Suzeonline:"Fatherhood after a breakdown in marital or defacto relationships has been dealt some blows though."

And you regard this as a Good thing?

Suzeonline:" The latest new data from the nation's family courts, as reported by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (in todays newspapers) suggests the 'shared parental responsibility' in child custody cases has caused more problems than ever for children of broken relationships."

No, it doesn't. It suggests that some lawyers are upset that their easy "nuclear option" of claiming that Dad is violent or abusive has been taken away because if they advise their client to make the allegation, she can be hald liable for costs if she cannot substantate it. Needless to say, this is not popular with the ambulance-chasing Family Court lawyers...

In that report and in the Chisholm report there is much mention of violence, but not a single reference to any research into the actual rates of violence experienced since the Howard Family Law reforms as compared to before. How can recommendations be made in the absence of any evidence at all? The only reference to rates is a claim that 5% of shared care arrangements have a context of violence. remember that violence may include a mutual argument and it becomes obvious there is no genuine problem.

Chisholm suggests some minor changes to make the law's intent clearer but specifically recommends that the status quo remain and that lawyers and other parties to the Court should be better educated as to their role and the significance of violence allegations.

I've read both and the message being put in the media by the usual self-serving twits like Barbara Biggs and her ventriloquist's dummy, Adele Horin, is not a reflection of any of the content in the reports.

Suzeonline:"Many warring parents forget about the needs of their children in their mad rush to demand their 'rights' as a parent."

You're absolutely right. Mothers have been keeping their children from having decent relationships with their fathers for years.

Of course, this obsession by fathers about their daughters' sexual purity is much the same motivation as we see in the appalling phenomenon of 'honour killings' of women and girls by male relatives in the patriarchal cultures that emanate from the Mediterranean region.

It's not a religious phenomenon - supposedly 'Christian' men kill their daughters and sisters for exactly the same reasons that Muslims do - and it's all an extension of the patriarchal idea that women and girls are the property of men. Under such ideologies, a girl's virginity is a 'gift' given by her father to another man.

That's why Abbott's comments in 'Women's Weekly' were controversial. It has nothing to do with vilifying fatherhood, regardless of Warwick Marsh's bleating. Quite sensibly, women rather like the fact that they are no longer regarded as some man's chattel in our society.

Well articulated CJ.

Further along into this discussion, no-one has provided any logical reasoning as to why responses to Tony Abbott's comments villify fatherhood in any way.

Questions for the men:

Do you agree with Tony Abbott that girls should retain their virginity for their husbands? If so, why?

Do you think the same should apply to boys? If not or if so,why?

Can you explain why this subject has anything to do with fatherhood or good/bad parenting?

Is this a personal decision for the individual and no-one else's business?

This article is nothing to do with fatherhood at all, but another excuse to villify women no matter the reasons why they might find themselves forced into single parenthood. Why do we slap men on the back and praise them when they are left to fend on their own (abandoned by a deadbeat woman) to raise their own kids, but somehow the reverse does not apply.

I must admit I am a bit old fashioned myself and I like femininity and I like masculinity and gentlemanly/ladylike behaviour but I find this really a highly ungentlemanly hyprocrisy. Women and men in these single parent situations need our support not our censure and self-righteous bleatings.

I follow the flight of Pelican's comments.
They are very pertinent.
And yes, they include a great conclusion about women and men - Long live the difference; what a lousy world it would be without that.

Blind subservience of one gender to the other is something civilised society has been striving to divorce itself from (and slowly succeeding) since before women got the vote in New Zealand.
I give no support for politicians with a penchant for a return to those early days.

the usual spew by those who have failed to honour their word in marriage or any vows. They then decide that decency is outdated.

Pelican,CJ

I find your faith in peoples motives (particularly Politicians) perplexing.

Sure MM has the right to his views but as I said put "his" girls under such predictable pressure and embarrassment by publicly involving them?

Given his years in parliament and Obvious ambition I don't think his actions have anything to do with fatherhood.
I found the article's focus on Tony Abbott's preaching an excuse to have a rave.

On the basis of what author said surely it all boils down to horses for courses. I think it's a long bow to draw with Abbott's as a potential PM's methods i.e. public lectures that pressures, impinge on his girl's rights and others who don't agree with his views.

I see the MM Freudian (hubris) slip as more a miner's canary incident. If he's like that now, in power? Core and Non core promises, and lifetime stance (ala Howard and IR)?
Where is his line going to be between mandate and HIS paternalistic "I know best" ?
His personal fatherly inclination are none of my business unless they potential impinge on my and others freedoms hence my focus not to moralize on his moral stance per se.