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.