"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.