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.