There was an article published a day or so ago in the Courier-Mail reporting the results of a survey bachelors.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23904573-23272,00.html

To quote:""Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all," and

"Those with little money said they would have nothing to offer a partner, with some suffering self-esteem issues and withdrawing from the dating pool," said Weisman. "While those who are financially sound were terrified what a bad divorce could do to them."

I have expressed this opinion before, with some here attempting to ridicule me for holding it. Certainly my own experience is such that I'd never contemplate a relationship resulting in children, although I'm not so sure about a childless union. The reason is very simple and is entirely financial.

Is our society really as badly dysfunctional as the survey seems to indicate?

Yes Antiseptic, our society is just like that.

Early following my divorce, meaningful relationships were last thing on my mind. I was preoccupied with my children, and rebuilding my financial independence that my marriage drained, and divorce took away.

While the first couple of years after divorce were somewhat difficult, the rest have been better than at any time before. I’ve had many relationships since, with women at least 5 years younger than myself, with average probably closer to 10. These last as long as we both want them – a couple of those have been on and off over a number of years. Whenever any even approach financial arrangements, I’m outta there!

Probably not. I don't see an anti-marriage society as dysfunctional though. My 'partner' (There really has to be a better word than that) and I skipped that bit. I convinced her buying a house together and having children was slightly more binding than reciting words in a church when you're not religious.

I do think men have much more to lose from a relationship breakup, even more so if they begin the relationship with more money.

I also think women's attitudes really haven't changed much since feminism. Regardless of what they earn themselves, women still look to 'marry up', probably because deep down they want to be a stay at home mum. There are loads of articles about the so called 'man drought', but really its just that thousands of SLIMs (Single low income males) are invisible to women.

There is also the quite often well justified view from a lot of guys that a wedding is really just about making the women a princess for a day, and a lot of women are really more interested in the wedding bit they have looked forward to their whole lives, rather than the 'for better or worse' part.

On the other hand I can see a lot of guys in relationships with girls they quite like, but don't want to commit because of that Swedish model that might be just around the corner. That and the fact that everybody knows that married people are old and boring, and that women generally don't want sex once they're married.

Regardless of all this though, there comes a time in a man's life when he finds the 18 year olds he is chasing aren't interested any more, and he sees the thighs getting bigger and breasts droopier of the girls he can attract.

At the same time women decide if they don't get hitched soon it may be too late for babies, so they give up trying to pretend they are powerful and self actualised, and accept they are desperately lonely without a man, so they lower their standards.

Enter the magic of alcohol...

Well, this will probably sound like 'Pollyanna...'
But, - I'm happily married, and wouldn't change a thing.

Sometimes, coming home at the end of the day, I worry that as in a dream it will all have disappeared. I read somewhere that the Aztecs were terrified each night when the sun set that it would not rise again the next morning, they were grateful for each dawn.

And so am I.

I'm grateful for the miracle of my marriage.

Dear Antiseptic....

It's really very simple.

'Small' changes to culture can
and do have a LARGE impact,
far beyond anything anticipated
by the change itself.

As soon as 'personal fun' takes
the place of 'enduring committment',
which is what the 60s and following
gave us, we have many children now
who have to deal with the fact
that those who brought them into the world,
gave up, left each other..and went their ways.

I cannot imagine such a horrible scene..
my parents were 'till death do us part'
and that is what parted them.

I am trying to pass that value
on to my own children.
Society is dragging them
the other way.

Break the Vertical connection (to the Almighty)
Watch the horizontal connections fall apart, and hit the fan and .. you know how it goes.

I have a great relationship as we both live apart, but after 20 years we both consider it has lasted because of just that reason. She has been married twice before and I have been there once. However neither of us want to do all that again, but it has been relatively easy because we have no kids and never could have afforded them, although she once had a still-born. I don't think we have ever been happier because we both got rid of all that religion baggage too and cherish our freedom and independence. It is quite surprising how many people say they envy us.

'I don't think we have ever been happier because we both got rid of all that religion baggage'

Yea a guilt free society that allows people to do anything they like certainly makes some happy. Rapist, child abusers and murderers could all agree. As long as we are HAPPY! No wonder our prisons are full of people who have no shame for their crimes.

Dear Antiseptic,

I've just finished reading an article in, "The Australian Women's Weekly." June 2008 issue.

It seems that at least some males are more than willing to risk
marriage...

Farmers!

They're actively seeking women to marry.

I guess it depends on the individual male - doesn't it?

Women’s Weekly would say that wouldn’t they? In between peddling fear and gunk for your face, they offer snippets of hope (or is that just more fear mongering). What would farmers know about city girls and vice versa or conversely like? What kind of farms are we talking about here, hobby farms?

You’re too foxy for your skirt, too foxy by far.

Snake... getting rid of "all that religion" might have been a good move, because clearly it was not the real deal, which would have seen you overflowing with joy and gladness rather than wishing to relieve yourself of a burden.

I encourage you to consider discovering what a relationship with God is really about.. through Christ. Don't take my word for it, seek...and you will find.

Many a shakey marriage can become something beautiful through a close walk with Christ.

It is very easy to forget that the institution we describe as "marriage" has changed many times in the past, and there is absolutely no reason to think that it will not continue to change in the future.

There really is no correct answer to the question "what makes a good marriage", despite what the various parties, religious and non-religious, might protest. So there really is no point agonizing whether yours works or doesn't work.

Let's face it, only a few hundred years ago, it was a purely commercial transaction between families, who arranged the betrothal of their children with simple survival and economics in mind.

It didn't matter if you were landed entry or peasant, the idea that marriage involved such concepts as "love" and "being faithful" didn't enter the equation.

And a few thousand years before that, the phrase "'til death us do part" would have meant looking five years ahead, ten if you were lucky and fifteen, absolute tops.

To put it in perspective a little, this is worth a browse:

http://www.pflagsanjose.org/advocacy/hist.html

I particularly enjoyed this snippet:

"Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn."

We've come a long way since then, eh?

And this was quite fun too:

"Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years."

Comments, Boaz?

""women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn."
We've come a long way since then, eh?"

They also could not be forced to die a bloody death in wartime from a young age.

Interesting comments, all, but not really addressing the issue I was trying to highlight, which is that many men are simply choosing not to marry for fear of the consequences of a bad decision. ISTM that if we have a legal and social framework that leads men to that conclusion, then we have a society which is not functional on perhaps the most basic level. There has been much fuss made about "baby bonuses" and there are enormous numbers of taxpayer dollars devoted to the welfare of "families", yet the marriage rate has been falling steadily for years as the divorce rate has crept up.

I believe that many of the young men who might otherwise get married or make the decision to father children are scared off by seeing the consequences that their father or male friends suffer following a failed marriage. The mass media-bombing yesterday in regard to "spies watching deadbeat dads" is perhaps another reason. Given that the future of any society is very bleak without a new generation being produced, surely this is a serious issue that should be addressed? How?

I wonder how many men will choose not to have a relationship over this one? Given that every woman I've ever lived with has had full control of the domestic spending, not to mention an assumed power of veto over both my dress and my movements, I can't help feeling that this stuff is aimed at the wrong gender...

http://www.theage.com.au/national/law-to-target-money-bullies-20080624-2w5z.html?page=-1
I quote: "MEN who financially abuse their partners will be subject to intervention orders under new legislation that aims to dramatically expand the reach of family violence laws in Victoria." And not a mention of the domineering woman who takes her husband's pay straight from the bank before he ever sees it. That's apparently perfectly acceptable behaviour, according to the "reporter".

So much for both unbiased reporting and sensible laws. As seems to be the norm in this Age of Women, a couple of extreme examples are being used to inform a sweepingly draconian law that is intentionally designed to have as broad an application as possible. It's appallingly sloppy and lazy thinking.

Antiseptic,

Well I think that law is really made for a good reason, and I can see it helping free people from abusive situations. Of course it will be abused, as all laws are.

You'll love this one though. My partner just came home from the early childhood centre. They asked her, as a matter of routine, if her husband hit her, or if she was 'scared of her husband'. She laughed, but I cant help feeling if I had taken our child to the centre, that question wouldn't have been asked.

Sure it could give an opportunity to help some women in need, and their children, but the affect of all these kinds of things is to demonise men. I remember reading an article about black people in the US being made to feel they were by definition dumb and violent, and this being somewhat self fulfilling.

How long are we going to tell young males they are all violent abusers, constantly under suspicion when they have done nothing wrong. It's the same as the Males of Middle Eastern Appearance. I'm glad I gon't look like that when I go to an airport.

Dear Seeker,

Apologies. I cited the wrong magazine - I read quite a few of them.
The farmer article that I was referring to appeared in the,
latest issue of, 'Woman's Day,' (June 30, 2008), under the heading,
'The Farmer Gets His Wife.' (page 18).

There's apparently a TV show coming up as well called, "The Farmer Wants A Wife." This is where this particular couple met. And they married in Tamworth, where it all began.

Anyway the local people of Tamworth were thrilled for this couple.
They now live on a farm outside Byron Bay. So no, Seeker, it's not
a 'hobby farm,' as you infer.

And by the way, I don't often wear skirts - I prefer slacks, especially in winter - they're warmer and more comfortable. But Thank
You for paying me the compliment of calling me 'smart.'

I actually chose the name 'Foxy,' because of the colour of the animal,
which I admire.

Actually, Antiseptic, I think there is a lot of wisdom coming through for you to chew over, if only you would open your mind just a little.

My own view is that you're taking the whole thing far too seriously.

>>many men are simply choosing not to marry for fear of the consequences of a bad decision... if we have a legal and social framework that leads men to that conclusion, then we have a society which is not functional on perhaps the most basic level<<

"Not functional on the most basic level", Antiseptic?

Come now, we are talking about an individual's choice here. In fact, I would venture to suggest that given the history of marriage, we are freer to make that choice ourselves than any previous generation. We can even choose same-sex marriage if we like, how much more choice do you want (quiet, Boaz)?

Maybe that's the problem. Too much choice has been shown to increase anxiety in shoppers, too, making them afraid that they may be selecting the wrong washing powder. Do I need low suds, or high power? Help me decide, government.

If it is economic damage you are concerned about, get a pre-nup. If it's custody of the kids you are worried about, don't have them. If it is domestic violence that you fear, marry someone with poor eyesight and a weak right arm.

The idea of any government, at any time, wanting to make it "easier" or "harder" to get married is of course abhorrent to any true libertarian.

Which probably explains why I can't take it seriously.

http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-truly-believe-men-need-to-be-wary-of.html

My guest today on my radio show was Carnell Smith, an expert on paternity fraud. He claimed that 30% of men who went to blood banks for paternity tests found that they were not--as the child's mother claimed--the father. Smith went on to say that in most states, DNA evidence, in many cases, is inadmissible. He estimated that, currently, one million men are paying child support for kids they did not father.

Of course, it's outrageous that 30 states would enact such unfair-to-men laws. But why would a woman falsely claim that a man is the father of her child when he isn't, thereby forcing him to unfairly pay many thousands of dollars in child support, and manipulate him into spending 18 years involved in raising a child he didn't father? Smith says that these are the major reasons:
-- He had the deepest pockets among the men she slept with
-- She was trying to chain him to the relationship
-- She thought he'd make the best father
-- She was trying to lash out at the man"

Dear Pericles,

As always, the voice of reason...

Pericles: "we are talking about an individual's choice here. "

Yes, we are and it appears that men are choosing not to marry. Apparently women are "choosing" not to have children, as well...

http://www.theage.com.au/national/specialist-women-top-list-of-childless-20080625-2wvi.html
A quote: "Report co-author Justine McNamara said it was interesting that among women in specialised occupations, childlessness had not increased nearly as much as it had for others."

"Certainly, although these women have very high rates of childlessness in comparison with other women, those rates of childlessness have grown at a smaller rate," she said."

I suspect the cause is that the partners of women in "specialist" fields are also themselves well-paid and hence a little more insulated from the effects of a failed marriage involving children.

Pericles: "If it is economic damage you are concerned about, get a pre-nup."

You could try, but it would have no weight whatever if you've had kids. At that point, if the marriage ends, the State steps in with full support for the woman who is now a "mother" and with no support whatever for the father, who is assumed to be a "deadbeat" unless he's prepared to pay for her to sit home doing very little.

Pericles: "The idea of any government, at any time, wanting to make it "easier" or "harder" to get married is of course abhorrent to any true libertarian.

Which probably explains why I can't take it seriously."

Do you pay taxes, drive a car, own a home, work? Do you also fail to "take seriously" Government efforts to control your behaviours in those endeavours? If so, you must spend a great deal of your time in Courts...

Govt policies can and do influence our behaviour as individuals. To try to argue otherwise is plainly stupid, whether you call yourself a "libertarian" or not.

Foxy: "
As always, the voice of reason..."

See above...

Well, this will probably sound like 'Pollyanna...'
But, - I'm happily married, and wouldn't change a thing.

Foxy

Thats because "you are" "Pollyanna"
Hes a lucky man!


Hey, Hehe - I was reading your comment on a farmer wants a wife when the thought stuck me it might be a good job for Nicky and her Veggie Libber mates:)

That ought to take Care of Farmers, Live exporters all in one fawl swipe.
Come on now You must admitt it would make for a funny show- Not to mention marriage. Wonder what our Yabbs would make of that idea.

Well fair Lady I had best head for the hills before she comes into this thread.

Just Couldnt resist Foxy
Keep Smiling:

Still not sure that I understand where you are coming from here Antiseptic. It is obviously a topic you feel strongly about, so I will apologize if some of my remarks may have sounded flippant to you.

But the fact remains, libertarianism aside, that any attempts by governments to encourage or discourage marriage - or even straightforward procreation - are never going to sit comfortably with personal freedoms.

>>Govt policies can and do influence our behaviour as individuals. To try to argue otherwise is plainly stupid, whether you call yourself a "libertarian" or not.<<

Yep, no question.

If a government decided that only "properly married" couples should earn a baby bonus, that might influence my decision to marry.

If the government determined that only "properly married" spouses could inherit their partner's goods and chattels, that might influence my decision.

If they decided that only the offspring of "properly married" couples could be recognized as citizens, and given an Australian passport, that might influence my decision.

If they decided that producing children without being "properly married" is a criminal offence, that could have a big impact on my decision.

So yes, at a simplistic level, government policies can and do influence our behaviour.

But ultimately, it is still a personal decision, based on factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the law. In fact, if I decided to make a commitment to a partner that we remain unmarried in the face of all the above factors, it would still be a personal decision for which we - not the government - would bear full responsibility.

But I still don't understand how this equates to a dysfunctional society.

Where exactly do you perceive the dysfunction? And what is the role of marriage - as opposed to, say living together and raising a family - in that dysfunction?

Pericles: "Where exactly do you perceive the dysfunction? And what is the role of marriage - as opposed to, say living together and raising a family - in that dysfunction?"

I may have confused you. I thought the article was clearly referring to both legal and de facto relationships and my comments were intended to encompass both types.

The dysfunction lies in the fact that the basic family unit of 2 parents and their offspring is being rejected by what seems to be an increasing number of men to the mutual detriment of themselves, the women they choose not to live with and the children they don't father, not to mention the society that has to find other ways of getting the future citizens that the children would have grown into. Why it concerns me especially is that the dysfunction is being fostered by a barely-questioned assault on men's freedom, on very shaky ideological grounds. As a libertarian, I find that completely unacceptable from the State that I was born into.

Good Morning PALE&IF,

Again, Thank You for your kind words,
and for always making me smile...

As for my husband being a lucky man?
I don't know, - he puts up with a lot
from me.

I try not to be selfish - and want too much.
I just wish that I will grow old with him.

Dear Antiseptic,

We can only speak from our own experiences.
And yours are obviously very different
from mine.
Therefore your perception of things is
also very different from mine.

That doesn't make either one of us right
or wrong.
Just different.

If I only could, I would remove all the pebbles
out of your live's path.

I wish you well.

'Fraid I still don't quite grasp the key issues here. One more try and I'll leave you in peace.

>>the basic family unit of 2 parents and their offspring is being rejected by what seems to be an increasing number of men to the mutual detriment of...

[1] ...themselves<<

I'm pretty sure that any "detriment" here would be a very personal and individual one. Certainly, you cannot claim that every family breakdown is "detrimental" to the man. Could just as easily be the ones that are left. Or indeed, none, if the separation is handled intelligently.

>> [2] ... the women they choose not to live with<<

Same applies. You cannot generalize from the particular. They may indeed be far better off without the guy, especially (but not exclusively) if he had been abusive.

>> [3] ... the children they don't father<<

It may surprise you to know that there are some extremely well-balanced offspring of divorced parents around.

But the more I go back over the thread, the more I suspect this isn't actually about the ideology as such, but about individual experiences.

So it would probably be polite of me to simply tiptoe away.

Good luck.

Foxy, the blokes on Farmer wants a Wife, are genuine farmers and at least some of them in quite significant ways. I say that as I know of 2 of the blokes from the last series (went to school with one, and the other an ex-boyfriend of a friend), and one from the coming series (son of an old school teacher). All are involved with farms of several thousand acres, and make a fulltime living from the occupation.

Country men seem to still have different agenda's to city men, particularly farmers. Most farms are stil family-run affairs, and in some cases have been in the family for generations. Woe-betide the farmer who ends it because he has no offspring of his own! Hence the need to marry. On the other hand it is often more difficult to attract a wife (might not be so hard to find a girl-friend), because she takes on not just a husband and marriage, but a business and usually inlaws that live within a few hundred metres (or at least on the same property). That's enough to test the strongest resolve!

Dear Country Gal,

Thank you for providing the extra information.

I greatly appreciate it.

I think that, as I stated earlier, this thread is
about issues that people have to deal with,
based on their own experiences.
I can understand what Antiseptic and others
are saying. But I guess I can't fully appreciate
it, because I haven't gone through what they have.

So, like Pericles, I too should just
"Tip-toe away."

Country Gal, you make some very valid points. Family feuds and who
controls the cheque book, create all sorts of problems in some farming
families and it would not be easy for a woman to have to deal with
all that, depending on the set up. Things are changing however.
Many young guys are now telling dad to stick the farm, they can do
far better going mining, so many parents have had to become
sensible about handover, or they land up running the place without
the kids.

What I also accept is that farm life and country living are something
that one either hates or loves. Some people, who have known nothing
but city life, simply can't adjust and are miserable. They in fact
miss the hussle and bussle, the noise, the shopping facilities etc.

So the failure rate of farmers marrying city girls is pretty high.
In my area, there are a whole string of city girls who married
farmers, had a few kids, then when the kids were a bit older, they
headed back to the city. Those farmers now commute every weekend,
to see their families. Its either that or give up on the farm
or marriage, which could cost them half the farm.

In my own case, I landed up getting divorced for that very reason.
I actually got on splendily with my partner, but she was miserable
in the country, that was just her nature, not her fault. I on the
other hand, could not think of living in cities again, I would be
dead miserable. So we split on extremely amicable terms, simply
because we wanted different things in life.

The thing is, country living is for those who love it, you can't
force it. A few take to it like a duck to water, many don't.

Even if the relationship is great, down the track there will be
tears, if both arn't happy in their surroundings.

We are a long time dead, so best to live by accentuating the
positive and eliminating the negative.

You are very kind Yabby in the way you talk about your ex-wife and of course you are right - always better to highlight the positive. Sometimes things just don't work out and it is no-ones fault. Maybe we can all vote Yabby for the next farmer wants a wife series. :)

As to antiseptic's original theme, I can see how some men might be put off by marriage for fear of making a bad choice, but is it really that bad? There is a lot of tension and negativity, even on OLO, amongst some men about women, obviously based on personal unhappiness in love. I would hate to think that one bad experience would stop anyone, male or female, from at least being open to a rewarding relationship.

Marriage is a risk for both genders and as for the family law issues my understanding that this has changed under the new laws ie. capping of top end of income paid under child support, new rules on accounting for spousal income, fairer child custody arrangements now often assuming a 50/50 split. Am I wrong on this? I think I read it somewhere but can't remember where.

I don't have personal experience with family law as, like lovely Foxy, I have a 23 year marriage which despite some ups and downs, along the way is an enduring and happy one.

Mind those tulips Pericles and Foxy.

People will justify their situation one way or another. The singles, why they are, and why they should remain so. The married folk hum different tunes and dance accordingly. Some of course are just happy to be dancing regardless of a tune’s source, some maybe not so happy, but have a dance anyway.

Whatever the personal preferences, there seems to be a shift away from marriage. Let’s assume for a moment that in itself, is neither good nor bad. Let’s ignore any negative environmental or social impacts. You know, like more housing required for less people in each household, the financial consequences of the children’s parents running two households instead of the usual one, travelling between them and duplicating their needs at each. The stress. Let’s ignore any social consequences of not having both parents as equal role models. Let’s not be overly concerned about their future - as has already been pointed out, many will do just fine. And if they don’t end up with an inheritance, so what? Today’s narcissism has all but eliminated the chances of it anyway. Right?

There are many positives too. Too many to list here, but here’s some: more flexibility in sexual partnering, economic growth through higher demand, consumption, and therefore necessarily, productivity. There will be a more flexible and mobile workforce, working longer hours, retiring later, and paying more tax (women may need to hire a handyman, and men may require the services of a housekeeper). Guess this means less unpaid work for women, but more tax to the state.

And if one gender values marriage more than the other we can always allow polygamy. Right? Polygyny, Polyandry, Group. Let’ not leave out gay. With such flexibility, there’d be no need for divorce and child support could be shared more fairly. The ladies always did claim it took a village.

Dear Seeker,

I'll watch out for the tulips,
but it seems as if you're carrying
the weight of the whole world
on your shoulders.

Take it easy...

Pelican: "I would hate to think that one bad experience would stop anyone, male or female, from at least being open to a rewarding relationship."

Unfortunately, Pelican, that "one bad experience" will continue for up to 18 years after you've had it if you happen to be a man who's fathered children. That's the critical point, really. A woman has kids and can be pretty sure that she'll have the full support of the entire state in harassing the father to pay for them regardless of the outcome of the relationship. She need take no responsibility other than to be a minimally-acceptable parent but can enjoy the children freely as her "birthright".

For the man, the situation is completely different. If he wants kids, he must have them with a woman who will have almost the only say in whether he can even see them as they grow up, yet he can be pretty sure that he'll be paying her a very significant part of his income to do with as she will. He has all the responsibility and no prerogatives. That situation, I believe, is what caused the result in the first survey I quoted as well as the one relating to women's childlessness. It takes 2 to tango and there do seem to be a lot of wallflowers...

I do wish people would try to address the issues here, instead of trying to personalise it. Is it really that hard to grasp?

Antiseptic, I did not think I was personalising too much. By mentioning the changes in family law, I thought I was addressing your initial theme. I am assuming, like myself, you don't know much about the brass tacks of the changes to Family Law, but I believe they may actually assist men achieving an equitable share of time with their children ie. reclaiming some of those 'birthrights'.

I found this link: http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/

The new family relationship centres provide a neutral ground for couples to improve arrangements for child access and financial considerations etc.

Unfairness can work both ways. Some divorced parents find themselves abandoned and having to fend for their family without any assistance from the other parent.

What about a situation where the father has not paid a cent in child support. He does not want to see his kids (they interfere with his new found singledom). The mother has remarried and the new husband supports not only his new family but children from a previous marriage. I know men in this situation and they have quite a different opinion about men's rights and responsibilities.

"Unfortunately, Pelican, that "one bad experience" will continue for up to 18 years after you've had it if you happen to be a man who's fathered children. That's the critical point, really."

This is true not only for the father but for the mother and the relationship with children lasts for the same time regardless of whether you are still married or not.

Check out the new family laws, they might alleviate some of the worries that some men might have before entering into marriage.

Ultimately I don't think relationships can be so contrived even today. People will still fall in love - if it is real (to them) being together will probably take precedent over worrying about what will happen if it does not work out.

Pericles: "Unfairness can work both ways. Some divorced parents find themselves abandoned and having to fend for their family without any assistance from the other parent."

Where both parents are not on benefits, the "assistance" is bound to be small and the Act recognises this by making CS in those cases a matter solely between the parents unless one or the other parent asks the CSA to be involved. Where the mother is on a benefit, the "assistance" can be massive, but only part of it goes to the mother, the rest is "clawed back" by the Govt in the form of reduced benefit payments. IOW, it's a scheme to tax fathers to pay for the cost of supporting a woman who chooses not to work. That must be a disincentive for thinking men who may be considering having children with a "special woman".
Because of my own experiences with The System, I am very sceptical about claims of abandonment. I made a deliberate decision not to pay because the mother would not let me see them. I wonder how many other blokes don't see their kids and don't pay because they're fed up with Mum making them jump through hoops every time? I'm not suggesting there are no bad fathers, but I'm really sick of never hearing about the mothers who manipulate the system for financial or emotional gain over the other parent.

Pericles: "Check out the new family laws, they might alleviate some of the worries that some men might have before entering into marriage."

I have checked them. There is still no punitive action for mothers who withhold access. Says it all.

Oops, where I quoted "Pericles", please substitute "Pelican". Sry folks...

Antiseptic you said: "I'm not suggesting there are no bad fathers, but I'm really sick of never hearing about the mothers who manipulate the system for financial or emotional gain over the other parent."

We are all aware of it these days - you would have to be living in a bubble not to be. Even on OLO there are a stream of men who constantly remind us of the discrimination experienced by men and there have been numerous articles on this issue in response to the new laws.

The new family laws also evolved because of lobbying by men's groups so governments are listening even if the system is not perfect.

For policy makers it would be about getting the balance right which is not always easy. Some women's groups have said the new laws disadvantage mothers so it would seem there are some gains for fathers if this reaction is any indication.

While there may be no punitive damages for mothers who withold access my understanding is that it is easier for men to seek legal action to enable access. That was my earlier point - even women cannot go against a Court order.

Obviously the ideal situation is for parents to come to an understanding that does not disadvantage children; where both parents put aside their bitterness for the sake of the children. Well...in an ideal world.

One of the sticking points over men vs women in this debate is going to be caused by potential income-earning discrepancies. There seems to be plenty of men who dont like paying for an "ex partner" (despite the fact that they are actually paying for their kids, but hey that's not as melodramatic), but fail to consider the financial implications faced by women who have spent at least sometime out of the workforce due to their marriage and child-raising responsibilities. Not to mention that women generally have lower incomes even when doing the same work as men, and so arent able to support themselves to the same degree after marriage break-up. What's that guys? like your cake and want to eat it too hey!

In all reality, there should be personalised CSA assessment for each couple/kids, to work out what is the most fair in every situation. This would address income, support of kids, access etc. Too costly to be effective though.

Cant we set up a system (unfortunately Big Brother), where both parents pay into an expense bank for their kids. Money is then drawn out for specific expenses. The contribution from each parent should take into account both income earned, living situation (eg got the family home mortgage-free) and non-paid childcare work (which could be worked out on averages to avoid arguements). This takes into account both parties financial and non-financial contribution, and provides a little more separation between the parties. Perhaps the taxpayer could even step in and top the child-expense bank up to a minimum level where both parents are lower income-earners and avoid the need for a separate Centrelink payment. Could be administered for all kids, whether parents are together or not, and replace current childcare/tax benefit payments??

Country Gal,

Why does every women seem to think that all CSA payments go to the kids?

Women already get their cake and eat it too when they enjoy the trappings of a high income from their husband, yet also get the advantage of custody because they have a closer relationship with their children due to the fathers neglectful 80 hour weeks to keep her in the lifestyle she likes.

Then the couple breaks up, and the guy has to fund the old lifestyle to the same degree he was before, while having to fund another residence and possibly another family. All the while his ex may have found another guy to earn the money, so she's actually improved her standard of living, while his has masively deteriorated.

Women might lose career advancement from being primary carer, but men lose custody of their children, and the home they have spent hours renovating on their weekends to make it perfect for their wife and kids. I think you're as one sided as the men you are knocking here.

US, you miss the point. I am saying all CSA monies SHOULD go to the kids, and proposing a method of having it do so, as well as doing away with a whole branch of centrelink monies (no reason why it cant all be administered through the whole system).

Anyway, those men who work 80 hour weeks, have still got superannuation along the way (which their non-working or low working spouse doesnt), a career path that is unimpeeded and an unrestricted earning capacity (no need to take extra unpaid leave to look after sick kids, no question about how to handle work when the kids are on school holidays etc etc). There are a lot of things that (mostly) mothers do whether in a relationship or not and whether working or not, that fathers just dont think twice about. I take my kids to the doctor when sick, and to the hospital for immunisations and I see precious few fathers there (total count so far = none). All this comes at a price for the mother, and if the relationship fails the father gets to feel a little of the price too. Mate, dont bitch at me about how hard done by men are unless you've sat up with your kids everytime they are sick and still got your workload for the week done, as well as the cleaning, washing and something on for dinner.

Country Gal,

I think it's interesting how women like yourself find it so hard to appreciate that men don't have such a rosy existence. When I tried to balance out your opinions of women the unappreciated down-trodden martyrs of society, I expected to get more of the same kinds of arguments.

' There are a lot of things that (mostly) mothers do whether in a relationship or not and whether working or not, that fathers just dont think twice about. '

I think because women whinge so much, society has accepted the spiel about a woman's work is never done, and how hard life is for women. How every single mother is just trying to do the best for her kids, as she always has with precious little help from that cold hearted man who never seemed to be around, and now having to chase that deadbeat dad for money.

What puzzles me is that even though this rhetoric has been played time and time again, women like yourself still feel like no man understands a woman's burden. How could they not, when women itemise and keep track and moan about every task they do, and how much they are disadvantaged by their role as mother (skipping out the part about it being really rewarding and the fact they get first dibs on the job and wouldn't be very happy at all if their husband decided he was going to stay home ( i.e loser)). Most men on the other hand aren't interested in talking about work to their wives when they get home.

All I'm trying to do is tempt you to accept that life isn't so simple.

I do think women's superannuation is an important issue. Although it is evened out by the many women who marry a man in a much better financial position from the outset of the relationship (quite often as a result of the women not really caring much about her career as she expects from the word go to marry up), and receive at least half that money in the divorce settlement.

I suppose life is simple, for the simple minded.

I'm certainly seeing a lot of complicated issues
here. Issues that I have not experienced.

I've never taken anything for granted, let alone
that some man has to support me, or "owes" me anything.

Marriage to me was a commitment that we both made.
That we both contribute to, and if we were to ever split
up - we would both share things equally - including our children.
It's not about "Me." It's about "Ours."

I have worked all of my life. Both prior and during marriage.
So has my husband. We both contribute equally. Why on earth
would I feel that I was "entitled" to more than him in this
relationship?

Yet what I'm reading on this thread is of some very bad
experiences that people have had.

Please, don't judge everyone by what you've gone through. Statistically, I'm sure
that there are many more happy marriages, than miserable ones.
You've just been unlucky - and its soured your views.

Try again. Next time you may succeed.

I think CountryGal and other feminists who put women on pedestals need to read this blog:

http://gonzman.blogspot.com/2004/01/where-are-real-men.html

--= Where are the real men?

Sick of hearing it. Next time I hear someone yelping about “real manhood” I’m about half ready to pull out my trusty two-by-four and commence to opening up a size-ten can of whoopass. Bloody twits wouldn’t know a real man if they got their ankles chewed to the bone by one.

Have you ever noticed, gents, how when someone starts talking about how “A real man would” it’s generally followed by you giving something? Rights, money, surrendering your career, your integrity, or your soul? Belly up to the bar, men, it’s time to shed some more of that expendable Y-chromosome blood. Bend over. Here it comes again.

Bah

Okay, let’s talk about the “Real Man.” The real man of myth keeps those rugged good looks, square jaw, and five O’clock shadow. He grays gracefully, has those solid abs, and dresses to the nines. He never, ever, smells of sweat. He of course does this without being a “Metrosexual.”

The real man is ambition and has purpose, but somehow always finds a way to put his family first. But he keeps his well-paying job and moves ahead despite an insistence on going home early, passing on overtime (mandatory or not), and not working weekends.

Even if it is in a job he hates, and is killing him by inches, the Real Man keeps a stiff upper lip and puts his nose to the grindstone because they Need The Money. He never does anything risky like change careers, apply for the job he always wanted to do, or go into business for himself. To do that would be Selfish and put his needs ahead of the Good Of The Family. Things might become tight for a while, and that might stress her out.

The real man’s woman doesn’t have to work, does so only if she wants to, and keeps her money. His money is “ours” and her money is “hers.”

.... (continues)

Foxy: "You've just been unlucky - and its soured your views"

The topic of the thread is the men who choose not to try in the first place because they've seen what happened to others when they were "just unlucky". My own case is only relevant to the extent that it provides an illustration of the sort of thing that many men are now very much aware can happen to them at any time. Who can blame them for deciding not to take the chance?

Nothing I've seen from any of those on the "you've just been unlucky" side of the discussion has given me any reason to suspect that those men who choose not to father children via an intended long-term relationship have it wrong. There has been a stream of "noone does it as tough as us women" and some stupid personal attack rubbish, but not much debate. Sadly, that's about the level of reportage in the media so it's hardly surprising it would stick, and even sadder, it's no better in the parliaments.

This is going to be THE "big" social issue in a few years and all the coattail-riding pseudo-academics will be wringing their hands saying "but we thought we were doing the right thing".

Anti

Scam with Pale? How dare you. If I recall you were already suspended once for making a similar comment that pale tried to bribe you.
My god who would want to know a person who had to be dragged to court to pay his family and children.

You really are a creep of the higest order. I said what I thought and I still think many men dont like to pay if they are not living at the house. I have seen it time and time again. Then they go out and find a girlfriend- not all but most- So they juggle not paying for the x wife and kids between not getting 'sucked in' to a new life with a new lady.
Life becomes miserable as you try to aviod being taken for a sucker. As you said men become scared of bad marriages.
Heres the thing. Make sure you are a loving kind good natured person before you have kids.
There are some lovely people out there but to see them you must be on the same planet

Taryn: "who would want to know a person who had to be dragged to court to pay his family and children."

I see the usual standard of fact-checking is still in use at PALE.

I know, you can start a new group: "People Against Reality".

Now be a dear and shut the door on your way out, won't you?

Dear Antiseptic,

I'm not for one minute suggesting that your experiences,
and those of other men who chose not to get married
as a result of bad marriages, are in any way not valid.
Of course they are.

What I am saying is - don't generalize and include all men
in your point of view. You can't be so arrogant as to think
that everyone is going to agree with you, or that those
who don't are in any way flawed.

Not all men are running away from marriage.

Some are more than willing to embrace it.

I cited the example of the farmers, on my previous post.
It's now been made into a TV show, that I watched last night,
"The Farmer wants a wife."

Sure, it's only a TV show, but it does give us the
impression that there are men out there who are
willing to go take a chance in an attempt to find
a partner. Because they want a family and children.
And, why shouldn't they? Not all marriages are bad -
only some.

These men are willing to take the risk.

Antiseptic, I dont doubt that it is going to be the big social issue in a few years, no doubt to rival the obesity epidemic. Comes down to personal choice though, and all the hand-wringing academics in the world wont change it (wont stop them pretending that they could in order to justify having a job though). Those that see good news stories through their families and friends will have a positive attitude towards marriage, and those that see bad will see it as negative. And of course there will be a few from either side that can see both sides of the coin. I dont know that there is that much to debate really, because it is so subjective and personal (hence the flood of personal opinions).

US, You miss the fact that most of the women responding to this thread have done so in the face of being told why women are "evil" man-haters, lazy and just out to take a man's sperm and cash - ok I dramatise a little, but re-read the posts and you'll see why the debate needed to be evened up a little. A lot of men are hard-working both at work and in the home. I'll be the first to vouch for that. My job has me dealing mostly with men (and I've usually worked in a male-dominated environment), so I see that every day. I was raised by a single father, so am acutely aware of just how much men are capable of (as well as women) - in fact if anything this background has probably coloured my view a little too much: I know what is possible, so have high expectations. I also have high expectations of women, and drive myself accordingly

Some great contributions to this debate.

Usual Suspect, I'm going to have to take your whining to task. You sound a lot like my ex.

Puffing up your chest about your great income, working long hours and then resentful about paying when the marriage breaks up. She wasn't grateful enough was she?

Firstly, for a man to be able to earn this income and live in an organized home with children doesn't happen by itself. You should have insisted that she maintain her work and both employed housekeeper, secretary, nanny, etc and paid for day care. That way a separation will occur with only minor hassles.

My ex, who became a medical specialist whilst married to me when I supported him financially and practically in day to day issues, conveniently forgot this when he felt I wasn't being grateful enough later on. Even though at the time he sentimentally stated 'we' had achieved this together.

He made it very difficult for me to continue working after we had a child. Why did I want children if I was going to continue working, selfish, etc. etc.

CountryGal has excellent suggestions for providing for children.

Further to the constant whine from men, for any woman to even think that she has a 'choice' and be a mother as a 'career' choice she needs counselling. At no stage should a woman ever become financially dependant on a man. No matter what he says at the time. Only if she gets an iron clad contract in writing at the time.

If he ever says: 'darling I earn enough, I don't want little Johnny to go to daycare' alarm bells should go off. It is not 'lovely' of him, it is a method of making you dependant.

To every woman who has a man who does the 'I don't get to see my children why should I pay' INSIST on him doing parenting 50/50. It will be rare for her to have anymore silly hassles from him. Believe me most would rather pay.

yvonne,

for a brief period of time I thought I knew you.

As an ex doctor’s wife with those accustomed and clichéd lifestyle expectations, Yvonne is no less embittered than the rest of us. Supported him through medical school and contributed more then him. Surely just another cliché, for I know of no woman that feels she has ever done less.

If only all our young men knew exactly what was expected of them, and what in return they were entitled to expect for themselves ...

Yvonne,

'Puffing up your chest about your great income, working long hours and then resentful about paying when the marriage breaks up. She wasn't grateful enough was she?'

Where the hell do you get this? I've re-read all my posts, and I cant see anywhere I have talked about my income, or that I've even been divorced, which I haven't. You sound very bitter to me. All I have done is attempted to balance out the usual line from Country Gal that women are somehow all forced into looking after the kids in sacrifice of that great career they were planning, while men have their cake and eat it too, as women don't benefit at all by the income their partner earns.

'You should have insisted that she maintain her work and both employed housekeeper, secretary, nanny, etc and paid for day care.'
For a start I've never been divorced, and secondly my partner and I are happy to arrange our work life balance togerther, and neither one of us would 'insist' that the other take on any role.

Believe it or not, some couples decide together how they want to arrange their family life, and are both happy with the arrangement. But you keep on with your line of women the unappreciated down-trodden martyrs of society, tricked into being financially dependant on men.

'Believe me most would rather pay.'
I think this says a lot about your bitterness and opinion of men.

US, I was just starting to think that you might be able to hold a constructive argument, then you go and post that last load of BS. You very obviously havent re-read your posts, as you were not responding to me at all (you were later on, but only as a result of my entering the debate at a much later point). You posted 3rd, and I posted 25th.

The "poor me" is not a usual line from me, but as I mentioned a response to balance up the debate from the bitter men posting early on. Kids have not impeded my career, and I dont employ a housekeeper any any luxury like that either. The problem that I am trying to point out with disparity in income (and perhaps I have not been able to make myself very clear), is that a traditional family model is fine, while-ever the marriage stays together. As soon as there is a seperation (for whatever reason), the vast majority of women will be financiall worse-off and generally in the longer-term. Most women still do suffer career setbacks from child-raising, which impedes on their future income-earning capacity, and ability to support themselves and their children. As I said, it doesnt apply to me at all, but I am able to see the bigger picture.

Country Gal,

'then you go and post that last load of BS. You very obviously havent re-read your posts'

I have. Again. Where have I talked about my income, or that I've even been divorced?

'Most women still do suffer career setbacks from child-raising, which impedes on their future income-earning capacity'

Yes it does, but that's the decision they make. They trade off some possible career progression, while men trade off likelyhood of custody and the family home in divorce. You don't 'balance up the debate ' as you only see the former, not the latter.

I find it amazing on this blog, how you women use all these arguments such as

'It is not 'lovely' of him, it is a method of making you dependant.
'
Great stuff. All men really just want to enslave their wives.

' Believe me most would rather pay.'
Most men don't want to see their kids and would pay money not to see them.

') mothers do whether in a relationship or not and whether working or not, that fathers just dont think twice about. '
Men don't appreciate all these things that mothers do, and are so selfish they wouldn't do themselves.

And it's the women banging on about me whining. Pot, say hello to kettle. My post at Monday, 30 June 2008 5:18:46 is a very accurate depiction of the attitudes women have. They truely are the unappreciated down-trodden martyrs of society.

I think, because men don't directly, emotionally, care for the family while they are at work, their role as breadwinner is seen by women as self serving in some way. Women's role is conversely altruistic and selfless. Men are hated for being 'absent' in this, and unappreciative of her efforts, and cold, for taking leave from the emotional feel good stuff to earn the family money.

For myself, and all the men who I know who have wives and children, we greatly appreciate the role our wives play. But I don't believe this is fully reciprocated, and it ilustrates a blinkered view women have.The reality it is they that don't appreciate the traditional male contribution to family. They see it as cheap and easy. Ironically, it's the women who generally complain though, and as seen here shout down men who don't accept this women as matyrs view of the world.

It appears from this forum, a womans work is never done, and never appreciated, and a man is a whinging whiner if he doesn't just accept the one sided view I have explained above.

Usual Suspect, it may be bias I've got a lot of respect for Yvonne built up over a long period but you may be intepreting her comments based on assumptions that don't actually reflect where she is coming from. She is one of those posters who does try and see both sides of the issue. In this instance she is putting the other side of the discussion but please don't get so tied up in the fight aspect that you forget the dialog.

As a single dad who wanted shared care and ended up with full time care I didn't really enjoy the comments about men prefering to pay than care but I've also been around enough to know that in some cases dad's just don't take responsibility for their kids. Time caring for their kids is seen as a favour to the ex or a burden rather than part of life.

I have no idea what the numbers are like, it's another one of those discussions where spin clouds the issue. Few dads will admit that they don't take responsibility and few mums will admit that they play maternal gatekeepers or live off their kids.

R0bert

That's why I posted this blog, which I requested that CountryGal read.

http://gonzman.blogspot.com/2004/01/where-are-real-men.html

Perhaps those men have had their children abducted from them by either the wife or the courts, R0bert.

Steel,

That's a pretty one-sided, corny parody of what I hear from the women on this blog. I'm more interested in neither side spouting this kind of crap. Articles like that have been accepted as fact, or legimitimate validation for all the downtrodden martyrs of society. It shames me men have sunk to the same level.

It sounds a bit like Country Gal's

' There are a lot of things that (mostly) mothers do whether in a relationship or not and whether working or not, that fathers just dont think twice about. I take my kids to the doctor when sick, and to the hospital for immunisations and I see precious few fathers there (total count so far = none). All this comes at a price for the mother, and if the relationship fails the father gets to feel a little of the price too. Mate, dont bitch at me about how hard done by men are unless you've sat up with your kids everytime they are sick and still got your workload for the week done, as well as the cleaning, washing and something on for dinner.'

But, as I said in my last post. Your blog entry IS whining, but Country Gals' and Yvonne's post somehow aren't.

Robert,

Very level headed as usual.

'may be intepreting her comments based on assumptions that don't actually reflect where she is coming from.'

Seriously, did you read her last post? I think it was pretty clear cut where she was coming from.

Excuse me, but I am looking from a macro-political perspective here. Men's rights are being infringed on a regular basis in law-making, policy and enforcement. Feminism is the cause and it's reflected in our political system. We have:

A Federal Office for Women
a Federal Minster for Women's Interests

This imbalance is *severely* sexist and beginning to infringe on a multitude of male rights and interests. This isn't an opinion. It's a fact.

To call that blog whiny is missing the point ;)

All I can say to that blog is read the comment that comes after :)

Ok ok. I have a sense of humour - snappy posts earlier to be attributed to acute sleep deprivation thanks to my two little angels!

Actually, what scary is that there ARE women out there that are accurately described by that blog. I dont think they constitute a majority, but they are there for sure. One's my sister-in-law (and she still wonders why all the boyfriends run for the hills at the mention of marriage).

While its anecdotal only, most women I see that might fit the mould as described by that blog seem to come from traditional patriachal families. They retain an expectation of being treated like a princess (because thats what daddy did), without taking on any of the changing responsibilities that come with a change in the role of women in the family

Hi all
Without having read all the posts here, there seems to be a bit of stereotyping going on here. I wonder if there is a generational thing happening? I remember a woman friend, upon seeing my partner out some washing on the line said "he's putting the washing out for you" ("for you" being the operative words). I pointed out that it was work and casual clothes belonging to both of us.

My partner was caught in a very nasty divorce many years ago. At the time of separation, he was left with the two children, then infants. One day, while he was at work, and they were in the care of a babysitter, his ex came and took them - out of the country. She demanded for maintenance more than he was actually earning (despite the fact that she had by then moved in with a millionaire in an overseas country), yet he was not able to see them again until they were teenagers.

I'd suggest that there are faults - and merits - to each case and we should look at this issue on that basis.

Cheers
Nicky

Thank you Robert and CountryGal.

Usual Suspect, believe me I'm not bitter. I was relieved when I finally got out of that marriage. Just reading some of the comments flung at women in general made some of the unpleasantness of the time bubble up.

Robert for instance, would have a reverse story. An unstable self absorbed female quite prepared to use children's well being as a weapon.

Dad's are not done in by lazy grasping ex wives. They are not paying for the mothers, but for their children. BOTH parents contribute to the upbringing of their children. One parent may earn more, so contributes more.

I very strongly believe that children should be free to know and love both their parents. It is not their business that their parents made a hash of it and can't stand each other any more. Who the child mainly lives with should ideally be determined by the parents.

I cannot phatom why a parent, father or mother, would in any way feel resentful in providing to very best of their ability for their daughter or son. I cannot phatom why a parent wouldn't want to be part of their children's lives.

Sometimes I think there is a bit of wanting to make that child pay for having that Other Person as the Other Parent.

There are women and men who use their children to wage psychological warfare on the other parent without any compuction what that does to their child. To make the other pay for leaving. My ex attempted that a few times over the years.

Children are not chattel. They are not owned by either parent.

<Dad's are not done in by lazy grasping ex wives. They are not paying for the mothers, but for their children. BOTH parents contribute to the upbringing of their children. One parent may earn more, so contributes more.>

There are perhaps a thousand variations on this. However for a child not to experience a fall in the standard of living following divorce, then by default the custodial parent must not experience a fall in the standard of living. So unless the custodial parent has the ability to earn the income level that was lost following divorce the money has to come from somewhere.

That is why men are never really divorced from the ex, because they have to continue to support her and her children.

< I cannot phatom(sic) 'fathom' why a parent wouldn't want to be part of their children's lives.>

I have had contact with men who thought that it would be easier to deal with by walking away and not going back, men who years later have had it come back to haunt them.

<There are women and men who use their children to wage psychological warfare on the other parent without any compuction what that does to their child. To make the other pay for leaving. My ex attempted that a few times over the years.>

Sadly that is true.

<Children are not chattel. They are not owned by either parent.>
Posted by yvonne, Monday, 7 July 2008 8:41:49 PM

Yvonne: "They are not paying for the mothers, but for their children."

Quite untrue, Yvonne. The Act was designed specifically to include a portion for spousal maintenance. The justification was that if the children were to experience no fall in standard of living post-divorce, than the custodial parent (mother) required support that the State was not willing to provide.

There are 5 interested parties in any child support case:
1. the children
2. the father
3. the mother
4. the State, which claims to have consideration of the interests of
5. the taxpayers

As the CSA administers the Acts, the only party whose interests are considered is the State and then only in terms of cost-recovery for single-parent welfare. All other parties are disregarded. I know this, because I have argued precisely that way and had the argument rejected as "irrelevant", by the State (CSA). To put it into perspective: since our separation, my ex-wife has received something in excess of $200,000 in State support, whilst I have been driven to near-bankruptcy by the same State and never accepted a cent in taxpayer money. I work, she chooses not to, despite having 3 degrees up to Masters level (I have no degree)and we both want our kids. I've been forced to become self-employed and taken a very large drop in gross income, purely because the CSA cannot administer the Acts honestly and fairly. Who benefits from that?

The Acts provide for equitable solutions to be arrived at, but the CSA refuses to work with the parents to do so, claiming they are acting in the childrens' interests. In so doing, they create situations that are dysfuntional and counter-productive of that goal.

I can sympathise a little with your situation, but to be honest, few of us are medical specialists with the earning capacity, monomania and time demands implied. The majority of us would very much like to be able to get on with our lives, together with our children and not get driven bankrupt by a dysfunctional State Agency. Why is that so much to ask?