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...