of the best links available:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/faq-but-doesnt-evidence-show-that-women-are-just-as-likely-to-batter-their-partners-as-men/

SJF

I notice you refer to conflict tactic scales and not to published crime figures or official stats on SUBSTANTIATED physical violence by mothers and fathers. Here is the substantiated figures for violence against children by mothers and fathers showing that mothers are indeed more physically violent: http://www.mensrights.com.au/dads_not_the_demons.pdf

Even though the above poster provided the child abuse data it seems you forgot to mention them in your rush to dismiss female violence. Children need you to face up to the reality of who is bashing them.

SJF. The figures Jason Thomson mentions are official government figures, the link you posted is a feminist blog, of course a feminist blog is going to agree with what you say. The fact is that these ARE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT FIGURES,don't insult the intelligence of other posters like Mr Thomson, the self interest between your views and the feminist blog you have posted a link to is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time. My daughter,who i brought up myself after rescuing her from an abusive and neglecting mother, is at university doing an honours degree in psychology, she has studied RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, she has seen first hand the feminist influence in her own university[ it's the same in most universities]and has seen how they manipulate figures to suit their own ends. She has also experienced first hand what it is like to be forced to live with a violent, abusive and neglecting mother, she also saw in her younger days the abuse i had to put up with. She has also had first hand experience of how little value our biased family law system places on a fathers love, in fact she is considering doing her PHD on the subject. Hah how i would love to be a fly on the wall if she and yourself ever got into a debate on the subject.

SJF, is a femanazi and therefore, incapable of honesty, even some of the more moderate ones, who have been softening their rhetoric lately, are incapable of getting past the indoctrination, inflicted on them, for 40 years now, and still go along with the stats their sistas rig.

BTW, from my extensive contacts in the gay and lesbian communities, i can tell you anecdotally, that gay relationships, are reasonably normal, as far as DV goes, but lesbian relationships, are extremely violent and always covered up, by lesbians, in the police forces, legal aid, etc, the victims are always pressured into not making statements or withdrawing them.

BTW, Anybody watch 60 minutes last night? When will these femanazis, acknowledge the steady increase in gay, lesbian, and transgender lifestyle over the last 40 years? Any child, growing up, post femanazism, has been brainwashed since birth, into thinking, there is something intrinsically wrong, with being male. Is it any wonder, some of them, got confused, sexually?

SJF

Lets not get bogged down in a long debate about which gender commits more domestic violence. Both sides have their favourite statistics and there are too many complicating factors, such as play fighting/real fighting, psychological damage/ physical damage, defensive violence/ other violence. We could snipe back and foward all week and at the end of it all, most people will believe what they believed at the start.

The one thing that you would find it hard to disagree with is that domestic violence is more complex than the 'women are the victims and men are always the baddies' picture that certain people peddle.

“SJF, is a femanazi and therefore, incapable of honesty, even some of the more moderate ones, who have been softening their rhetoric lately, are incapable of getting past the indoctrination, inflicted on them, for 40 years now, and still go along with the stats their sistas rig.”

Official statistics are not commonly “rigged” Formersnag and you really should get over yourself and refrain from spouting such ignorance. The feminist movement happened well over forty years ago and perhaps you should ask why.

Feminists in Australia in the late 19th Century faced an unsympathetic media. They were labelled the "shrieking sisterhood” by misogynists like yourself.

The courageous men who supported these women fared no better. They were called poor wretched creatures and accused of being illogical and absurd. According to letters to the editor and editorials in newspapers at the time, men who spoke about women's suffrage ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Well of course women could not even vote until the turn of the 20th century and the male wanted to keep it that way.

This was an era, after all, when it was still lawful for a man to beat his wife "so long as he does not use a stick thicker than his thumb!"

“I think you can be sure that just like the disease rate among homosexuals is kept secret.”

Balderdash Runner! There have been more publications and statistics on AIDS than any other STD. You have a very short memory too on the plagues of syphilis and gonorrhoea which were once rampant and killing off the heterosexual community. Syphilitic chancres in the mouth and on genitals then insanity, culminating in death.

There is no moral difference between a promiscuous heterosexual and a promiscuous homosexual. The difference between AIDs and syphilis/gonorrhoea is a medical one – penicillin does not cure AIDS!

“Personally I'm happy to believe that there are as many abusive, vindictive women out there as there are abusive vindictive men but when it comes down to it, the abuse that women dish out tends to be psychological and its scars psychological, whereas the abuse that men dish out leaves scars that tend to be of the kind that are far easily recognised by the courts and police.”

What a complete load of stinky Andrew. Like a kid being hit by their father prefers that to their mother saying nasty things to them. You really want to know the worst and most soul destroying type of abuse? Neglect beats Abuse hands down in the permanent damage game. And it is the hardest to prove in court. And now I am going to ignore you and your beliefs.

Hey Benk, it’s all a bit of a mess and same old comments over and over that I have read in the General Threads. I’m not normally over here in Articles so have no idea about previous articles critiquing men and if some build up of resentment has been the result.

Runner that is much more interesting – domestic violence stats relating only to gay couples. First google result I had:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence

"According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.[2] In addition, the American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."[2]..."

Pied Piper, Interesting info about higher rate of violence between homosexual couples and one wonders if this is replicated in other studies?

Child abuse experts in Australia are presently highlighting findings that if a parent is/has been physically violent toward their spouse there is a significant correlation and hightened risk that the same parent may perpetrate violence against their child.

Does this hightened risk of violence against children apply to homosexuals as well as hetrosexuals? This seems like a logical question which should be considered in the debate about child adoption.

Fractelle, "And you place a link to a piece of saccharine USA pap? You are a constant puzzle, Cornflower"

The real puzzle was that I couldn't find kind words about Father's Day by any Australian government minister. How poor is that? The only statement I could find was a very patronising, backhanded compliment pre Fathers Day by Chris Bowen:

'2 September 2009
Father's Day: Minister thanks separated dads for their child support

Australian fathers who are separated but who “do the right thing” by paying their child support have been thanked for their efforts by the Minister for Human Services, Chris Bowen MP.

Mr Bowen, whose Portfolio responsibilities include the Child Support Agency (CSA), said while the number of mums paying child support was growing, more than 87 percent of child support payments in Australia were paid by men.

“On behalf of the 1.1 million children in our child support system who benefit from those payments, I want to say ‘thank you’ to the dads who do the right thing,” Mr Bowen said.'

How churlish of the minister, Chris Bowen MP that his only contribution to Father's Day 2009 was an indirect spray of fathers who don't pay child support.

Fractelle, if you can find any statement by any Australian government minister that says anything worthwhile and kind about Father's Day I will gladly quote it. That would be much better than having to find a more generous soul from another country to quote.

BTW, what sort of a life do you live that you can only find two men to say something kind about on Father's Day, namely your brother-in-law and "The father of my best friend's first baby". What stops you from offering a few kind words to the many fathers and other male role models who are making a sterling effort towards guiding and supporting youth?

I wouldn't waste your breath Protagoras. Fomersnag continually shows his hatred for women and his strong language about feminazis is ironic given his own extremist position on gender issues. There must be something true about the old adage "we hate most in others that which we see in ourselves".

That is what is wrong with gender debate in Australia (or maybe just on OLO) today. Extremist viewpoints without any substance that fail on a humanistic level seeking only to build a position of self-interest ie. what's in it for me.

TPP, "Neglect beats Abuse hands down in the permanent damage game. And it is the hardest to prove in court."

Well said!

Neglect provides the conditions under which abuse is likely to occur too.

It is a pity that politics drives the agenda and the sex abuse tail swings the neglect dog.

Regrettably, some 'advocates' who influence government policy have their own secondary agenda to serve.

It would appear that although this is called on-line opinion, some opinions are more welcome than others. My non pc opinion on homosexuality has so far been held in check. My opinions on religion here have also been held in check, I don’t believe either is relevant to what Warwick has written here. What does it matter if some have joined up just to comment, or others commenting have been members here for years.

Some relevant facts are that the suicide rate in Australia is higher than the national road toll, and that men suicide at 5 times the rate women do. Here in NSW we have the RTA carrying out a massive anti male speeding campaign (no one thinks big of you) which doesn’t get the message across to female drivers, yet we have no, NO state or federal suicide prevention programs, no advertising the facts about suicide, and sweet FA funding on this taboo subject.

Protagoras “Official statistics are not commonly ‘rigged’” explain please then the difference in the ABS stats for the 1999 “women’s safety survey” and the 2005 “personal safety survey”! The former claimed 1 in 4 (25%) women suffer some form of violence during their lifetime, the later shows less than 4% of the female population? Could it have anything to do with the former actually having data collected by the Office for Women?

For the past several years we have had this Federal Campaign, fully paid for by taxpayer, “to violence against women, Australia says no” when the 2005 PSS shows 7% of the male population suffer from violence yet less than 4% of the female population do. All violence should be deplored (especially at a government level).

My personal opinion, in order to prevent children being harmed we have to be honest with ourselves about who is doing the harm, as with the AIC report, the WA DCP data etc. Oliver Garcia, James Topham, Darcy Freeman, Dean Shillingsworth, all killed by someone supposed to be protecting them, NO court is to blame, no piece of legislation holds the responsibility, rare senseless tragedies

Ross M, I too am very sad about all the people that are so in despair that they feel the only way out is to commit suicide.

You suggest there should be funding for this national tragedy. What would the funding be used for? Advertising campaign?

No- the main reasons for these suicides are often very deep-seated and personal. These people need the professional help that mental health workers can give them, but our current mental health system is given very little funding, especially in rural areas where many suicides occur.
We need to lobby our MPs hard for more funding.

Yes, there are more men that commit suicide, but I feel that if we address family violence, sexual abuse and neglect of children- both boys and girls- it would go a long way towards preventing most of these suicidal feelings in the first place.

Instead of this feud between men and women, blaming each other for all the woes of the world, shouldn't we all be in this together to try to fix the problems in families today?

Suzwonline:"Yes, there are more men that commit suicide, but I feel that if we address family violence, sexual abuse and neglect of children- both boys and girls- it would go a long way towards preventing most of these suicidal feelings in the first place."

That is the tack that has failed. Trying to fix male problems with a female-centric approach is doomed to failure. Each of the matters you have mentioned has a long history of Government-sponsored propaganda blaming men and never mentioning the role women play, as RossM said.

I do agree that there needs to be an end to the constant vilification of men. I was at my son's school office yesterday, which is staffed exclusively by women, from the Principal on down. It's in an affluent area, where I suspect that the prevalence of DV is quite low, yet in the foyer of the Admin block there are no less than 3 different posters and several stickers about "violence against women", all of which show a man and a battered woman. There are at least another half a dozen stickers saying "girls can do anything", and several advertising "Crimestoppers" featuring a male breaking violently into a window with the immortal authoritarian tag-line "no one need ever know your name". There isn't a single positive statement about boys and men to be seen.

What impression do you reckon a boy might get if he's sent to the Principal's office?

The Beyond Blue experiment has been a massive failure, with research funding spent principally on issues to do with female depression, almost ignoring male depression and suicide by comparison. This was discussed some time ago on OLO.

Much male depression and suicide occurs in the context of family breakdown. I suffered a very bad reactive depression myself, not because of the ex, but because of the wall of antipathy that is erected by the State around separated men. This is not theoretical, it happens and very often the man kills himself.

What I suggest is needed most is some positivity around the role of men in our society.

Cornflower, I too struggled to find a positive comment about fathers, not just from politicians, but from the media and others. For example, my kids and I went to the Broncos game on Sunday night and all over the field were big Telstra ads saying "Call Mum too", while never even mentioning Dad. In the Courier Mail, which carried a large front page Mother's Day special, there wasn't a mention of "Happy Father's Day", but there was a press release about why women choose not to become mothers. Ditto in the Fairfax Press - an opinion piece by Charles Waterstreet about his Dad last week was about it.

It's not surprising, of course. The media today is dominated by feminist women, most of whom are very happy to regurgitate the feminist claptrap they were stuffed full of in their gender studies classes. They understand that "the patriarchy must be opposed", they feel deeplythat "all men are potential rapists", they know in their bones that "solidarity with the sisterhood" must be maintained, so Dads can't be discussed except as wife-bashers and child molesters. Even if a good story comes along, they'll try to find a negative example to mention along with it.

There is going to be a reckoning.

The Pied Piper- "What a complete load of stinky Andrew. Like a kid being hit by their father prefers that to their mother saying nasty things to them. You really want to know the worst and most soul destroying type of abuse? Neglect beats Abuse hands down in the permanent damage game. And it is the hardest to prove in court."

You're reading between the lines here and finding a meaning that simply wasn't there in my statement. I didn't say that physical abuse was worse than psychological abuse, only that it was more obvious to police and the courts. On that we apparently agree. Nor did I make any statement implying that women do not hit their partners as another poster assumed. Women certainly do hit their partners- however, men tend to be physically more powerful than women so their violence tends to result in more obvious physical tells.

"According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.[2] In addition, the American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."[2]..."

Firstly, Conservapedia, that you take this quote from, isn't exactly an impartial source. It wears its bias on its sleeve.

Secondly- both these statements are comparing ALL homosexual couples, whether they be just dating, or are defacto, or (if they were allowed to) would be married, with only those heterosexual couples that are married. If they'd compared dissolusion and violence rates between same sex couples who were legally married and heterosexual couples who were legally married, the results might be meaningful, but they didn't so they're not. It has generally been found that there are higher rates of violence and dissolusion among heterosexual defactos compared to those who are married.

Hey SJF I read one of your links!

I needn't have. It's what I expected.

MYTH: WOMEN ARE AS VIOLENT AS ARE MEN, AND WOMEN INITIATE VIOLENCE AS OFTEN AS DO MEN.

response;

'no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men'

ie. We concede this, but it doesn't matter. That's not exploding any myth at all. Women are as violent as men, just not as strong.

The supposedly exploded (though accepted) 'myth' here is usually used on OLO to give women some responsibility in the escalation of violence in a relationship. ie If a woman initiates violence and it leads to her being injured in retaliation, it's fair to say that a campaign to educate her not to do so is sensible in a campaign to reduce domestic violence.

But the clincher in SJF's link...

'A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her.'

Hahahahahahaha. So, it doesn't matter what a woman might have done 'psychologically', or how many plates she's thrown, to violence against women, Australia says no. If you talk about what a woman might have done first, you're BLAMING THE VICTIM.

BUT, in violence against men, 'A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her.'

So, there you have it!

With the lack of enthusiasm from politicians and media regarding Fathers Day perhaps International Men's Day can be utilized to highlight the contributions, experiences and health needs of males (including non-fathers, teenagers and boys)?

http://www.internationalmensday.com/

Our boys in particular need to draw hope and inspiration from somewhere

International Men's Day in Australia: http://www.internationalmensday.com/international/australia

Formersnag- "When will these femanazis, acknowledge the steady increase in gay, lesbian, and transgender lifestyle over the last 40 years?"

You don't think this "increase" in people being open about their sexuality has anything to do with the fact that we no longer send gay people to jail or allow them to be legally expelled, sacked, and denied housing, do you?

If homosexuality was a cultural phenomenon, why is it that there are less gay venues operating in Australian cities today than there have ever been (the peak was about 15-20 years ago in Sydney), when more people are being open about their sexuality than ever before? The answer is that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice and more and more of us are living the same sorts of lives with the same sorts of values as our heterosexual siblings, neighbours and friends because we're not being rejected by them, and have no desire to live inside a monolithic gay ghetto.

I do hope you're not one of those people who think homosexuality is a choice, because my logic, for someone to rationally believe that they'd have to either be bisexual or asexual.

Instep:”Does this heightened risk of violence against children apply to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals? This seems like a logical question which should be considered in the debate about child adoption.”

From another google search: “What is really gay domestic violence is often recorded in police logs as "mutual combat." If society refuses to acknowledge the relationship, it is impossible to acknowledge the domestic violence.”

But then a child witnessing that is abuse anyway.

It would have to be individual couples that matter in any adoption process (which is the same as me admitting I have no idea what I am talking about). Why are we talking about gay adoption – I just went and read the article… in future I will try and do that before saying anything.

My thoughts about the author’s story of redemption are the same as Houels but probably a tad less scathing. Daydreaming about crashing in to a tree is very different from knowing for sure you would have done it. Looking back and deciding it was a measure of your love for your child is a little odd but what the hell the guy sounds like a nice man.

Corn:”BTW, what sort of a life do you live that you can only find two men to say something kind about on Father's Day...”

Someone has their cranky pants on, S’okay Fractelle I don’t have a list in my head either. Cornflower I want to understand more about the political agenda thing and sexual abuse but maybe not in this thread? I thought it was bit stricter over here with topics?

Suzy:”Instead of this feud between men and women, blaming each other for all the woes of the world, shouldn't we all be in this together to try to fix the problems in families today?”

Yes. And it’s the men’s fault we’re not.

Anti you’re funny; I saw lots of ads for Father’s Day and signs up outside of shops. Huge ones, everywhere. It is a disgrace there is not a Non-Parent Day for those sensible people who chose to flag procreation

Oh oh Anti, you should have watched Better Homes and Gardens on Friday.

My missus and I played a drinking game where whenever they said the word Dad, we had to take a drink. We got Smmaaaaasssshed. Really Trolleyed. You shoulda been there. Although not afterwards, that'd be just weird. Maybe if you were a chick.

Piper,

'Suzy:”Instead of this feud between men and women, blaming each other for all the woes of the world, shouldn't we all be in this together to try to fix the problems in families today?”

Yes. And it’s the men’s fault we’re not.'

I'm jealous I didn't come up with that. Just a nod of respect. Hey is that a secret message to AS?

Ron M,

'It would appear that although this is called on-line opinion, some opinions are more welcome than others'
You're a quick learner.

Anticeptic, I do understand your feelings after a nasty marital breakdown situation, as I have gone through it all with my parents and best friends' divorces.
I was one of four siblings in the middle of a feud in my own family.

Those family breakdown situations should not be used by men to call all women 'feminazis' or to see some sort of female conspiracy in the courts, schools or in society at large.That is a very narrowminded view of life.

Surely there must be some women you feel positive about in your life?
I do understand why people feel that way after a nasty divorce, but eventually we all have to move on and concentrate on the children.

What you seem to forget Anticeptic, is that all these 'nasty' women have male relatives- Fathers, sons, brothers, uncles and partners/husbands who are loved by them. Why on earth would they all hate men and construct society laws and values around this hatred of men?

If we are seeing posters about domestic violence depicting men, or broken windows depicting men as burglars, then it is because the bulk (but NOT ALL) of these crimes are perpetrated by men! Nothing more and nothing less.

If those posters you are upset about make some children aware that what is happening in their home is a crime and not the norm, then maybe the cycle of violence will stop against both boys and girls.

SUZEONLINE. I take it then, that since it has been proven by official government statistics that more mothers than fathers commit child abuse and neglect you would be quite happy to see posters everywhere showing a mother belting a child or a picture of a young child left alone while the mother is out at the pub boozing. As official government crime statistics show that the number of mothers committing infanticide or child murder is significantly higher than the number of fathers committing these offences i presume you would also be happy to see posters everywhere showing a mother shaking a child to death or perhaps as in dean shillingsworths case shoving a child into a case and throwing him in a duckpond.After all the bulk [ but not all ] of these crimes are being perpetrated by mothers not fathers, as YOU SAID yourself nothing more nothing less. Or perhaps you agree with statistics on child sexual abuse and DV being perpetrated by men because they agree with your ideas, but ignore the others mentioned because they don't.You can't have it both ways and retain any credibility.If you wish to see a narrow minded view on life i suggest you visit the facebook site, FAMILY LAW CAMPAIGN, LETS PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. They have an in memorium section there of children killed by their parents, EVERY ONE is a child killed by its father, not one of a child killed by its mother, not one. It is these people who are gendercising the child protection debate, little wonder they are termed feminazi's with all the lies and propaganda they turn out. Don't blame fathers when they fight back against this type of tyranny just as the feminists did years ago. These people are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Quite correct Pelican and your keen perceptions are valued as always.

Formersnag claims he has extensive contacts with the gay and lesbian community. That's a rather dubious claim and I'd be interested in knowing the ratio of lesbians in the Australian community. Perhaps I should ask my daughter-in-law's brother who's gay, however, this young guy has enough problems coping with the fact that his pious family don't acknowledge his homosexuality. As far as one can tell, his naive father isn't even aware of it.

Formersnag alludes to the gay and lesbian "lifestyle" which further compounds his ignorance. Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. Who would "choose" to be a homosexual when poofter bashing and discrimination remains rampant, as witnessed on this thread.

And have the numbers of homosexuals remained static or have they increased? I choose the latter and rather compelling evidence reveals that homosexuality is determined before birth. One needs to investigate the reason for the hypothesised increase per capita and I would suggest an extensive research into the endocrine disruptors -the gender bending chemicals which impact on human and non-human embryos.

Scientists are also observing unprecedented levels of deformity and intersex conditions due to widespread pollution. Marine animals especially have been hard-hit due to high levels of estrogen-mimicking chemicals. Humankind is not immune to this phenomena, with male sperm counts in continual decline and undermasculinesed boys being born more and more often.

Furthermore, estrogen mimicking chemicals don't care whether you're a Christian, Muslim, bush baptist or an atheist, as my regional Anglican Bishop discovered when his progeny displayed a "flamboyancy uncommon in the male species!"

SPEECH BY MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL JEFFERY, NATIONAL MARRIAGE DAY BREAKFAST PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
THURSDAY, 13 AUGUST 2009


"Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, Marlena and I thank you most warmly and sincerely for the honour you have bestowed upon us as National Marriage Ambassadors.
...
It is often because the family structure has broken down in a community that violence and social disorder can occur.

And we know the home environment is the most important influence on a child's social and intellectual development.

We also know that it has a most significant effect on the child's early learning, school attainment and overall well being, and in particular a child's feelings of self worth and sense of identity.

Children are too inexperienced and impulsive to direct their own lives, so they need the guidance and loving support of their parents.

Ideally, this support will be provided by Mum and Dad living happily together and offering those essential masculine and feminine perspectives which balance and complement each other.

In a happy relationship, each parent can bring their full emotional, financial and other resources to bear on the critical task of parenting.

These days there are various forms of family relationships and some of these outside marriage no doubt are successful.

Nevertheless, I think the majority of our society still holds to the view that, in the main, the best form of relationship in respect to the long-term wellbeing of parents and their future children comes through a life long commitment of a man and a woman to each other, typically through the solemn personal and spiritual commitment made in the marriage ceremony.

It is also a simple provable fact, however unpalatable to its detractors.
...
As a society, we have a responsibility to ensure that to the best of our ability, every child is born into a caring, loving and sensibly disciplined environment.

One of the best ways we can achieve this is by encouraging and preparing people to enter loving, stable and long term relationships based preferably on the time-honoured institution of marriage.
...
Thank you."

Hope you’re not superstitious, Mr Magoo. You appear to be the thirteenth person who’s signed up to OLO specifically in order to barrack for Warwick Marsh in this discussion.

It would be interesting to know how many engagements Mike and Marlene have attended in their roles of Mr and Mrs Marriage Ambassador. I’ve been able to find just one, on 13 August. Doesn’t look to me like there’s much interest in it.

In his Dads4Kids newsletter on 17 August, Marsh bemoaned the lack of interest:

> The mainstream media ignored the fact that 500 people filled the
> Great Hall from all over Australia to show their support for
> marriage. The appointment of former Governor General Michael and Mrs
> Marlena Jeffery (43 years married) as Marriage Ambassadors was also
> ignored by a media obsessed only with bad news.

While endorsing the current legal definition of marriage, Senator Ursula Stephens, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector, was careful to place marriage in its current social context, as shown by this excerpt from her published speech to the breakfast function on 13 August:

“Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the Ngunnawal
people, the traditional owners of this land, and pay my
respects to their Elders past and present.
…
The Australian Government believes that people are entitled
to respect, dignity and the opportunity to participate in
society and receive the protection of the law regardless
of their sexuality or marital status.

The Government’s commitment to this belief was demonstrated
through the Government’s audit of Commonwealth laws in 2007
to identify discrimination against same-sex couples and
their children. This was followed in 2008 by the passage of
legislation to remove discrimination from 84 Commonwealth
laws.

These reforms mean that same-sex relationships are now
treated in the same way that opposite-sex de facto
relationships are treated for the purposes of Commonwealth
entitlements and programs.”

http://www.ursulastephens.com/RunScript.asp?page=171&Article_ID=934&AR=AR&p=ASP\~Pg171.asp

Finally, as this ABS report shows, the nature and role of marriage in Australia is changing, and changing rapidly:

http://abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/118F4A846EEB21F8CA2576200025DF55?Opendocument

Houel: “Hey is that a secret message to AS?”

Yeah you said that out loud, I’m going to provoke you until you snap baby.

There is a constant buzzing noise of the disadvantaged and notably there is plenty of evidence with the “posters” and “ads” etc depicting males as the bad people and a sad and hurtful lack of Fathers Day salutations along with judges who have been accused of frequently backing the weaker sex.

It is no surprise you have borrowed and run with some more tried and tested feminine traits like constant nagging, whinging and repeatedly acting accusatory and indignant to try and get your collective voices heard.

Your forefathers may well weep with the shame but without the understanding that your metrosexual sons could soon reap the benefits of eventually basking in the glory of a completely balanced society. One where man throws off the shackles of the ground dwelling primates that protect their females and offspring to embrace a new technological and frictionless society that attempts to ignore biology as a definer of gender roles.

You fathers with precious young children must teach them that if they are ever alone, frightened, and lost out in public, they need to approach the first adult male they see and take their hand, ask them for help. Put your faith in your gender boys, for the future, for a new society that is so titillating close to your hairy knuckled grasp.

Eyeinthesky, I wasn't aware we were discussing infanticide?
I commented on domestic violence posters etc- domestic violence is defined under Australian law as being violence committed by a heterosexual partner icluding intimidation, serious harrassment, physical harm,indecent behaviour and damage to property, or threats to do these actions.

The information I found is from the Australian Government site and the Medical Journal of Australia and is collected by police files and medical evidence.

According to police files, women are 8 times more likely to be injured by their partners in domestic violence situations.

According to medical records, women present to hospitals after being injured by their partners in far greater numbers than that of men.

Where did you find your' statistics? Maybe on a militant anti-female website such as on the trashy facebook sites?

Unless we are all on the same page with domestic violence issues, nothing will ever change. Or maybe men are happy with the current statistics?

suzeonline, "domestic violence is defined under Australian law as being violence committed by a heterosexual partner"

Only heterosexuals? See here:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/vaw/dvguidelines.nsf/pages/definitions

Antiseptic,

I think you should consider taking your child out and placing him in an all-boys' school.

If he hasn't got sisters then I'm not sure if it would be the best option, but if he has sisters and his mother living with him, and so relates easily to women in the home, then I think putting boys in all-boys' schools is now a much better option.

All-boys' schools tend to have a higher percentage of male teachers and of course the whole ethos of the school revolves around getting the best out of the boys, rather than seeing them as some type of defective girl.

In mixed schools its always the girls who are more compliant and so get to go to lunch first, get their books firsts etc. They have female teachers who read books females like, do topics of interest to females and who see rough and ready 'boy' behaviour as disruptive. Consequently, boys will find themselves punished more often and less often rewarded. Their self-esteem will not be developed as well as it could be.

They will learn from an early age that girls are more important. So unless there are no significant females in his life, I think it would be better to put him in a school where he is valued for who he is rather than for the gender he is not.

Hi Cornflower, I got that particular definition from the 'Medical Journal of Australia' website--see link below.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_07_021000/hegarty/hegarty.html

Now that I look at it again, maybe it should read heterosexual or homosexual partners?
Of course there is domestic violence in many different families in Australia.
Maybe when they were collecting this data at medical facilities arround Australia, they were only assessing male versus female partner violence in the home?

Cheers, Sue.

Warwick Marsh, writing about "Fatherhood and the love revolution," made me think how fathers are changed by their children. We know that kids learn a lot from their dads but what does a father learn from his child?
One can learn patience. We can experience anew the joys of nature, the taste of shrimp, the ambling of an ant. Curiosity is a valuable lesson; it keeps us forever learning. A father can learn the puppy-like enthusiasm of a child - and the happiness that accompanies it.
We learn to rock the boat once in a while, to push the envelope, to refuse complacency. Oh, yes, passion and desire are valuable lessons; to cry, to laugh. Just as a child learns to accept 'No' for an answer, we must learn to accept it as well. Sometimes life doesn't go our way; we must accept it and move on.
A wise father will learn how to listen, how to offer compassion, how to accept the unintentional insults of a developing child. In so doing, he will learn maturity and responsibility.
Reflecting on these things, I realize a new meaning to Gerard Manley Hopkins' poem, "The Child is Father to the Man."*
On this, the 100th anniversary of Fathers Day, I wish all the best to all fathers - and their fathers. May the learning never cease.
Don, the 14%er
*
The Child Is Father To the Man - Gerard Manley Hopkins (1918)
“The child is father to the man.”
How can he be? The words are wild.
Suck any sense from that who can:
“The child is father to the man.”
No; what the poet did write ran,
“The man is father to the child.”
“The child is father to the man!”
How can he be? The words are wild!

suzeonline:"Surely there must be some women you feel positive about in your life? "

Of course there are. Must I preface every post with "I think most women are fine"?

As anyone with more brain cells than a Pomeranian (and that obviously includes you) would know from reading my posts, I see a problem with the inherently discriminatory nature of modern feminism and the hugely dishonest nature of many of the self-servers that espouse it.

Feminism was initially a movement deiven by well-off wives of well-off men and feminists have always had a sense of elitism about themselves. As SJF said:"if society doesn't like it, that's society's problem, not feminism's".

It's a small cognitive leap from "we're special" to "they're scum" and far too much feminist thought is based on the idea that men are essentially low-life brutes who need to be controlled for the benefit of the more refined women (and "their" children), especially the elites who know what's best for us all. If anybody questions any part of that, they're obviously not properly indoctrinated, or reactionary, or simply a would be patriarch who can never be tolerated by the barren "matriarchs" who keep the Trotskyite "revolutioary" flame burning brightly, if smokily.

Suzeonline:"all these 'nasty' women have male relatives"

And many of them spend all their time slagging off the men in their lives. Female violence against men has increased by over 400% in the past few years according to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, largely as a response to the various feminist ad campaigns that make clear the feminist view that a woman is never to blame for being violent toward a man while men have been trained that if they raise a hand to protect themselves, they'll probably be charged.

Suzeonline:"If we are seeing posters about domestic violence depicting men, or broken windows depicting men as burglars, then it is because the bulk (but NOT ALL) of these crimes are perpetrated by men! Nothing more and nothing less."

I recommend the following article from the ANZ Journal of Criminology.

[cont]

suzeonline:"If those posters you are upset about make some children aware that what is happening in their home is a crime and not the norm, then maybe the cycle of violence will stop against both boys and girls."

All they've done to date is increase the rate of offending by females. They also make no mention of the fact that most abuse and neglect of children is carried out by their mothers, not their fathers and in fact, a biological father present in the home has a strong protective effect when compared to "single" mothers. By focussing exclusively on men, we are doing those children no favours.

Dane:"I think you should consider taking your child out and placing him in an all-boys' school."

I've considered it, but it brings its own set of problems. I prefer to work from within at present. I'm waiting for a response to my verbal request for them to be removed and if that comes to nothing, as I expect it will, I'll write to the department and escalate as appropriate.

Let's face it though, any organisation that can publish this apologia for failing to educate boys to the same standard as girls http://education.qld.gov.au/students/advocacy/equity/gender-sch/what/index.html

isn't going to be much interested in a dissenting view, especially from a man.

Hey Anti, yeah this increase in female violence would be right, even watching how teen girls act now is a big contrast from what I remember. I’m not sure if it has anything to do with feminism, maybe more to do with Angelina Jolie.

And the “playacting” of domestics between teenagers in groups would be funny if it wasn’t so damn serious. Might blame Home and Away or similar for that one.

But say we concede both males and females have the mindset these days for physical violence… it reminds me of a friend who punched his boss (male boss). The Judge went nuts, my friend is a black belt so considered much more dangerous – aren’t we looking at the same thing here?

I don’t know how feminism got started but if the well-off wives wanted to vote or own land, that’s okay isn’t it?

This idea you have that feminists consider men “low life brutes” where does that come from? What do the chauvinists consider women? The extremes are out there and always will be I guess. I don’t make fun of men for being men or women for being women at home… Oh that was a big fat lie, I make fun of everyone, equally.

Must say though, have had some interesting discussions back at home with hubby about this stuff, he doesn’t see what you do. He can see where if you look you will find whatever it is that keeps you angry but has yet to be in a situation where being a male is a disadvantage in any profound way.

It looks like Warwick's cheer squad are about as honest as he is. Unsurprising, really.

hi,

great article warwick, you should be praised not pursecuted.

as someone that has worked with the data in the past, it is very real that 5 men a day kill themselves, yet very few organisations or charities are doing anything about it.

children have a father and a mother (children can't be born without a sperm and an egg). Children deserve and are owed a relationship with both parents.

as all children model their behaviours from their home life, it is important to have a leading male role model and a leading female role model.

if your a same sex couple and you want to have a child then make sure the children have access to male (or female) role models - like grandparents, uncles or aunties and even junior sport coaches.

fatherlessness costs this country $13billion dollars a year.

fatherlessness contributes to voilenc, substance abuse, gambling etc and all these things will get some young kids in jail.

for the sake of our nations children, fathers, get involved!

There goes another one. wierd.

Why the snide remarks Bugsy?
And who provided you with the ability to judge people’s integrity Mr Morgan? And remotely over the internet too - quite a talent, were it true.
I thought this Forum was called On Line Opinion and so that is what I and many others are doing... merely voicing our opinions. It seems that anyone who disagrees with your opinions is only worthy of contempt, not respect.
Yes, I believe strongly in the power of Fatherhood as a force for good, for binding families together, one that provides loving and beneficial leadership. A Fatherhood that earns rather than demands respect, serving sacrificially rather than expecting to be the Master.
Fatherhood should be championed and honoured - at least equally to Motherhood. Our society is littered with consequences of families missing their fathers - a fact that is just starting to dawn on many of us.
So for men willing to stand up for that noble cause, I say “Good on ’yer!”

Guys, play the ball, not the man and stick to the topic, not bagging Warwick Marsh or anyone that happens to agree with him.
At least then the level of understanding between the many various participants may rise, not plummet to levels of personal insults which I have read all too often in this current Forum.

Fascinating reading all the responses to Warwick's excellent article. I'm disappointed that people who are new to the forum are considered to be 'lesser beings' by some of the forums older members.

As I heard one poster say (roughly) "it is called Online Opinion, so what is the problem with us giving our opinions?"

I am a father of 3 young kids (2,4 & 6) and I can honestly say that I've learned from my kids too. Mostly to slow down and smell the roses.

I'm gradually coming to terms with the fact that kids don't care what you're doing together, they just care that you are together! No great amount of money needs to be spent, no indulgent purchase needs to be made, just the simple spending of time.

On Saturday morning while my wife was home teaching piano, I put the 2 younger kids on my bike (I have a buggy that drags along behind) and my 6 year old boy tagged along on his bike. We cycled for about an hour along a bike path near our house and then stopped at a playground.

As I sat at the playground watching them climb and swing, I was reminded of the fact that I am the richest man in the world.

Kids need a mum and they need a dad. Glad to be that to mine. Malcolm.

Snide, Martin? Hardly.

What's it to you anyway? Perhaps all the dads out there are just showing off the new socks they got on Fathers Day.

SUZEONLINE. You say you wern't aware we were discussing infanticide, yet what is infanticide or child murder if not child abuse in its most extreme form.YOU actually brought the subject up in your very first post on this thread [on page 2] when you told about a father in WA who killed his children WTF, can't you even remember what you wrote. YOU brought the subject up and of course you only mentioned a FATHER doing it, IMHO you are no better than those on the facebook site i mentioned in this regard. I also saw little or nothing in the article regarding same sex relationships yet this thread certainly has been hijacked to a large extent by this subject.
Do you think i don't know that more women than men are affected by DV, do you think i don't know that more fathers than mothers are guilty of child sexual abuse. The difference is that while i can admit these facts, the feminists can never admit facts such as more mothers commit child murder, abuse and neglect than fathers, if you refuse to see this then IMO you are no better than they are.
Yes we should be working together to address the problem of child abuse and neglect but as is always the case with these feminasties its their way or no way. There is a name for this its called bigotry. The statistics i mentioned are from the australian bureau of crime and the child protection dept of WA from a sample of 2 million people, but of course as previously stated people like you only pick out the stats that suit you and ignore the ones that don't.

'I'm disappointed that people who are new to the forum are considered to be 'lesser beings' by some of the forums older members.
'

Yep, most new posters realise that pretty quick. Rule No.1. Don't disagree with the 'established' users. Ha, established. Established in what you may ask. Piss funny.

Not "lesser beings", cmpmal. Just very obvious when a notorious homophobic godbotherer publishes an article that pushes a particular view of fatherhood, and suddenly 13 new users register in order to support it in comments.

Also dishonest if you all claim that this is simply coincidence - mind you, almost all of you have simply avoided my questions.

Howler - I only regard you as a "lesser" commenter because you've made it plain that your main interest in participating here is to annoy others.

CJ writes

'Just very obvious when a notorious homophobic godbotherer publishes an article that pushes a particular view of fatherhood, '

And to think he has the nerve to call others nasty and intolerant. You have to laugh or cry. And what a hide Warwick has to suggest that children need a mum and dad at home to give them the best opportunity in life. Thankfully many fathers and mothers are prepared to make the sacrifices in life to see their kids get the best opportunity. Gaol is full of men whose fathers were more interested in sex, booze and immorality and themselves. I sympathise greatly with those who failed in their marriage but find it abhorrent that those who have failed continue to knock those who have done what is best for their kids.

Personally, I’m not doubting the sincerity of your views about fatherhood, Martin and Malcolm, or arguing that seasoned contributors to this forum are better than the newcomers. However if you ask the people who’ve been contributing for a long time, they will tell you that it is most unusual for OLO authors to arrive with a following, as appears to be the case here. There are now fifteen identities who signed up to OLO in order to post to this discussion. Given the diversity of views above, it’s curious that the fifteen form a solid block of support for Marsh’s article.

The level of consistency raises a well-founded suspicion that an attempt is being made to manipulate the discussion. This is where issues of integrity come in. The individual contributors may have valid and worthy views, but the arrival en masse looks sinister.

Attempts to appear coy and innocent only serve to heighten the impression that someone is trying to stack the debate. Regardless of your personal motivation, if you’ve entered the discussion at someone else’s instigation, then you know who is behind the stacking.

In any event, stick around and contribute to further discussions. The young-father perspective is just as valuable as the old curmudgeon, the gay agitator, the bush baptist, the expat feminist, the ratbag provocateur, the brimstone dingbat and all the rest.

"watching how teen girls act now is a big contrast from what I remember. I’m not sure if it has anything to do with feminism, maybe more to do with Angelina Jolie."

I have also noticed the change in teenaged girls. When I worked in a high school last year, fights between girls must of outnumbered those involving boys by at least ten to one. I believe that the problem is a particular model of feminism that emphasises being assertive and tells girls to do whatever they want. These girls aren't great at thinking of others and working together. We should be suspicious of a model of feminism that makes the world a worse place for females.

Dear woulfe,
I think that myself and my fellow new registrants are hardly manipulating the discussion. If anything, I would say that there have been several other fairly clear agendas being promoted here and some clearly contrary to the main thrust of the article’s argument - as noted by early 30’s mum!
And on the level of integrity, I don’t see any of the other "protagonists" offering up their credentials, personal history or current socio-political allegiances as justification for being allowed to participate in what is, as far as I can tell, an OPEN forum.
And could the level of consistency not merely reflect just the passion and likemindedness of a section of society in the need for what Warwick Marsh terms “a love revolution"?
If other people were more passionate about say your point of view, they are free to register too! But the fact that they haven’t MAY just mean that they either don’t care or don’t share your concerns.
And if I take your argument a step further, a few posters espousing the same point of view are genuine, sincere and trustworthy - above all reproach and suspicion. Yet, if a small group of people register and post similar comments they are suddenly sinister!
So when does this sinister nature emerge? After 3, 4, 10 people have posted?
Let’s be real. Maybe not you but some of the posters are just trying to provoke a Christian vs Gay battle of words, and destroy Warwick Marsh’s reputation, which is not the purpose of the Forum. It is about Fatherhood and Love.
As for "coy and innocent", I believe that I am merely sticking to the topic. Perhaps if a few more of this Forum’s participants did that, we’d all be better off.

well done martin

good to see someone can speak on here with a calmness and not resort to degrading other forum users.

if only we all stuck to the topic instead of pedling your own agendas, this world would be a better place.

Eyeinthesky

‘The difference is that while i can admit these facts, the feminists can never admit facts such as more mothers commit child murder, abuse and neglect than fathers …’

That is as myopic as it is ridiculous!

Feminists have not only been admitting to all of the above for decades, they have been proactively discussing, analyzing, writing about, advocating for, raising awareness of and lobbying for more resources to help mothers at risk of harming their children.

Feminists have been acutely aware that women feature more prominently in some, but not all, child neglect and abuse statistics because they happen to spend far more time with their children. The most at risk mothers are often isolated, financially dependent, physically and emotionally exhausted by continuous caring for infants and toddlers and with little to no support.

This is overwhelmingly the reason that feminists lobby for women’s support services, decent childcare, better job prospects and financial independence for women. By reducing the general stresses on mothers, there is an inevitable flow-on effect of reducing child abuse.

The most tragic of all ironies is that the very gains made by feminism and women’s advocacy groups to relieve women of much of the childcare burden and financial dependency that puts them at risk of harming their children are being attacked and dismantled by the very same men’s rights groups who vengefully promote the ‘hidden violent women epidemic’ for their own agenda.

What a load of drivel you do talk. Much as i disagree with some of the over the top remarks formersnag makes he was certainly right in his description of you. If these oh so good feminists have been discussing and advocating for awareness of child abuse for decades why do the feminasties such as barbara bigot and her cronies on the facebook safer family law site mention only children killed by their fathers in their in memorium and not one case of a child killed by its mother, why so, if as you say feminists have been admitting that more mothers than fathers abuse and kill their children for decades, answer me that, its just more of your feminazi lies and propaganda.These people including yourself are everything that is rotten about our corrupt so called family law system. If you want ridiculous, look in a mirror. Most of the fathers involved in child murder and suicide have had their children ripped from their lives often for no good reason other than a vindictive and selfish ex.SELFISH, SELFISH, SELFISH.IS ALL YOU PEOPLE ARE. Its all about money and the rights of the mother, it's nothing about the rights of the child. If a father does the unthinkable and murders his child it's, he's a monster, or string him up, but if a mother does it its, a cry for help poor thing. PATHETIC. If the ratio of male/female suicides of 5-1 was reversed there would be a huge national outcry, because it isn't nobody cares, least of all the likes of you. The feminist groups have advocated and got millions of taxpayers dollars to combat abuse of women and their children, yet not 1 cent has been spent on the abuse of men and THEIR children [ like me and my daughter].It makes a mockery of everything you say.

eyeinthesky

'SELFISH, SELFISH, SELFISH.IS ALL YOU PEOPLE ARE. Its all about money and the rights of the mother, it's nothing about the rights of the child.'

Could you speak up, mate? I can't hear you.

Seriously, though ... Get a grip. You're spewing misogynist venom and women can see misogynist venom for what it is, even if they have been conditioned since birth to pretend it doesn't exist.

What really saddens me about men like you and the others here who unapologetically vent their spleen on cue at the horrible deal life has handed them at the hands of a system supposedly corrupted by women's insatiable sloth and greed is that you actually WANT and NEED a woman to love you.

Go for it, mate(s). But I can tell you now that this contemptuous attitude gets you nowhere with the female gender except a lot of heartache and rejection that you don't have the depth or insight to understand. A woman will go along with it for a while because she has been conditioned since birth to need her knight in shining armour, but in the end she'll leave ... with an angry, violent trail in her wake.

But ... hey. It's not the menz' fault. Because, in a patriarchy, love means men never have to say they're sorry.

I thought Warwick's article had some stimulating and challenging thoughts within. Bishop Al Stewarts quote was spot on and I think our society has a love deficit. This is something we need to get back to - people having a sense of being loved and the capacity to love. It's time we took stock, stopped for a minute and considered the important things and started to reorder our life towards these things. Good on Warwick for daring to speak some sense!

Hearing from some of the responses it's disappointing and not hard to tell which ones didn't have a great relationship with their fathers or mothers for that case.I'm glad that I had a great dad(step dad) even though he has gone to heaven 12 years ago now. He has left me with memories that I'll never forget. Being a dad now I want to leave that impression on my kids as well.Enjoy life,Harm no one, Be good, do your best and know where you are going...oh and if you are a parent Be a Great dad or Great mum!

We now have another stolen generation. Who is going to say sorry to them? I would not like to be in a situation with all these broken families. My children are going to have a bad enough time trying to find love and happiness for the rest of their lives. So they might think. Nothing is forever anymore, if you’re not happy just move onto the next person with emotional baggage. No one wants to work out what’s wrong in a situation; it’s just faster to separate and more profitable for the woman. I am sorry this is starting to sound one sided.

All these journalists think that it’s so easy to have a father’s day, but don’t stop to think what’s happing with the psychological side of the Childs mind, let alone what is ripping a father up inside when he can’t see his children.

Yes it goes both ways with both parents, but when you look at it, there are more fathers that don’t see their children through no fault of their own. Only an ex wife seems to have that power to take away the children through lies and deception, if you go to court and prove her wrong she doesn’t even get a rap over the knuckles, but turn the table and then see what happens.

Yes no one is perfect. But who is? Everyone is learning in this life.
There is NO equality in this life as far as I’m concerned.

Just one more thing, could it be possible that the reason that there are more problems with in society that the Family Law is an ASS and doesn’t work, let alone work in the best interest of the children at hand.

But wait, there's more!

I generally welcome new commenters here, but I'd be more inclined to treat this obvious cheer squad's contributions with respect if at least one of them was honest.

'Fess up now, newbies - you were directed here by someone, in order to support Warwick Marsh's article, weren't you?

CJ I am confused, it’s okay though as it is my natural state and I am comfortable with it.

So there are new users here to support this article… why though? It’s not even that interesting, sorry dude but it was just a bit of fluff.

Is it to push the whole “oh woe is me I am a divorced father and the bitch has the kids and the more I look I can see amazons everywhere”?

The “Stolen Generation” comment was a tad sickening though. I came pretty close to remarking on that one in a very bleaty way then pulled myself back.

Is this really a bleat about not enough people saying Happy Fathers Day?

Why on earth are they here?

I am on a lot on forum sites with various names. I have been watching this site for a while, and haven’t found anything to contribute too. I could just sit back and let the feminists’ try to take over like they always do. But no I am having my say. You feminists’ are always welcome, but you stand out like a sore thumb.

The Pied Piper why are you here? All you have to do is bash the comments that people have. Just remember that you do not know were or who we could or could not be. The same as we don’t know who you are.With the stolen Gen, well it is the truth. You just need to go back into your hole and do more reading, not just on one side, but both sides of the coin.

We can sit back and read posts and not comment, but then if we do comment, we are newbie’s? No not newbie’s just waiting and watching to see the dribble that comes from the kind of sofa lofa’s like yourself.

I am sorry that I have strayed of the subject.

Max:”I am on a lot on forum sites with various names. I have been watching this site for a while, and haven’t found anything to contribute too. I could just sit back and let the feminists’ try to take over like they always do. But no I am having my say. You feminists’ are always welcome, but you stand out like a sore thumb.”

[giggle]

Max:”The Pied Piper why are you here? All you have to do is bash the comments that people have.”

[gasp]

Max:”Just remember that you do not know were or who we could or could not be.”

[snort]

Max”The same as we don’t know who you are.With the stolen Gen, well it is the truth.”

[snigger]

Max:You just need to go back into your hole and do more reading, not just on one side, but both sides of the coin.”

[sigh]

Max:”We can sit back and read posts and not comment, but then if we do comment, we are newbie’s? No not newbie’s just waiting and watching to see the dribble that comes from the kind of sofa lofa’s like yourself.”

[yawn]

Finished? You want me to pick these toys up and put them back in the pram with you now?

Piper,

'Why on earth are they here?'

They come from a planet that is lacking in pompous social commentary, where slogans like 'education is the key', 'don't blame the victim' and 'Howard/capitalism/economic rationalism is the root of all evil' are all but extinct. There's is a planet free of people who think they know the solutions to all the worlds ills, where the failure of the great socialist experiment was heeded, and they look instead for answers that don't involve daydreaming about 'if people would just be nicer.'

They come with recommendations that earth was too hasty in rejecting the prophet Howard's picket fence utopia, where women were free to bring up the children, men were free to watch sport without interruptions, and priests were free to part the hair of alter boys. Good boy... good boy.

So they encourage now a revolution of 'Family Values'.

what about myself PP, I've been a mbr on here for quite some time, participated in polls etc. Why am I here supporting what Warwick had to say, because my father taught me that we work to live, we dont live to work, and part of living is your children and their welfare. I have been accused of some things in my time, but I am no misogynist, even ex in laws will vouch for that.

As for where Warwick stands on homosexuality, I don't particullarly give a rats a*s*, I think as far as Mens Health Ambasador, he was the best person for the job, and his replacement(nepetism?), the Hon ministers 'partner/hairdresser' was a no show at his first public engagement as MHA, something I doubt very much Warwick would do. My children have benefited from myself being involved post seperation in every aspect of their lives. All I have posted here as far as supporting evidence is government backed data, not one single lie.

for an alternative FB pov
http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=89986919298
and I suggest a listen to this
http://www.dadsontheair.net/shows/domestic_violence_statistics_debunked.mp3

after starting school, my mum spent no more than 3 hours a day more with us kids. She has six children, so time spent with the kids is no excuse IMHO for harming them. There are some huge problems in society today, a large part of that must be accredited to fatherlessness

houellebecq, some of your comments are just mind numbing. perhaps you should learn about 'cause and effect' You dont just repair a damaged engine, you have to find what caused the damage, otherwise its just going to keep on happening. You dont just keep flicking the circuit breaker on in your household fuse box, you find out what is overloading the circuit. so, houellebecq whats causing all of societies problems?

Protagoras, i am well aware of the "suffragette" movement of Victorian times, dear. The modern femanazism movement, started in New York, after the second world war, is a different beast entirely. Communist, menopausal, females, who fled Hitler, started "NOW" the national organisation of women. With the cold war raging and senator McCarthy, to deal with, they, propagandised, a new way, to destroy the "capitalist pigs", by renaming, them, "male chauvinist pigs" and destroying the American family. This also gave the lesbians, an opportunity, to, turn more straight women and girls towards, "the sistahood" with fake statistics, or scary, "fairy" stories about all men being liars, bastards, etc. Don't tell me the stats are not rigged, its been common knowledge for years now, prominent, former feminists have admitted to doing it, international, best selling books have been written on it, senior academics have done their history PHDs on it. Neither myself, the article author, nor any of the others, have said anything that is antiwomen. It is you, and the other "child abuse deniers", who have been sprouting your hatred of all males, as usual.

Andrew M Potts, calm down, dear boy, i never said anything, negative about gay men, merely, that one, of the reasons, many men, have been becoming gay over the last 40 years or so is the obvious, brain washing, (from birth), that the femanazis have inflicted, on everybody, about their, negative opinion, of manhood, and everything it stands for. Men, like women, come in all shapes and sizes, and are attractive, as they are, to somebody, out there. However femanazism has deliberately made men and women, less attractive to each other generally. Just because some men, have a higher voice or enjoy gossiping more than the average boofy bloke, does not automatically make them gay. There is no gay gene, it is, a lifestyle choice, according to, many of my gay friends. The only other possible, medical explanation is another byproduct of femanazism, where a pregnant woman's body has too much estrogen or not enough testosterone, in the system and feminises a developing male foetus.

SJF."Could you speak up mate i can't hear you". Thats ok dear it's a problem that afflicts many feminists, its called " selective hearing", you are not alone. Your statement that the feminists have lobbied for decades to get more money and support for single mothers says it all. You would rather spend millions of dollars on supporting single mothers who don't care about their kids than [heaven forbid] actually placing a child with a father who actually does care. As iv'e stated before its all about the rights of the mother and NOTHING about what is best for the child. Don't believe me, ask my daughter she knows ALL about it. Yes i want and need a woman to love me [ you say that like it's poison in your mouth], and i have found one, one who is my equal in every way and who actually DESERVES to be treated with respect, unlike people like yourself, who i will always treat with the contempt they deserve. Spewing mysogynist venom, nothing like the misandrist views that you vomit up, where even kids like my daughter are viewed as collateral damage to be sacrificed on the altar of feminism.

One thing is for sure from reading the comments on this thread is that we really have to rethink the whole marriage commitment exercise. Make it much harder for people to marry and maybe a cooling off period before you have kids. Trouble is you can't play big brother in this, but surely it can't be worse than what we have today.

I am kidding about the regulation bit - hopefully humans will just be able to work this out themselves.

The hatred and bitterness just oozes from those who have been through the system. The system could be better and is slowly changing to include fathers more in their children's lives in the case of marriage breakdown.

Are we are going backwards in the evolutionary process - I thought we were moving to be more civilised.

Yes you are so right Pelican, the bitterness and hatred does ooze from the very pores of those men who have had the misfortune to go through the family court system and obviously feel they are hard done by.
We are only reading one side of their story though, so I don't give much credence to their nasty words.

I note though that none of them have actually come up with a really workable solution to make the children of warring parents have a better chance of a good relationship with both their parents?

Maximum - " The Pied Piper why are you here? All you have to do is bash the comments that people have"
Pot calling the kettle black?

RossM- "There are some huge problems in society today, a large part of that must be accredited to fatherlessness"
How true. Deadbeat men who are happy to sleep with and impregnate women, then leave them holding the baby is very common.

Formersnag- "...i never said anything, negative about gay men, merely, that one, of the reasons, many men, have been becoming gay over the last 40 years or so is the obvious, brain washing, (from birth), that the femanazis have inflicted, on everybody, about their, negative opinion, of manhood, and everything it stands for."

You really believe men are 'turned into being gay by feminists"?
So these guys decide to have sex with other men as a 'choice' rather than sleep with the dreadful women?
Homosexuals are BORN that way, regardless of who their parents are or how they are brought up,and that is a proven scientific fact.

suzeonline:"We are only reading one side of their story though, so I don't give much credence to their nasty words."

So next time a woman starts in with "I'm a victim, cos I say I am, besides all Menz are bastards and I'm a single mum, did I mention all Menz are bastards, cos they are" no doubt you'll be making a similar comment about one-sided stories?

The main reason I got interested in this whole subject was my experience of the one-sided nature of the State-managed separation/divorce process. At almost every step there is assistance available to mothers and a brick wall for fathers, especially fathers who work. She has only to make a statement including any word or phrase saying she "feels" scared or apprehensive and with no further ado, he will be facing a DVO - no questions asked. Talk about "credence to nasty words"...

The men whose posts I've read here are all saying a similar thing, yet all the ignoranti and mindless Thought Police who infest this site can do is try to somehow discredit their stories because they're new members. It's standard, mindless procedure for the Pomeranian, of course - never an original thought in his life, but I'm a little surprised at you jumping in.

The Fathers' Rights movement has arisen out of the terrible experience that many men have gone through following marital breakdown. It is a response to the perception of many women that the children are "theirs" and Dad is at best a meal-ticket, which has spawned a stack of pseudo-research by "academics" who have in common the fact that they're single mothers whose kids don't see their dads, such as Elspeth McInnes, et al.

It is not "anti women" it is "pro fathers". If you were to ask, I'm sure that most of the new posters here would say "she's the ex from hell, but the kids love her". Certainly that is my own view and I'd not interfere with that love, but if she gets between me and the kids, I'll fight every time.

suzeonline:"I note though that none of them have actually come up with a really workable solution to make the children of warring parents have a better chance of a good relationship with both their parents?"

Yep, I have - get rid of the CSA from the picture. It's not easy and it can't work as long as there is a requirement by the State for the parents to go to war with each other if one of them seeks a State benefit.

The biggest single cause of post-divorce parental conflict, I suspect, is Centrelink and the CSA, since even if there is no significant underlying conflict, they create it as a natural consequence of their actions.

When either party is aggrieved by their actions they hold their hands up and say "but it's not us, we're just doing what the law requires", as though that makes it all OK, while at the same time they're issuing Garnishment orders on bank accounts, employers, tax refunds, even business clients if they can find out who they are.

If a mother wants to stoke the fires, all she has to do is ask for a "change of assessment", which will give the father about a month of heartache searching for documentation to disprove her casually-made claims and then having to attend a meeting with someone like the dishonest Judith Williams and in the end, the chances are she'll be given a bit extra anyway. If the father complains, he will be asked by the CSA "don't you care about your children" followed by the inevitable S 72 notice to his employer to take another few dollars out of his wage and send it to the CSA. Who cares if he can't pay the rent or buy food for the kids on the 2 days a fortnight the State deems he's able to have "contact"? "We're just doing what the Law requires".

The Nuremberg trials established that "following orders" is not an excuse for poor behaviour. It's a shame that post-war Germany was a more just place than 21st Century Australia.

suzieonline "How true. Deadbeat men who are happy to sleep with and impregnate women, then leave them holding the baby is very common

I volunteer with a fathers support/suicide prevention group, hate to burst your balloon but it takes two to tango, and the majority of separations are instigated by the female. My ex wife walked out after forming another relationship, 9 years on and never spent a day in court, and have my 15 year old daughter living full time with me, due to a personality clash with mum. a large majority of these so called deadbeats are forced out of the childrens lives, walk a mile Suzie.

What do you say to a bloke whos ex walked out, left him with a 3 month old child, and 3 years down the track asks for 2 weeks with the child, 20 weeks later and no child, no urgent court return of the child, no child abduction notifications state wide etc etc

8 out of every 10 HAGUE cases at FCA website is a child abducted by a mother. dont beleive me, look for yourself!

CJ Morgan godbotherer? misogynist? DISHONEST?? getting pretty close to slander there. Where is your factual data like I have presented? what is it we are supposed to fess up for?

Antiseptic is correct, because the case I quoted above, the mother only asked for visitation after the father was told by Centrelink FAO that he had to be claiming CS for the child, guess who is claiming it now? remove the financial incentive. remove the gender bias lies. remove the lawyers.

Ross M - I wasn't referring to you. I was talking to the rash (15+ now) of new users who've signed up in order to comment on this article specifically. It's hardly coincidental, is it? One newbie claims to have come across the article via a google search - fair enough, but what about the other 14 who've never posted at OLO before and who unanimously and obsequiously praise Marsh's lightweight and disingenuous article.

I just want people to be honest with each other. As I've said, by all means celebrate fathers and fatherhood - but there's no need to appear to be sneaky and disingenuous about it.

In fact, such behaviour damages your cause rather than furthers it, in my opinion.

Dear Suze online, while I'm not sure what turns men to gaydom, and therefore won't enter into the feminazi debate, I would offer the following.

I am absolutely certain (as a father of two boys) that boys learn how to be men from other men. More specifically (if possible and present) their fathers.

If there is no father present (for instance in single-mother or lesbian set-ups) then boys will gravitate to the nearest powerful male role model, be it a good one or otherwise (rappers, local gang members seem to get a good look-in :P)

Boys need a man present and preferably their biological father. If you doubt what happens to directionless boys, pay a visit to your local prison.

That's what Warwick's article was about, men choosing to spend time with their boys. Not a bad goal I would have thought.

Malcolm.

P.S. On your assumption that: "Homosexuals are BORN that way, regardless of who their parents are or how they are brought up,and that is a proven scientific fact", may I gently offer the fact that recently, the American Psychological Association _removed_ a statement from their brochure that said "that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality".

It was replaced with: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible ... influences, _no_ findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

I did look up the APA website and the quote is there in black and white.

Formersnag, you seriously just accused others of having “rambling rants”? You’re having a laugh eh. You are the one that believes women make men gay or was that Eyeaminsane?

What about you Ross… what is going on with you. I checked out one link (sad story) and listened to the other link (misinformation gone nuts).

Your father sounds like a nice guy. Your involvement with your children sounds great, well done, kudos and all that.

And you were mean to Houel who I must say I am rather fond of but he can man up and take it.

I agree there are huge problems in society today, fatherlessness sucks, useless mothers suck. Men and women so engrossed in fighting each other that the children suffer sucks. The ones that only blame women in general I find somewhat… well, stupid is the best word I can find for how I see it. I have no idea where the question of homosexuality entered this conversation.

As usual this isn’t a conversation about anything but the CSA. I am still not seeing, and have read Anti’s (who I’m also quite fond of) posts, where they decide how humans will choose to interact with each other. My ex and I, although battling and getting reviews all over the place (he called every one) were still okay, chatted on the phone, he dropped in for coffee etc. Child Support didn’t have any power over us.

The message you boys are trying to convey is what? Because all I am hearing is that you believe women control the country, the courts, the CSA, your lives, and make all your decisions for you and you had to sit back and suffer – that about it…? I’m going to need convincing.

Anticeptic, I understand that we all have some awful family conflict stories to tell, and they are mostly very sad for the children involved.

The current Family Court system has been improved since 30 years ago when my family situation developed.

My father left my mother after 22 years of marriage and 4 children.
He left us all (including my mother) a letter on our beds to say he was leaving because he was in love with another woman and was moving in with her and her 2 children.

What followed were years of hell watching my mother having to sell the family home to pay my father half, then she had to try and find work with no experience at anything but childrearing.
She used to beg us to ask dad for maintenance money, because he never sent any and there were no courts to tell him to do so.

Meanwhile he lived with his well off younger lover in a nice suburb with his own home and had a good job.
At 18 years old I was trying to help mum out financially with my 3 siblings, while my father travelled the world.

No, we don't want to go back to those horrible days and I don't care what I am called if I say the men have had it too easy for too long as far as their obligations to their children go.

Yes, I am aware there are terrible women out there (eg my stepmother!)
however, I firmly believe many of the disgruntled fathers battling it out in the family courts are upset because of a loss of control over their women.

Sue.

P.S. By the way, my brothers never became gay because their father was largely missing from their lives. However, my best friend has been happily married for 25 years now, and her lovely son is gay, despite having always had a wonderful relationship with his father.

SUE.When my ex and i split up she just left and took my daughter, then spent 3 years going to the pub boozing almost every night of the week using the child support i paid her while our daughter often went hungry,while i could hardly afford to go out at all,and having not one boyfreind but several almost every night. I'm sorry to hear about your story but for every story that is told like yours there is one just like mine. The trouble is that the government pours millions of dollars into helping and supporting those single mothers who don't care about their kids, but don't put one cent to help place those kids with a loving father, we do exist you know, i'm not an orphan, in fact they do their best not to let a father have his children. The problem is that when a story like yours comes up everyone is supposed to care and give help and support but when one like mine comes up i'm just supposed to suck it up and be a man. Daughters like mine are just as important as anyone elses, it shouldn't matter whether she is being brought up by a single father. The ONLY improvement to the family law system in the last 30 years has been the presumption of 50/50 shared care brought in by the previous gov't, and now the feminist lobby even wants to wind that back, pointing to a few high profile cases of child murder and neglect perpetrated by fathers and completely ignoring the far greater numbers of child abuse and murders perpetrated by mothers and their new boyfriends.

Can Eyeseewhatyousee?

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

Child deaths resulting from parental abuse are unique among homicides in terms of the high proportion of women offenders. Female offenders are usually biological mothers, whereas male perpetrators are usually de facto or step parents to the child victim (Alder & Polk, 2001). It has been found that de facto or stepparents kill children in their care at a much greater rate than biological parents, with many more stepchildren killed by stepfathers than by stepmothers (Daly & Wilson, 1994; Strang, 1995). The greater rate of harming by stepfathers is in part due to small children rarely residing with biological fathers and stepmothers (Daly & Wilson, 1994).

Most researchers who have used police homicide records suggest that the majority of perpetrators are males (Lyman et al., 2003). However, many deaths due to maltreatment may not meet the criminal definition of homicide, particularly deaths due to neglect (Finkelhor, 1997; Lawrence & Irvine, in press). The US National Incidence Study (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996), which is based on child maltreatment cases that include neglect, showed that almost 80 per cent of fatal maltreatment cases were attributed to female perpetrators.

Studies have shown that mothers are predominantly responsible for neonaticides (death of child aged under 24 hours) (Creighton, 1995, Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994). These women tend to be young or immature women who are ill-equipped to deal with pregnancy and the care of a child (Finkelhor, 1997).

There is evidence that men are most often responsible for child deaths that result from physical assault (Ewing, 1997). A characteristic of these cases is the apparent attempt to punish or discipline in response to the child's behaviour (e.g., crying), rather than an intent to kill the child (Adler & Polk, 2001).

Hi folks. Here are the official U.S. Government Data on child abuse, 2006. These figures are remarkably similar to our Australian perpetration trends of biological mothers and fathers.

Let the figures speak for themselves: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r85NZCM2Dk8/SlHILj6fufI/AAAAAAAAAIU/Xycev2lSliI/s1600-h/U.S.+Child+abuse+perpetrators+2006.JPG

Instep

(for those who missed the equivalent Aussie data see here: http://www.mensrights.com.au/dads_not_the_demons.pdf )

Pied Piper

'… “oh woe is me I am a divorced father and the bitch has the kids and the more I look I can see amazons everywhere" ...'

Priceless! Love it! Perfectly sums up the sad Peter Pans here who believe the universe is in cahoots with the female gender to make their oh so important little lives miserable.

Eyeinthesky

Please stop boring us all with your sad, one-sided little divorce story. If you - and others like you - believe that mothers at risk of abusing their children have no right whatsoever to any form of respite or support from the society their children are growing up in, then YOU are complicit in that child abuse.

For the record, I AM in favour of 50-50 child residency and I have said so numerous times on OLO. However, it is not the magic bullet that will stop – or even alleviate – child abuse. Without adequate support and respite for at-risk parents in the community, transferring more parenting time from mothers to fathers will simply transfer the risk from mothers to fathers - rather than alleviate the abuse itself.

Instep

Why are you and others putting up link after link after link on the subject of mothers being more responsible for emotional abuse and neglect of children than fathers?

Check back over the posts above. No one here is disputing the evidence. The disagreement is about how to deal with it. The men here are adamant it’s because the Family Law system is not giving fathers enough custody post divorce. Yet this is only one factor in the wider issue of child abuse – and an extremely male-centric one at that.

Correction:

I meant to say in the previous post: 'Why are you and others putting up link after link after link on the subject of mothers being more responsible for PHYSICAL AND emotional abuse and neglect of children than fathers?'

Physical abuse? Well Mums are more violent to kids than biological fathers, period. The national advertizing campaign about "family violence" "against women-and-thier-children" are conning us about who commits most of the family violence, at least the against children. See the results for physical abuse by 'parent female' vs 'parent male' in these governments abuse stats: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_r85NZCM2Dk8/Skhne27OnMI/AAAAAAAAAH0/ELO0culYQMg/s1600-h/W.A.++2005-2006+%2B+2007-2008.JPG

As for the American data I provided above you will notice (if you read it) that it shows the number of child homicides carried out by bio mums and dads respectively. Merely a bit of trivia agreeing with a previous post about which parent commits most child homicides (ie MUMS).

.

I added the table up Inept, the men won.

The message was clear, all children, at birth, should go to Aboriginal kinship females.

The note at the bottom might have been important but I wouldn’t let it get in the way of the search for truth or anything.

The message that is clear is that more females than males have custody of children but in the end the males still manage to neglect them plus emotionally, physically, and sexually abuse them with their limited time.

Well done, please collect your prize from SJF on your way out.

Pied Piper those abuse perpetrator figures refer to single and married parents, most of whom would be married and not "custodial parents".

And married mums still seem to beat married dads in bashing children.

Here's a slogan: Married Mums bashing kids, Australians say No

TPP:"The message that is clear is that more females than males have custody of children but in the end the males still manage to neglect them plus emotionally, physically, and sexually abuse them with their limited time."

How on earth do you arrive at that? The data aren't complex and they don't show anything like that at all.

Do stop trying to take the p!ss Jewels.

And anyway no matter how you excuse it the final tallies of substantiated abuse makes biological mothers the highest perpetrators and highest risk for bashing the crap out of innocent kids. Whether single, married, primary carer, secondary carer, employed, unemployed, mentally ill, whatever, mothers commit the most violence.

Any denial of this truth by people of your ilk is made at these children's expense. Because you and others deny women's violence the children are likely to be disbelieved and dismissed when they legitimately claim to be bashed by thier mothers. Back to the 1950's where we hide it all under mother's neatly vaccuumed carpet.

For goodness sakes this discussion is getting more and more ridiculous!
On the one hand we have the men yelling '..hey all those dreadful mothers are bashing the s##t out of their kiddies all the time and no-one else can see this but us...'
On the other, we have the women saying '...can't you guys see that it is the horrible men bashing everyone in sight and there are no good men in the world...'

At the end of the day, the courts have to take each case on it's own merit and decide what is best for the kids in family breakdowns.
They can only decide this after reviewing statements from all concerned, and using police, GP and hospital records if violence is part of the problem from either parent or both.

What else can they do in cases of conflict like this? Someone has to make the decisions when there is no wish between warring parents to do what is best for their children.

Yes, people of both gender lie to courts, but I am sure the courts are well aware of this.
If the majority of children are cared for by their mothers, then the courts probably have good reason for this.

Mothers violence against children is becoming recognised as feminism's 'dirty little secret'.

Breaking News today (shortened):

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news

MUMS LEAD ABUSE SHAME
By Laurie Nowell

Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne)
13 September 2009, Page 35

Child abuse is rising dramatically in Australia, according to the first in-depth study to be released on the issue in a decade.

Data shows cases of abuse against children rose more than 50 per cent
between 2006 and 2008.

In the 37 per cent of cases in which a parent was the perpetrator, mothers were responsible for 73 per cent of abuse cases while fathers were the cause of 27 per cent.

The data, the first of its kind to emerge since 1996 and obtained under Freedom of Information (FoI) laws, was compiled by the Western Australia Department of Child Protection.

The figures present a disturbing snapshot of soaring child abuse and its perpetrators. Experts say the data can accurately be applied across Australia.

Applications under FoI for similar data from all other states were refused.

The statistics come as the Federal Government has signalled it may roll back the "shared parenting" amendments to the Family Law Act, brought in under the Howard government to give fathers greater access to their children in custody battles.

Mothers carry out more than 65 per cent of cases of emotional and psychological abuse and about 53 per cent of physical abuse. They are also responsible for about 93 per cent of cases of neglect.

There were 1,505 cases of abuse of children in WA in 2007-08 - 427 of them were carried out by mothers and 155 by fathers.

A comparison with 2005-06 data shows the number of total cases of abuse had risen more than 50 per cent from 960. In 2005-06, mothers carried out 312 acts of abuse and fathers 165.

University of Western Sydney lecturer Micheal Woods said the findings "undermined the myth that fathers were the major risk factor for their children's wellbeing".

"While there are some abusive fathers, there are in fact a larger proportion of violent and abusive mothers," Mr Woods said.

_

CJ Morgan wrote on Friday 11 September 2009 @ 10:22:25 AM -- "I generally welcome new commenters here, but I'd be more inclined to treat this obvious cheer squad's contributions with respect if at least one of them was honest. 'Fess up now, newbies - you were directed here by someone, in order to support Warwick Marsh's article, weren't you?"

CJ,

Of course they were 'directed here' by someone. It was Warwick Marsh himself! In his latest 'Dads4Kids' newsletter, he wrote: "PS. I have over 100 comments on my Online Opinion article, 'Fatherhood & the Love Revolution', many of them quite defamatory. If you would like to set the record straight in any way, go ahead and be my guest."

It is no DOUBT he has been recruiting people to 'stack' the replies section. Typical fundamentalist Christians.

Jason Thompson, if all these so-called 'facts' are true about all these abusive mothers out there (I'm assuming based on neglectful,violent behaviours, not sexual abuse?),you must be very proud of yourself having brought all this to our attention?

One must wonder though why all these mothers are acting this way towards their children?
What were the ethnic and socioeconomic circumstances of these families?
Were the women beaten/neglected by their parents?
Are they in turn being abused by their partners?
Are they left to fend for themselves and their children after being deserted by their partners for another woman, or the joys of the single life?
Were mental health issues or substance abuse evident in the mothers?
Why weren't the fathers around to help protect the children?
Why weren't the children removed from their violent mothers by the authorities?

When all these questions are answered and reported on by reputable groups such as the Health Department statistics, or the Australian Medical Association, then we will have the true picture.
Militant men's group websites or facebook sites are not reliable.

Woopeedoo! Rodcub has some earth-shattering news! Warwick Marsh has mentioned in his personal newsletter that he has written an article and encouraged his subscribers to check it out! Woohoo!! Truly a revelation of Watergate proportions! And so typical of those "fundamentalist Christians" who are the only group that voice their opinions in such a unified and concerted way.
(LOL. Pardon me while I pick myself up off the floor. Greenies, Liberal Party, Labor Party, feminists, the gay lobby, big business, shooters party, unionists... in fact pretty well EVERY serious interest group does it. But we’ll just keep it our secret, OK, because perhaps rodcub didn’t know that.)
Now that this sinister conspiracy has been finally revealed, CJ, God bless his paranoia-driven soul, can rest in peace.
(But wait, maybe these same newbies are somehow implicated in the disappearance of Harold Holt? But I digress...)
As far as I am concerned CJ, you and rodcub can Facebook, Twitter and broadcast to your vast group of supporters and like-minded friends and tell them ALL to register, post and disagree with Warwick’s sentiments or whatever. The more the merrier.
In fact, I would have thought you would be excited by the opportunity to dialogue and put forward your case and opinions to a new audience. But you seem to me more afraid that the argument may be lost, rather than won, because all of a sudden your little hegemony is threatened and not everyone is bowing to your superior wisdom.
So as they say in the legal system - "make an argument." Who knows, if you stopped your bleating about the newbies and got on with formulating an actual opinion on the subject matter we all might be a little bit the wiser.

TPP:"The message that is clear is that more females than males have custody of children but in the end the males still manage to neglect them plus emotionally, physically, and sexually abuse them with their limited time."

Anti:”How on earth do you arrive at that? The data aren't complex and they don't show anything like that at all.”

I read the numbers and added them up, it didn’t say anywhere what Paul said about custodial parents. Are we just putting links together will nilly? Aboriginals are the better parents hands down according to that chart though.

Oh and I added up male vs female stats not mums vs dads. Might have made a difference. None of these things have stated how much time spent with female and how much with male before abuse occurs.

Anti:”Do stop trying to take the p!ss Jewels.”

Can’t help it, my nature and all… next minute I’ll be taking you out the back for a damn sound thrashing Anti baby.

So anyway, if we all just ease up and decide to go with it – women hurt their kids. Then what? Just hand all the kids to the men and watch those stats rise as the pressure builds?

What is it the menfolk want?

Rodcub, wow what a bombshell. Oh god that makes the regular males look bad, I can’t stop smiling. They’re going to come back going “it doesn’t matter how we got here it doesn’t change the facts…” , it’s going to be so funny.

For shame Warwick FOR SHAME!

Pied Piper "What about you Ross… what is going on with you”. I checked out one link (sad story) and listened to the other link (misinformation gone nuts)."

what about me? There's this massive public outcry and grief when Darcy Freeman died, yet no one knows the name Oliver Garcia or his fate, just six months prior to Darcy, Oliver's mum strapped him into a carryall, climbed the guard rail and jumped off the very same bridge! How about James Topham, who died in WA when his mum attempted suicide? Then all of a sudden this group appears "safer family law campaign" and if you look at their website or FB, there is no mention of Topham or Garcia, only kids killed by their father. I've lost a child to SIDS, there’s no excuse for harming a child, be it a mother, a father or a step parent, but ignoring the basic facts wont help one single child, bias groups like Biggs SFLC are doing more harm to children than the good they claim.

I set up the Safer Family Law Hoax site at FB http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=89986919298 , hoping to get people to see the bias of individuals like Biggs and her cronies, so suzieonline et al, how many more excuses do you want to make, time spent with kids, PND, etc

How do you excuse any person who intentionally harms a child, Warwick at least turned back from that and should be congratulated, not ridiculed.

There's this huge discrepancy when the law deals with child abusers/killers, I've no doubt Freeman will see life in jail, yet Topham gets time served with the judge commenting "where justice ends, mercy begins", the only difference is Topham is female.

You people are welcome to believe all the lies in research but ffs keep an open mind, VicHealth recently perpetrated the same "DV kill more woman than anything else" lie, worldwide HIV is the biggest killer of women, here in Aus its carcinoma’s(cancer ABS 2007 Mortality) with Victoria having one of the highest rates, maybe they used it for "illustrative purposes"?

suzeonline, Sunday, 13
One must wonder though why all these mothers are acting this way towards their children?
tisk tisk you get what you sow. You all want them so the father can’t see them. Then it gets to you because you don’t have any free time. If you weren’t so stubborn about not giving time to the father situation it would be ok. You just bring it upon yourself.

What were the ethnic and socioeconomic circumstances of these families?
All of Australians Black and White, rich and poor.

Were the women beaten/neglected by their parents?
Oh please. Come on you can do better than that. I though you could think of more things than just these few. What has happened to your gray matter? I think its slipping a bit.

Are they in turn being abused by their partners?
Ha-ha blame game, ha-ha poor me pity me ha-ha. It must be someone else’s fault, because it’s not my fault. Ha-ha bloody ha

Are they left to fend for themselves and their children after being deserted by their partners for another woman, or the joys of the single life?
Yes, it’s what they wanted. No. they are just the greedy ones. Want their cake and eat it too. But can’t get it.

Were mental health issues or substance abuse evident in the mothers?
Yes they didn’t get what they wanted. So poor me syndrome. lets spong of the ex and the Govenment.

Why weren't the fathers around to help protect the children?
Because the mothers lied and put the fathers in geol. Or said that they are rapists or paedophiles. But know have no contact what so ever.

Why weren't the children removed from their violent mothers by the authorities?
Because they don’t care what the father says. They only believe the lying and conniving mother.

What goes around comes around.

We are here for the children, NOT you petty little girls. The sooner you realise this, the better.

I want a better life for my children than what I had. Make that for all children of the world.

<When all these questions are answered and reported on by reputable groups such as the Health Department statistics, or the Australian Medical Association, then we will have the true picture.
Militant men's group websites or facebook sites are not reliable.Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 13 September 2009 7:54:11 PM>

Such report use to be published in the various dept of human services or doc's reports. But have since mysteriously disappeared from the annual reports.

To all the 'caring' menfolk.

Clearly women's violence has gone too far. You must urge the Child Welfare Agencies to rip all children away from their mothers immediately.

Only fathers should have care of children - if the claims made on this thread are even remotely true.

I mean next, women will be forming gangs and raping and pillaging, bashing people at football matches, attacking people on the street, drunken brawls at night clubs, driving aggressively - the road toll will increase, gays will marry, cats and dogs will live together. Paedophile priests will turn into paedophile nuns, night will turn into day (and vice versa) but no-one will notice because women will take over all governments and declare war on men in order to drive men into extinction (after storing gallons of sperm in test-tubes of course). Then women will start to exterminate all males of all animal species. After that, women will take over the universe and eliminate any living creature with a penis - although with some alien life-forms that's a bit difficult to tell, but if it looks like a penis... well it has to go.

We must take action now to avert this terrifying apocalypse from ever becoming reality. Men, if you see any woman with a child, take the child from her immediately and lock her up - she's female and cannot be trusted.

There's some nasty words coming from this forum lately. It's a pity.

All I really want to know is, do any of the women subscribing actually not want men to have a greater part in their kids' lives?

Because that's the gist of what Warwick was writing about.

I would be surprised if any of them were to answer in the negative....

Fractelle, I hate to burst your bubble but women are already displaying a lot of out of control behaviours; thier alcoholisim and binge drinking is at record levels, as is thier street violence, brawling at school and in the street, dangerous driving etc. And of course child abuse!

Anyway your childish hyperbole is obviously an attempt to distract yourself from the hurtful truth: mums are bashing kids in astonishing numbers.

Does this mean that all kids should be automatically placed with fathers? No. What these facts do suggest is that we need to take a reality check when promoting changes in Family Law designed to remove children from the supposed epidemic of abusive dads, ie. the myth is not true and the folklore about higher levels of abusive dads is just that.

The monopoly mothers currently have over child custody is enforced by maintaining the 'dirty little secret'. In cases of child abuse we need to place children with the safe parent regardless of that parent's sex. Keeping the dirty little secret going for advantage is harming our children.

Thanks rodcub - that's exactly as I suspected, and as you say typically disingenuous tactics for godbotherers and 'men's rights' losers.

There's really little point in engaging with people who can't at least be honest, but as a father I'm entitled to voice my resentment at their obvious attempt to appropriate fatherhood to what invariably ends up as a chorus of thinly disguised and mostly poorly expressed misogyny.

Most dads are great and ideally every kid should have theirs in their lives - which is in fact the case in the vast majority of Australian families, including those like mine where the parents have divorced but maintain caring, respectful relations.

Despite their predominance on any kind of gender-related discussion at OLO, I think that the most vocal 'men's rights' activists here are actually highly unrepresentative of men in general. I know lots of men and engage in all kinds of blokey activities with them, and very few of them express the kinds of bitter and twisted sentiments we see all too often at OLO.

<< Despite their predominance on any kind of gender-related discussion at OLO, I think that the most vocal 'men's rights' activists here are actually highly unrepresentative of men in general. I know lots of men and engage in all kinds of blokey activities with them, and very few of them express the kinds of bitter and twisted sentiments we see all too often at OLO. >>

CJ, I think you are right. I don't encounter the bitterness and hatred for women as expressed by this pernicious set of 'men's rights' in my every day life. At its core the sentiment of fatherhood is wonderful and, like you, I know many wonderful dads. However this thread has produced some of the most savage attacks on women, which is very disturbing. Celebrating fatherhood does not require denigrating women.

Piper asked, "What is it the menfolk want?" Well most men want the same thing as women, to be loved and respected, but the OLO coterie of disenchanted males appear to want nothing less than complete control over women and children - they are not interested in discussion as to how to care for our children. All we ever hear from them is how 'bad' women are. Look at the response to my 'pisstake' from Instep - not at all interested in promoting balance between the sexes, obsessed with the his male supremacy agenda.

Fact is there are bad parents - male and female. Painting one sex as the culprit for every human failing stifles debate and prevents the essential requirements for solving problems - communication and co-operation.

So after 160-odd comments where are we at?
As other posters have noted, there are horror stories on either side of the camp. There always will be.
And with any personal story there are almost always 3 sides to it - yours, theirs and the truth.
So will more legislation do the trick?
Not likely. A judge will always have leanings one way or another and he can only administer the legislation he is given by imperfect people with their own prejudices.
A marriage licence where you are assessed as to your marital and parenting suitability? Only in communist China or some other autocratic state.
Compulsory pre-marital counselling? In my opinion a great idea but I believe that the Liberals tried that and failed (someone please correct me if that’s not right).
There are some things you just can’t legislate - love, respect, honour. They are matters of the heart.
So how can we solve this dilemma?

Dare I say it, it leaves only a Love Revolution as the solution!

It has to start somewhere, right. Why leave it to the politicians to solve?
So I call on all fathers in Australia to love their wives and love their children. To seek the family’s good before their own.
Wives, respect your husbands - even if they do make mistakes.
Children - honour your parents and obey them. They really do want the best for you.

So let’s stop the blame game and let’s do something positive. Love WILL find a way.
Long live the Revolution!

Marty:”Now that this sinister conspiracy has been finally revealed, CJ, God bless his paranoia-driven soul, can rest in peace.”

Is it still called “paranoia” if they are right? But Marty help young James out with this:

Jimmy:”Such report use to be published in the various dept of human services or doc's reports. But have since mysteriously disappeared from the annual reports.”

“Lawks” I thought to myself. Please Marty can I call him paranoid? And Max seems to be having some kind of episode.

Suzy, seriously don’t go there, I think he’s about to start frothing at the mouth.

Marty:”As far as I am concerned CJ, you and rodcub can Facebook, Twitter and broadcast to your vast group of supporters and like-minded friends and tell them ALL to register, post and disagree with Warwick’s sentiments or whatever. The more the merrier.”

But it just isn’t done Marty, none of the grrls went and bought in support, it would be like totally uncool and bring shame on ones name. Did Warwick offer free pitchforks with every supportive post?

Fractelle:”Fact is there are bad parents - male and female. Painting one sex as the culprit for every human failing stifles debate and prevents the essential requirements for solving problems - communication and co-operation.”

Well said. Although it seems the combination of any two adult humans is just not workable. No matter which way you are inclined to read stats it becomes obvious that the message is children are not safe with adults.

My version: So I call on all Mothers in Australia to love their husbands and love their children. To seek the family’s good before their own.
Husbands, respect your wives - even if they do make mistakes.
Children - honour your parents and obey them. They really do want the best for you, except the abusive ones.
(Amen)

Instep. Your reply to fractelle was spot on. Only last weekend in adelaide, workers at the female section of the magill remand centre refused to take any more females because it was overcrowded,resulting in young girls having to spend the nights in police lock ups.
Suzieonline. One must wonder though why all these mothers are acting this way towards their children.
Are they in turn being abused by their partners? If they are then they SHOULD get out, as my fiancee did.
Are they left to fend for themselves and there children after being deserted by their partners? It beggars belief that anyone could believe this when over 70% of divorces are initiated by women.
Were mental health issues or substance abuse evident in the mothers? They were certainly evident in my ex's case but nothing was done.

Why wern't the fathers around to help protect their children? While there are some fathers who walk away from their parental responsibilities there are many more who are removed from their childrens lives for no other reason than a nasty and vindictive ex. A huge reason to retain 50/50 shared care whenever possible. If you want a good example of this read the story of baby p.
Why wern't the children removed from their violent mothers by the authorities? Can't really answer that one but the authorities wiil almost always leave a child with an abusive or violent mother rather than place the child with a caring father.
JamesH. Yeah it's funny how those reports don't appear much anymore, WONDER WHY, would'nt be to protect their arses would it.
TPP. Amen to that, i wish.

CJ writes

'I know lots of men and engage in all kinds of blokey activities with them, and very few of them express the kinds of bitter and twisted sentiments we see all too often at OLO.'

I actually know lots of woman and none of them display the hateful unbalanced view that some of the OLO contributors display.

Oh yeah, I'm feelin' the love from here.

Outta da way feminazis, the March of the Red Socks has begun.

Viva le Revolution!

Eyesawitfirst, I have no idea what I meant either, glad you picked up on it. I get away with far too much as it is. I can see how every situation must be judged on just how individual everyone’s personal circumstances are.

So the feminists lobbied for decades? Didn’t everyone want single mothers to get support, were the men opposed to it? I still don’t think any of us chicks here did anything, well I certainly didn’t, I wasn’t here.[grin] Your poor daughter though and poor you… I do know what it is like when a department wont listen and you watch a child go through damage because of it.

I really don’t believe SJF wants millions of dollars to go to any mum’s who don’t care if there is a father who does waiting in the wings.

And I don’t understand what the shared parenting laws are. If the mums are murdering and abusing kids then isn’t it just as simple to cite a few of those high profile cases? Don’t men have the same resources available to be heard?

How do you want it to work if you have two perfectly able parents – one male, one female, who gets the kid? Say they live hours apart by aeroplane and both are employed full time (let’s make them both board members). And for fun we should pretend the CSA want nothing to do with either of them ever. How would this be decided – lets also make it a four year old kid who is terrified of travel. Everything is equal but the child needs one home only.

CJ:"I know lots of men and engage in all kinds of blokey activities with them, and very few of them express the kinds of bitter and twisted sentiments we see all too often at OLO."

Runner:”I actually know lots of woman and none of them display the hateful unbalanced view that some of the OLO contributors display.”

I don’t know anyone so everyone here just better shape up.

Eyeinthesky .'...authorities will almost always leave a child with an abusive or violent mother rather than place the child with a caring father.'

Where did you get that little gem from? An 'antimaternity.com' website perhaps?
Are all the 'authorities' rabid ,men-hating feminists who would rather leave at-risk children with abusive or violent mothers than with caring fathers, just to prove a point?
I think not!
I have worked in the health-care industry for years and have been involved with dealing with all sorts of family breakdown situations in their own homes, as well as my own.
How about you?
I know of many single fathers battling to bring up their children alone or with a new partner, because the courts awarded them custody.
Of course, the men's groups never discuss these stories.
I also know of many families that do share their children's care 50/50 both because of court orders and because of private arrangements not needing court intervention.
The most bitter conflicts in my experience have been initiated by the parent who was 'deserted' first.
Yes, it is more often the women who initiate the separations these days. Thank God we no longer have women trapped in violent or loveless relationships because they are considered part of a man's property. Men just have to deal with this fact.
We will never solve these issues on these pages.
That's what we have courts for

Suzeonline:"I know of many single fathers battling to bring up their children alone or with a new partner, because the courts awarded them custody.
Of course, the men's groups never discuss these stories."

In contested custody matters the Courts have a record of awarding majority custody to the mother in over 80% of cases. The reason father's rights activists don't mention them much is because they're the exception, not the rule.

That did change a little under the changes brought in by Howard and now McLelland and Rudd (both brought up by a mother only) are holding a review with a view to changing it back to the way it was.

Of course there are single fathers, we have some here, as well as men like me who have successful 50:50 arrangements. That doesn't change the fact that these are not the most common arrangement ordered by Courts.

suzeonline:"I also know of many families that do share their children's care 50/50 both because of court orders and because of private arrangements not needing court intervention."

Private arrangements are more likely to yield an equitable outcome, especially if they have been arrived at without lawyers being involved at all. They are also more likely to occur if both parents work, because if either party receives a benefit, the CSA is mandatorily involved, and there is a strong incentive for the party on a benefit to seek a greater share of custody. In addition, neither Centrelink nor the Housing commission look as favourably on a "single parent" who only has the kids half the time. Activity tests can be such a bitch...

What is often overlooked, I suspect deliberately, is that the issues we are talking about affect those on lower incomes disproportionately. The various propaganda pieces always mention the "deadbeat dad" on $100k PA, but somehow fail to mention the 40% of "CSA-collect" payers (mostly fathers)who are on a centrelink benefit. They do manage to mention poor mum who "can't work due to discrimination against women", but if Dad's on the dole, he's a deadbeat, better keep the kids away.

"The level of consistency raises a well-founded suspicion that an attempt is being made to manipulate the discussion." woulfe

par.a.noi.a; [par-uh-noi-uh] –noun
- baseless or irrational fear or suspicion of the motives of others.

Mr Pied Piper, now that you have joined the ranks of the Paranoid Party comprising woulfe, CJ and rodcub et al, perhaps you could explain how the 10 or so newbies - who have on the most part posted short, singular comments - have manipulated this discussion?

Was it by voodoo dolls?
Perhaps mind control?
Then surely an angelic visitation?

Since not one person has changed their original tune during this discussion, I would have to say that NOTHING has been manipulated and that the several posts suggesting this very thing are indeed irrational and baseless!

So can we put aside this nonsense once and for all and get back to actually having a discussion on the topic at hand?

Lol, well said Martin S!

The tactic has been to shoot the messenger (for obvious reasons). The other tactic has been: "well yes we recognize the problems for kids but (quickly dismiss the issues)". Everyone needs to recognize that there is a current push to amend Family Law so that mothers get more custody (they already get 85%). This should be a serious concern to all who care about at-risk children.

BTW I read this about the matriarchy's 'dirty little secret' this morning and felt it hit the mark:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Mums%20lead%20abuse%20shame%22&sa=N&tab=bw

"Well here it is - finally a journalist who is willing to print what many of us have known for some time. The figures are telling fathers all round this country what many of us already knew - that in substantiated cases of child abuse the female parent is by far the higher abuser. The dept has kept this secret for a long time now. I can hear the feminsts say "well mums have most custody so of course there will be more abuse by mums as we have such a high % of care" or some similarly rediculous excuse. The fact is that in neglect alone parent females have in the last 2 years more than doubled - in fact nearly tripled. Of the 4 areas of child abuse female parents win 3 of the 4 areas with the highest numbers of child abuse. Males have actually dropped in every category even sexual abuse if I recall. This article should be forwarded to every dpet, politician, media outlet in the country. It is the most damning piece of evidence that female parents should not be the automatic custodial parent that has ever come to light. As my child and I were both victims of the mother's abuse for years I have no trouble believing it. Glad it is out in public now."

SJF

"Why are you and others putting up link after link after link on the subject of mothers being more responsible for emotional abuse and neglect of children than fathers?"

There are many reasons why these blokes are gleefully discussing this information. One is that giving fathers more custody might place the mum under less strain.

Another reason is that we live in a society where men are routinely denigrated. Almost all television has men behaving badly toward female victims. We discuss the faults of women to remind oursleves that we aren't so bad.

The family court system also seems to be designed on the assumption that men are generally worse than women. They are quick to assume that mums are better parents and that dads are violent. Some men come out of the divorce process quite hurt and like to use these forums to agitate for change. We should all sympathise with these blokes and ask what could be changed.

It appears that certain Centrelink and CSA policies encourage mums to prevent the father from getting much custody. These could be changed.

At the moment, family courts put "the best interests of the children" first. This sounds sweet, but effectively means that some mums can behave disgracefully without being punished, because punishing the mum will disadvantage the child. This could change.

Thirdly, courts allow (even encourage) women to misuse claims of domestic violence. They are very reluctant to disbelieve women who claim to be victims of domestic violence. This is despite clear motives for lying and ample evidence the women tend to be as violent as men. They need to judge each case on the evidence presented and be prepared to get it wrong (not play every single case safe by believing the woman regardless of the evidence).

If you care about the many goals of feminism, you will-not allow this one area to drag down the reputation of the whole movement.

PS; Notice the way that I read your post and responded to your actual argument. It is a pity that you cannot do this.

Ahh Marty, I so called it, and it is funny. You lot got caught with your pants down and now you’re stuttering. It isn’t the message it is the tactics hon. Now we can move on.[smile]

Put your pom poms down Instep. What can I say… What a quandary for the courts… do we allow a child to be potentially neglected, emotionally abused or raped?

That’s what is being pushed here; this message that Aussie is chocka with child abusing sheilas and if you want that information accepted the balance is that Australia is over flowing with sexually unsafe males.

You sillies all keep saying DoCS etc get it wrong but then you cheer on this departments own data used in an article?

“There were 1,505 cases of abuse of children in WA in 2007-08 - 427 of them were carried out by mothers and 155 by fathers.”

Who was responsible for the 923 other cases of abuse? Who is really hurting kids in WA because according to that it wasn’t mum or dad.

"In other cases in which the gender of the perpetrator was determined, 463 cases were carried out by women and 353 by men."

Mums? Dads? Aunts? Uncles?

Woulf did you call me an expat feminist before? Does everyone really think I’m a feminist? Do the feminists?

The fact that child abuse and neglect by females has doubled or even tripled should be no surprise for anyone. I stated this would happen several years ago when the government started rolling out the baby bonus payments, you would have to be blind freddy or a modern day feminist not to see it. Look around next time you are down the street [ go on have a GOOD look] and see the huge number of teenage mothers, most of these have had children solely to get money from the government.The money soon runs out and they find they are then faced with the awesome responsibility of raising a child when they would rather be out doing what they should be doing at that age having a good time, and the child is always the one to suffer. The feminists are the ones who have agitated for these payments and now they are advocating for the government to devote even more millions of dollars to fix the problem. They never expect to be held accountable for anything, its always some one elses fault or problem.
TPP. Who is responsible for the other 923 cases. I would suggest that in many cases it would be mums new BF.
SUZEONLINE.Are the authorities man hating feminists who would rather leave at risk children with abusive or violent mothers? They certainly were in my case, only 1 week after their crisis care workers got the police to drag my drunken ex out of the pub at 4.00am they actually sent me a letter saying they were taking my daughter OFF their at risk list, even in the face of the mountain of evidence and witness statements that had been presented to them. I went to court for 3 years and saw dozens of such cases , how about you.
Thats what we have courts for. You mean the kangaroo courts we currently have where almost all mediators, social workers child psychologists etc are female, yeah right, been there, done that, and fought em all to a standstill. Bet that really huts ya doesn't it.

MartinsS: << ...the Paranoid Party comprising woulfe, CJ and rodcub et al >>

Not paranoid, MartinsS - just good at spotting bullsh!t artists, which seems to be a characteristic of Marsh's fan club. His and their behaviour in this thread is a very poor advertisement for their cause.

One of the things I learned at an early age from my late dad was the importance of being honest, not only with others but also with oneself. It's a virtue I practise rigorously, and which I've hopefully imparted to my kids.

I wonder what Marsh's fan club teach their kids about being honest - is it a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'? If so, I think that's a pretty poor approach to parenting.

suzieonline (after your list of excuses?) "When all these questions are answered and reported on by reputable groups such as the Health Department statistics, or the Australian Medical Association, then we will have the true picture.
Militant men's group websites or facebook sites are not reliable."

Are you saying the Western Australia Department of Child Protection is an unreliable source? The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard said "there are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true"

http://www.community.wa.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/851183A4-A822-4592-AB66-C410E453AEEC/0/DCDRPTGwennMurrayreportwithcover2006.pdf would be the original source of the data at the mensrights site, now explain what makes them "militant" please? If they are you best advise the AFP.

you seem to have this picture of all these "deadbeat" dads walking out on mum and leaving her in the lurch with the kids, factual data shows 60+% of separations are instigated by the female. You have this big rant about stop blaming each gender then have the hide to throw around the "deadbeat" word, you don’t find that a touch hypercritical? You’re a child of separation, and your parents involved you in things that didn't concern you. I'm guessing your mum told you your father cheated on her and never paid his CS, did you ever think to ask your dad for his side of the story.

http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/media/announcements_article.cfm?ObjectID=45463 A big call from Telstra, a major sponsor of the NRL, who on fathers day weekend had every field emblazoned with "call mum too" and a big Telstra logo

Warwick is saying dads need to get involved, society keeps denigrating dads, most of whom are good dads. All this conspiracy theory about a few new members joining up to support Warwick is just a distraction away from the real topic. Why would anybody have anything bad to say about someone supporting fathers being more involved in a child's life? A sick attitude! Antiseptic and I are not newbies, and we are both involved fathers, something we couldn’t be if we let the authorities become involved, or continued to allow them to be involved.

I decided to add my two cents worth after being invited here to review the article and coments by Warren.

Yep call me "16".

I see it like this - Mothers and Fathers both have vitally different roles which are BOTH Just as important in the raising of a child. For example, Mothers naturally are inclined to nurture their young, while fathers are more rough and tumble and not necessarily as close to their offspring. This doesn't mean they don't love them, it means they show it in different ways. Both boys and girls love roughhousing with their fathers the same as they love their mummy hugs when they've fallen over and skinned their knee.

Mothers and Fathers both bring different traits and POV's to the relationship, and this can at times be a cause for conflict in the household. Yet it needn't be. If both parents are willing to set aside their own personal agendas they will find they are able to work together in harmony for the good of the child.

Maybe I'm a touch dosile here, but all of this digression as to Homosexuals raising kids, the Feminist movement and the Personal attacks are completely unwarranted. My personal view is that the social experiment in relation to "no fault divorce" has failed, so why are we looking to another one with regards to Homosexuals raising children? I also personally believe that should a person choose to enter into a homosexual relationship, they are therefore chosing the option of not havng children. Then again I am an oddball who believes that if a hetero couple is unable to produce offspring they should be restricted to adoption as there are more than enough unloved/unwanted children in the world for them to be able to care for should they choose to. Now before you decide to label me Homophobic, please stop for a second and think about this - I may not agree with your point of view, but I WILL defend your absolute right to express it. Please show me the same courtesy. TBC

Cont. - If you wish to preach Tolerance, then please ensure you extend said tolerance both ways, and allow me the right to express my unpolitically correct point of view the same way I will allow you to express your PC ones.

I think the article was a great wake up call about how a fathers love for his children saved him from a very poor decision which would have been a very permanent solution to a temporary problem. I wish more of the "sperm donors" (well you can't call them fathers can you?) in the world had the same drive and passion for their children's well being as Warren seems to. Then again if wishes were horses beggars would ride. The world is currently a harsh place. I think it will get a lot worse before it gets better, so lets do what is the most important thing, and Cherish our Families. We never know when the last day on earth will come for them. I see the carnage of wasted life all too often in my job driving interstate trucks, and let me tell you, I'm all too aware of the loss and void losing a loved one creates.

Love, Honour, and Cherish every second you get to spend with your Family and Loved Ones, because one day we may wake up to find them taken from us. Family is where it's at. If you have a loving one, you are rich beyond measure. All the material possessions in the world pale in comparison to the way a child looks into their parents eyes.....

Regarding the reporting of the WA Department of Child Protection child abuse figures that have been linked here: http://www.mensrights.com.au/dads_not_the_demons.pdf
and are being flashed all over dozens of Mens Rights sites worldwide, there are a few figure-bending issues that need highlighting - especially in terms of the parenting time factor.

According to various sources, the difference in parenting time between mothers and fathers varies from 4:1 (World Handbook of Childcare) to 5:2 (ABS). Added to this, 87% of Australia's single parent families are headed by a mother.

Given the WA child abuse figures, and taking into account that children are in the care of their mothers, say, approximately 70% of overall childcare time, compared to about 30% for fathers, then a different picture emerges.

Taking this percentage ratio into account, fathers perpetrate in 30% of the time:

1. 47% of physical abuse
2. 33% of emotional abuse
3. 87% of sexual abuse
4. 5% of neglect
5. 27% of total abuse.

… while mothers perpetrate in 70% of the time:

1. 53% of physical abuse
2. 67% of emotional abuse
3. 13% of sexual abuse
4. 95% of neglect
5. 73% of total abuse.

So, on a time/ratio basis, fathers are OVER-represented in physical and emotional abuse, and grossly OVER-represented in sexual abuse, whereas mothers are UNDER-represented in physical and emotional abuse, and greatly UNDER-represented in sexual abuse.

Also, while mothers are grossly OVER-represented in terms of neglect – which also skews the total overall abuse figure against them - this high percentage figure is almost certainly caused in part by the way in which neglect is reported. For example, if a mother is found to have neglected her four children while in her care, that is more than likely counted as 4 neglect cases, rather than one. By contrast, physical and/or emotional abuse would be recorded as one incident at a time.

So the claim made by the MensRights.com.au article that ‘while there are some abusive fathers, there are in fact a larger proportion of violent and abusive mothers’ is at best, spurious, and at worst, misogynistic opportunism.

> Woulf did you call me an expat feminist before?

No. I was just throwing together a jumble-bag of personae. Anyone who recognises him/herself there is welcome to adopt the moniker.

The only term for which I had a particular contributor in mind was “brimstone dingbat”. However his perception is so completely fogged with voodoo that he’ll be the last to see it.

> Yep call me "16".

I make it eighteen, though since you’re the first to actually declare your interest, there’s a valid claim to being called "1".

Of course you’re entitled to your opinion about homosexuals raising kids. The reason why gay parenting is relevant here is because Warwick Marsh’s organisation, which claims to be a “harm minimisation” organisation for fathers http://www.fatherhood.org.au/aboutUs.html#vision , actually excludes gay fathers, and even worse, engages in anti-gay activism.

I’m all for fathers getting together and helping each other. However they cross a line when they start spreading lies and prejudice about fathers who don’t fit their template: http://www.fatherhood.org.au/resources/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Gender%20Matters%20A4low%20res.pdf Nicola Roxon correctly identified what Warwick Marsh has to say in this publication as “unacceptable and repugnant”.

Maybe you or one of the seventeen other Marsh supporters can explain how spreading lies about homosexuals helps the hurting fathers who turn to the Fatherhood Foundation. I just don’t get it.

In my view, if Marsh is genuine about helping fathers, he should stick to it, rather than spending his resources on divisive side issues.

Eye:“Who is responsible for the other 923 cases. I would suggest that in many cases it would be mums new BF.”

But this is where you boys are not questioning your agenda or how you push it … to support something you must want to know everything about it yeah? Everything being debated here is focused on the lie that “mum’s abuse the children more than anyone else” those 923 prove otherwise and the only way you have of shoving what wonderful parents you are down everyone’s throat is to condemn mothers?

Is Warwick’s candle burning brighter?

Ross:“…Western Australia Department of Child Protection is an unreliable source?”

The fathers have said they are unreliable and then suddenly changed their minds?

“A big call from Telstra, a major sponsor of the NRL, who on fathers day weekend had every field emblazoned with "call mum too"”

Did you call your mum and complain?

Animalinstinct: “Yep call me "16".”

Why?

Warwick:”Maybe our society is beginning to listen to the cry of our children.”

No, only if mummy makes them cry… everyone else is apparently allowed to carry on.

SJF:"mums might abuse children more but it's still all the fault of MENZ, cos they're MENZ and if they really cared about the kids thay'd just go and shoot themselves like the violent, misogynist MENZ they are"

LOL, good old SJF, never fails to provide a giggle.

The facts are clear, dear - mums aren't perfect and neither are dads, but mums who have kids without dads around are the least perfect of all.

We need to encourage people to stay married and work out their differences, but if they must divorce, then we should remove as many exacerbating influences as possible, including conflicts over care levels and child support. The property settlement can be difficult enough without adding to it.

Abolishing the CSA and allowing people to set their own care levels free of the undue influence of Centrelink and the CSA would be a good start. Not everyone wants 50:50 and not every mother wants majority care, necessarily. Most people already come to an agreement, but the presence of centrelink/CSA means that if mum is not working, she has a strong incentive to maximise the time she has the kids and hence her entitlement to child support. It no doubt also means that some dads seek a greater share of the care of their kids to reduce the amount they are required to pay.

A levy on all taxpayers could easily pay the child support requirements for low-income earners, while divorced high-income earners would be able to offset part of their own levy by making voluntary child-support payments.

Low-income fathers are very hard-hit by divorce and child-support. Many simply give up and drop out of the labour force. Many of them have little contact with their kids simply because they have nowhere suitable for them to live, which means they then become liable to pay more CS. It is just as hard on second families, since they are left to make do with the scraps after the CSA does its bit.

If dad's not working, the CSA takes $6 from his dole for his kids.

TPP. I have not said that mothers abuse their children more than anyone else. What i HAVE said is that mothers [ biological mothers] abuse their children at higher rates than fathers [ biological fathers]around double, and when you throw abuse committed by mums new BF [ the step father]into the mix then the abuse rates are around triple.I make no apologies for putting up the statistics i have or saying that mothers abuse neglect and kill their children at higher rates than fathers do. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. People like SJF like to wax lyrical about how feminism arose from a great need, yet deny that the fathers rights movement is arising from the same need, [she is as hypocritical as they come IMO]. Feminists lobby relentlessly for more mothers to have custody then complain that mothers are left alone to fend for themselves and their children and demand more taxpayers dollars to fix the problem they have helped create.When a break up occurs the mother gets up to 75% of the assets, but usually none of the debts, as the mother gets custody in 85% of cases it's almost always the father that is liable for child support but even these days is not given the time with his child commensurate to what he pays. In addition to this it's almost always the custodial parent[ the mother] who gets the free legal aid while the father has to pay all his own court costs. The mother gets all the benefits, pension,tax benefit cheaper pretty much everything while the father has to pay full tote odds. Yet despite all this rough justice and pressure fathers still only abuse their children at a fraction of the rate that mothers do. Not surprising though that their suicide rate is 5 times as high. SJF said "tell it to someone who cares", well SJF if thats your attitude why should i or anyone care anything about the poor mothers you talk about. You said it first.

Anti:”The facts are clear, dear - mums aren't perfect and neither are dads, but mums who have kids without dads around are the least perfect of all.”

We don’t know that though aye Anti cause according the boys it hasn’t happened that dads have the kids in equal numbers to see what the stats do. So to be correct it really isn’t a fact at all but you’d like to be given the opportunity to test it.

Eye:”Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.”

See I bet you read that after and thought “oh bugger”. It’s alright I’m going to let it slide.

In your post you are trying to say through lack of access to children plus child support paid men suffer. I believe it. But you do have support; all these mens groups must be doing something rather than just attacking women where they can.

Look I’m sure feminism did arise from a need and to be francis it was probably more dire than your current one given the times and the attitudes. I’m just not sure if you tactics are going to work, being a different gender would mean a different agenda is required.

Attacking women leaves the women defensive and off side, you need some women on your side to be effective. The anger is no good, wont work, isn’t working.

Oh and Mr 16 – it’s okay I get what you were on about now, I thought you were stating your age and I was trying to work out why you drove trucks. Do you know if Warwick is sending over any more? Should I put the kettle on?

Pied you can always be counted on for your sense of humour.

Eye does make a point about the rise of men's groups arising out of the same inequity that fed the rise of feminism. Trouble is I don't think we ever really worked out what we meant by equal - the main factor I think is respect for each other first as human beings.

It is ironic that some of those in these men's groups use strong anti-women rhetoric while at the same time casting all feminists or women's groups as man-haters. Perhaps there is some merit to the phrase 'What we hate we become'.

In the case of marriage breakdown there is absolutely no doubt that men have up until recent times been disadvantaged when it comes to child access and financial stress.

But women too have experienced abandonment and lack of support in trying to raise children on their own - emotionally and financially. I know some men who have been put in this situation as well but generally they have had a job while the women may have been out of the workforce for a few years.

The real issue is how do we keep children safe from the abusive parent. It would be a shame if fairer access laws also meant greater access for the abuser - regardless of gender.

Eyeinthesky,"... the kangaroo courts we currently have where almost all mediators, social workers child psychologists etc are female, yeah right, been there, done that, and fought em all to a standstill. Bet that really huts ya doesn't it."

No, it doesn't really impress me(or 'hut' me)at all really. Aggressive, testosterone fueled men who need to bignote themselves to feel better about themselves just make me feel sorry for them.

RossM,"I'm guessing your mum told you your father cheated on her and never paid his CS, did you ever think to ask your dad for his side of the story."
You guessed wrong Ross.
Dad met me at a cafe and told me he was leaving mum and moving straight in with another woman he had been having an affair with for 18 months (his actual words).

Mum and the 4 of us had absolutely no idea that this had been happening. We were aged 11, 13, 15 and 17 years when he left.
He left letters for mum and the others. He did not have the guts to tell them to their faces.

RossM "...and your parents involved you in things that didn't concern you."
Do you honestly believe that dad leaving after 22 years of marriage to a very monogamous woman who loved him dearly, and then didn't pay any money for his kids because he didn't have to (HIS words!), wouldn't concern us?
You obviously know nothing about the feelings of children of divorced parents.
By the way, I still have a good relationship with both my parents now.

Dear woulfe, your defence of homosexuals (and subsequent slamming of Warwick Marsh) is admirable in theory but if one doesn't see homosexuality as innate, your house might be built on sand ...

May I gently offer the fact that recently, the American Psychological Association _removed_ a statement from their brochure that said "that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality".

It was replaced with: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible ... influences, _no_ findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

I did look up the APA website and the quote is there in black and white.

Yeah, Malcolm, we heard you the first time: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9402#150545

What's your point?

As an organisation of evidence-based practitioners, the APA correctly states that there are no conclusive explanations of the causes of sexual orientation. Further, the APA very prudently declines to speculate on the various theories on offer.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses

Scrupulous use of external sources normally includes naming the specific source, and in online discussions providing a link, so that your readers can check the quote and the context in which it appears. You have provided this quote twice, without the link, and both times you have selectively ended your quote just before the statement:

"most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

I tried to check your claim that the APA recently changed its position, but in the limited time I have available, I've been unable to confirm this. However I did find that your quote about the recent change was lifted from Joseph Nicolosi's rabidly anti-gay NARTH site http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html

Given your selective use of the APA's material, your undeclared quoting from an extremist website, and earlier concealment of your motivation for joining this discussion in the first place, I think I am more than justified in once again questioning your honesty.

Some posters keep mentioning menz (sic) groups that hate women, yet I know that such groups as the Mens Health and Wellbeing Association are highly regarded locally for their very positive, constructive approach to relationships and women. We know couples who have benefited greatly from their workshops and some have even sent older sons to the activities.

Here is such a group:

http://www.mhwaq.org.au/

When one looks at it, what possible benefit could there be in encouraging 'testosterone fuelled' reactions from men who are already suffering from family breakdown?

Perhaps some posters are overreacting to the advocacy of the few without any practical exposure to the larger elephant - the mens groups who do a very good job of helping men explore and develop themselves. I don't think that men are poor communicators - quite the reverse in fact - but there are differences in expectation and communication style. Even getting most men to think of themselves and especially to put their health number one is hard in a society that encourages a twisted masculinity that requires that men ceaselessly strive, martyr themselves, do not share feelings with one another, put up with pain without complaint and so on.

Below is a page of links from what seems to be a common men's site on the Net (says Google!) and I am interested to know from the posters who generalise about offensive (to women) menz' groups just which are the groups they are complaining about by name and what specifically is the problem with each.

www.mensgroups.com.au/

If men are to be helped and most do need support as do many women, surely we should be getting behind the groups that do a good job and will be accessed by men. I cannot see any useful purpose in just bagging all as 'menz' groups.

Anyhow, what about a list of Australian men's groups and the pros and cons of each? Do any have free counselling and courses or is it all user pays?

I think it's really up to me to summarise.

188 comments says a lot about how threatened the women posters seem to feel about any renewal or encouragement of fatherhood or even just talking about fathers, and the threat CJ feels that religious people may sneak onto the forum without established user permission.

Classic pieces included...

'poorly expressed misogyny'
CJ wanting the misogyny to be better expressed by the male posters. I have to agree.

suzeonline complaining all the men were just bitter about their failed marriages and having one-sided stories, then going into depth about her father leaving her mother and such when she was young.

The constant attitude of the feminist posters to look for reasons why women may abuse their children, from previous parental neglect, to socio-economic circumstances, alcohol and drug abuse, to... you guessed it... being abused by men and the father not being around.

The total absence of this attitude from the same posters when it's men who abuse children. ie. No excuses, it's just the nature of men. Women just care more about the kids, everyone knows that.

Piper. Well most of her posts.

particularly,

mens groups 'attacking women where they can'. Classic. That's how I feel about feminist sites. Anywhere 'where they can', havin' a go at attacking men. Too funny. Like how CJ attacks anti... where he can.

and,

'“A big call from Telstra, a major sponsor of the NRL, who on fathers day weekend had every field emblazoned with "call mum too"”

Did you call your mum and complain? '

and,

'Do you know if Warwick is sending over any more? Should I put the kettle on?'

It seems to me that many who have failed in their marriages seem bitter against those who have not. Hmmm.

G'Day All
I Found "NSW Government caught lying to shore up Womens D.V. Figures" on
www.familylawwebguide.com.au
http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au
should get you there
These figures have some interesting stats.
Thanks have a great life from Dave

Forgot to list
http://www.famliylawwebguide.com.au/cc/pg/news/view/730
Thanks have a good life from Dave

OLO summery cause Houels needed revising and I always revise everything Houel says as his fem-doppelganger:

Page 1.

Andrew goes hey here we are and I don’t think I like gays.

Houel cruises past and mentions Warwick is not all bubbles and pudding.

Runner called Andrew perverted.

Andrew says sexual abuse occurs inside marriages anyway.

Hohum stepped up and said he liked being spanked.

Late30smum popped in and said everybody should love everybody.

From page 2 to page 29 was like a scene from “Bad Boy Bubby” and no I’m not saying which one.

Pages 31 - 32

Anti went toe to toe with SJF and happened to mention the CSA.

Eyewriteinblocks had a chat to myself about just how much mothers suck.

I replied wondering if anger without guns was working.

Pelican landed and made too much sense to warrant a response.

Suzy wondered past and backhanded Eye.

Malcolm walked through and kicked sand at Woulfe.

Woulfe shoved the APA down his throat.

Cornflower reminded us not all menz are bad people.

Runner speed past and spat at everyone.

Dave offered up some links to be sacrificed.

Houel opened the door laughed and closed it again.

The man of the match was: Ross! Ross who stuck to his guns, did not waver, and most of all refused to submit to the feminazi agenda by calling his Mother on Fathers Day.

Warwick, give the man his bonus immediately.

Pied Piper (Lol!) an excellent roundup of a too-long chat about "Fatherhood and the love revolution"
that rapidly degenerated into a gender spat!

I, for one, am done with it all now.
See you all on another post.

Thanks.
Sue.

True, there were the churlish few who despite Father's Day could not resist another opportunity to dump their sorry baggage.

However Late30sMum got it right when she said, "The heart of the matter is we individually and on a broader community basis need a father and mother who'll love us and be there for us."

It was good to see a positive, constructive article about fathers, may there be many more.

TPP

'Anti went toe to toe with SJF ...'

Correction: Only one 'toe' went anywhere. My toes have found that the only way to deal with sad old DettolDad is to ignore his toes altogether.

Crybabyinthesky

'What i HAVE said is that mothers [ biological mothers] abuse their children at higher rates than fathers [ biological fathers]around double...'

Typical that you totally ignore the mathematics in my previous post in favour of another slam-the-SJF-bitch rant. The much-pedalled WA raw data only show that the NUMBER of substantiated child abuse cases is higher for mothers in categories other than sexual abuse. However, taken on a time/ratio basis, fathers commit a greater RATE of physical, emotional and sexual abuse.

Pelican

'Eye does make a point about the rise of men's groups arising out of the same inequity that fed the rise of feminism.'

I don't agree. The two ‘inequities’ arose from very different socio-political contexts. Feminism arose out of the dysfunctionality of a system that sidelined and under-utilised one half of the population. Whereas the mens movement arose out of the backlash against feminism and has more a supremacist agenda. This is why so much focus is put on the divorce system - because it's the only area in which women are perceived as having an upper hand.

I’ve had a bit to do with MGs, through male friends who have belonged to them and through divorcing women whose ex belongs to one. They draw men in with a benign, supportive agenda in a time of crisis. However, once inside these groups, they heavily push the false belief that men's divorce problems are due purely to the fact that they are men. Many beliefs MGs push are outright lies, such as DVOs improving the likihood of custody and that women are the financial winners in divorce. Their obssession with the Family Law system as being biased towards women only fuels the despair of men already in crisis.

….

Having said that, I’m out of this discussion as well. There’s just so much of CryBabyintheSky’s feminists-hate-fathers drivel that I can stomach.

SJF,

The utterly theoretical about time/ratio argument ignores one crucial thing: factual substantiations of child abuse! The time/ratio theory is just that- pure theory. I'm sure all abused children -actual-proven-abused-by-mummy-children- would not care much for your deference to theory and conjecture, which ignores actual, real abused children.

Your argument is akin to saying "we should distract ourselves from Hitler's killing of the Jews, because theoretically if Mussulini was leader of Germany even more Jews would be killed."

Stick to empirical facts and target your interventions to those facts: mums as primary abuser. We need to acknowledge as a nation that mums need help, and that our penchant for placing children with mothers post seperation is not necessarily protective, as the current attempt to wind back family law falsely promotes. The figures are clear.

Clearly, SJF, you are more about hiding mummies dirty little secret behind a conjecture. Mum's status placed above the needs of children.

SUZEONLINE. Aggressive , teststerone fueled men who need to bignote themselves to feel better about themselves just make me feel sorry for them.
Ah, how well i remember freinds of my daughters mother, {all single mothers like her] deriding me publicly down the street when i was going for custody, laughing in my face and saying things like," ha,ha you'll never get custody of your daughter only us mothers do". Then later on shortly after i got custody when they found that my daughter had been placed in a class for SLOW children, laughing in my face and saying that i would never be able to bring my DUMB daughter up by myself. Well he who laughs last laughs the hardest. At least 2 of them have raised kids that have been in deep trouble with the law, one has even done time in jail. All THEIR children are now either unemployed,or on the single mothers pension, while my DUMB daughter has gone on to be studying for an honours degree.Those same women won't even look me in the eye now. Don't feel sorry for me, iv'e never felt better about myself, [and what i have achieved for my daughter], in my life.
SJF, read the above. I don't need to cry, except maybe for the children, who unlike my daughter never had a father who was prepared to fight for them, because of a dysfunctional family law system that, to use your own words, "has sidelined and underutilised one half of the population [fathers].Typical that you ignore what dave says about the nsw gov't being caught red handed fiddling the figures on DV or why they refuse to release those figures even under FOI requests, or in fact any figures that don't agree with your agendas.

Wow eyeinthesky! Keep the Rage man! Such a riveting story of envy, spite, judgement and revenge. Whoo I feel great about my life. Actually that's why I mostly read all this gender stuff. Ensures I appreciate my missus, which I probably would anyway.

I reckon you should have a listen of The Offspring's 'Self Esteem'.

The more you suffer, the more it shows you really care!

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22fatherhood+and+the+love+revolution%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

So CJM where is this conspiracy, with 750,000 separated fathers(CSA facts and figures) and at least half of them having sympathetic partners we have 16 new members.

There is no excuse for harming a child SJF, stop making excuses for either gender, the time factor doesn’t make either gender better. In fact I believe there are data errors between collected and the FOI information given to mensrights.com.au. The 37% figure allocated to parents in fact relates to all family members, which would include siblings, parents and step parents. Another thing missing is the % each part represents of the overall, emotional abuse may be 70% of the total and sexual abuse might be 3%, no way of knowing without the original data. Twisted figures are only as reliable as how you interpret them or are presented them.

One important piece of data missing is the punishment dished out to offender, does it suit the crime?

Pied Piper "Who was responsible for the 923 other cases of abuse? Who is really hurting kids in WA because according to that it wasn’t mum or dad"

Well actually it was spread out between related and unrelated children, carers and in some cases "DCP staff".

Piper, I spent four of the six weeks leading up to fathers day with my mum, almost every hour I wasn’t working, farewelling my father and other family matters. My mum called me to wish me a happy father’s day, the first in 40+ years without a father.

Here is the raw data again for those who missed them.

Australia: (perpetrators of child abuse) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_r85NZCM2Dk8/Skhne27OnMI/AAAAAAAAAH0/ELO0culYQMg/s1600-h/W.A.++2005-2006+%2B+2007-2008.JPG
Australia (Perpetrators of child homicides) http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=557&Itemid=107

America: (child abuse and child homicides) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r85NZCM2Dk8/SlHILj6fufI/AAAAAAAAAIU/Xycev2lSliI/s1600-h/U.S.+Child+abuse+perpetrators+2006.JPG

While we are handing out links heres a new radio interview with Professor Woods about parents abuse of children, is short but v interesting.

http://groups.google.com/group/international-mens-day/web/Micheal%20Woods%206PR%202009-09-15.wma?hl=en

I think it needs Windows Media Player.

PaulG,
Listened to that & it is not really that surprising in todays society.
A little point that may give rise to something else in society today
with the Neglect, Psychological & Emotional Abuse & Physical Abuse largely committed by the females is this one of the reasons that boys are growing to men & is this abuse that they are suffering as children then giving rise to the disrespect of females and the virtual acceptence that men are committing more domestic violence against women?
Childhood trauma has in many cases has manifestations ofitself in adulthood & mainly in relationships.
It raises a major question for DV & goes toward suppling some answers if you ask me.
Anyway a good post All have a good life from Dave

Eye:”A few years ago one of them went back to WA to visit her people. What she saw thoroughly disgusted her. She saw her own people drunk all the time, the men beating their women, the women having sex with almost anyone and both parents abusing their kids. As she put it, she was sure glad they stole her.”

YOU BIG FAT LIAR! I saw the WA child abuse stats you boys posted!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9402&page=0#150601

You hailed in these stats like you’d found the Holy Grail. If stats could bend over you would have seen the sun beaming. You treasured those stats, you applauded them and reveled in them, these stats were presented like a proud father with his newborn son. How dare you suggest those stats were in any way flawed by letting a real human story corrupt such a concise and damning document?

Your stats said it all; Aboriginals were voted the least likely to abuse children and it would only be the sheila’s beating the children in WA and the blokes having sex with anyone under 4 feet tall.

I HOPE YOUR BIG BOY TROUSERS ARE ON FIRE!

Excuse me there Suzy, I know the practice is that allegedly abused kids are removed and it is something I agree with. But where they are removed to can lead to a whole new set of abuses that little is heard about in this country.

Exam, you confused the bajesus out of me there until I realized who the Jeremy was that you were talking to, now I’m wondering where he worked with child abuse or where his opinion came from.

Jeremy you’re not a mate of Warwick’s are you?

Cheers Missma, I’m all for mums to get help to stay home. Dads too, in fact I think everyone should stay at home.

Sssshhhh Runner, Jesus is watching you

There were two trials done in England & The US that showed Paternal Fathers saved their Bloodlined children then the Mother. A Step Father rescued the Mother then his Unbloodlined step children this an example of mans animal instinct.
Animals Lions(example) take a new pride after defeating the old male systematically disposed of the offspring of the old male so as to have only his blood line preserved.
Half of the population was never under utilized the women were the carers of the male children & the childrens safety zone but not enough priority was given to the stay at home mums & wives & society commenced a systematic destruction of the family unit by tempting women from the home.
If we are to fix the child abuse of this country then we must start by accepting the major importance of the SAHM's & give them the security to protect the males offspring.
Lets start by getting rid of the gender war & recognize the animal behavioural instinct of the human being.
Women should be encouraged to be the wife that they vowed to be & men need to be encouraged to be the husband that they vowed to be.
Men on average do love their own children as this gives them their "immortality" by continuing their blood line.
As I say read John Bowlby Attachment & Loss it might explain the human being to many that are seeking answers before we keep going seeking the answers that have already been given but this will defy the feminist movement with this the "same as men" mentality & also get rid of this mens attitude that they are the "all powerful must at all costs have women bow to them" & give both sides a chance to actually see what roles women & men have in the Raising of our CHILDREN who are the Paramount concern but not the absolute concern.
This will undoubtably raise a lot of friction from both sides but that is just the way it is
Thanks for your time have a great marriage from Dave

dwg. Very good point you make in your post on 19-9-09 regarding the correlation between boys being brought up by single mothers, the abuse and neglect they are subjected to by their mothers,the fact that many have had their fathers removed from their lives with the attendant problems of not having a father figure to teach them to respect women, and the part this plays in the ongoing cycle of DV and abuse. Of course you won't get any posters of the other gender to agree with you though, they are NEVER wrong.
TPP. I have replied to your latest rant on the thread where it belongs. a pity you can't even get your threads right.

EyE:”TPP. I have replied to your latest rant on the thread where it belongs. a pity you can't even get your threads right.”

Don’t let it worry you Eye. I’m going to take OLO Course101: “Thread crossing and untangling the Twisted Web we Weave”

I am hoping by the end to have a pillow slip I have made myself.

I’m with you Dave, you made some excellent points. Few things I hadn’t considered before about our gender roles.