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.