I have to say that I, like many other clients of the Australia Family Law system feel as though I need to make comment, and ask that others do the same. I might add that I make my comments by assessing the Family policies in other countries, not only the West, but places where I have lived and where I have observed very strong family units. In all cases there is no family interference by Government and life for all, including kids seem normal to me. Places where all family problems, if there are any, are resolved my the elders.

In Australia the Attorney general is boasting about all his billion dollar adjustments to the already failed system where divorce is epidemic, and children disadvantaged by being raised by mostly women. Jails are being expanded by State Governments to keep pace with divorce and broken families, but not necessarily with population expansion which appears stagnant (I wonder why?). When considering that suicide is epidemic amongst males loosing particularly their kids, and for males alone greater than the National road toll, kids being raised without fathers, masculinity something forgotten since John Wayne stopped living on TV and the big screen, are we on the right track?

Do women now want lapdogs and not Men as we once knew them? Has feminism driven Government policies past a natural way of maintaining the family unit? Has the man being usually the family head, including all the responsibilities that go with it, a thing of the past in Australia?

Poncan: << Has (sic) the man being usually the family head, including all the responsibilities that go with it, a thing of the past in Australia? >>

Yes. Deal with it.

CJ Morgan: "Yes. Deal with it."

Sadly, it won't be me or the OP who has to "deal with it", but the dysfunctional society that my children will inherit from my generation, thanks to short-sighted extremists being allowed to set the agenda. My son is 10 and my daughter is 12. She is growing up in a world in which she will be considered among the fortunate few if she marries and has children and actually manages to stay married long enough to raise them. She at least can anticipate that the Government will "hound the father to the grave" (as Joe Hockey said) to pay for them, while he can look forward to a life in which he will be one of the "hounded" and will in all probability have to fight every step of the way to even have any contact with them if the mother chooses otherwise.

How should they "deal with" that?

CJ ...who's marvellous track record is something we can all envy....(cough) presents himself with such finality and firmness.. after all.. he is an authority on stable marriage.

PONCAN.. we have fallen victim to 'MIUAUG'.... make it up as you go...

each person has their own 'truth'..and if it works for them.. then its valid..

The only problem is when you find 2 people with different versions of 'truth' which are in conflict.

Then..you end up like CJ... ambittered..hysterical.. racist.. anti Austrlaian and disillusioned... and who's primary delight in life now is in attacking those who recognize his condition.

The idea that the man is the head of the family... works and works well.. when the women comes into a marraige with that conviction, and has only given herself to a man she trusts to fulfill his obligations and duty faithfully.

If she cannot or will not embrace such a scenario.. then she marries someone like CJ.. and that'll work... until she and he find they suddenly have 'irreconcilable differences'....where of course.. being the 'independant woman' that she is.. she then moves to the next bus stop of her choice.

Aaah.. 'choice'.. 'independance'.. what wonderful qualities.

Pon.. the best solution to what you described is to be part of a community which not only shares those values you lament..but constantly encourages it's members to be strong in them.

It's called 'Your Local Church'.....(unless of course it happens to be one infected with post modern relativistic theology)

There are many people today who're predicting
the end of the family system as we know it.

The family it's argued, is breaking down,
the victim of moral decay, sexual permissiveness,
changing gender roles, or irresistible social
forces.

These predictions are heard in all industrialized
societies.

Is the family threatened with
collapse, or can it thrive under the changing social
conditions of the modern world?

I believe that it can thrive. I believe that despite
the number of existing alternatives to traditional
marriage and family arrangements, the great majority
of Australians will continue to marry to legitimise
any offspring. And, the family unit will be part of a
wider network of relatives, or kin.

Families will continue to consist of a relatively
permanent group whose members are related by ancestry, marriage,
or adoption, who live together and form an economic unit,
and whose adult members assume responsibility for the young.

Our ideas of what exactly is a family -has in the past been
based on the middle-class "ideal" family so relentlessly
portrayed in TV commercials, one that consists of a
husband, a wife, and their dependent children. This
particular pattern is far from typical.

A more accurate portrait must take into account the many
different forms that have existed and still exist in
this country (and in other cultures).

Antiseptic: << How should they "deal with" that? >>

Unfortunately for some, kids don't get to pick their parents. I guess yours will have to somehow transcend the bitter and twisted example presented by their father and try and find life partners with whom they can have equal and adult relationships.

Alternatively, your son could follow Boazycrap's example and go and find himself a tribal woman from Borneo who doesn't know any better, while your daughter could take Boazycrap's advice and join some kind of weird religious sect like that to which he belongs.

Face it guys, patriarchy has well and truly passed its use-by date in our society. Like I said, deal with it.

You state there are serious problems with the structure of families in Australia, and men should have a more commanding role.

... yet you also argue in favour of polygamy.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7643#119155

If your beef is that men and women have equal roles in Australia, then state that clearly, rather than making this point via a convoluted slur on Australian families. Were you arguing your point that husbands should be allowed multiple wives and wives should be allowed multiple husbands, I'd be more sympathetic.

However, you argue simultaneously that men should take charge, and that multiple partners is acceptable - thus, unless you state otherwise, I can only conclude that you would have a less sympathetic attitude toward multiple husbands for a single wife.

Which, at its core, is treating women as less than men, that they should be treated well, but that they should be commanded and placed in a gilded cage, not capable of making the major decisions.

Yes, I'm extrapolating, but your comments are very telling.

There are many claims made against feminists on this website, many men attack them for being too extreme.
Occasionally this is valid, but your attitude Poncan, is precisely the kind of thing feminists should be fighting against, and I'd wholeheartedly support them.

This forum, like many "opinion" forums, tends to attract highly conservative extremists (no, that's not an oxymoron). You know the type.......

(1)almost always male

(2)they despise and fear feminists

(3)they have a very old fashioned Victorian era view of women

(4)they are usually strongly religious or strongly anti-religious

(5)they are usually compulsively pro right or compulsively pro left

(6)they are extremely sexist against women (while living in denial of it)

(7)they believe a man's rightful place is at the head of a household

(8)when things don't go the way they want in their lives, they blame those evil, nasty, vindictive "women" but NEVER "themselves"

(9)they believe they are in the right and their ex's are in the wrong

(10)they believe that 100% of their earnings during a relationship, belong "solely" to them, and deeply resent sharing even one cent of it with their ex's or their children (luckily scumbag men like this are a minority but there's still, even in this day and age, a few of them left......and don't the courts know it)

A few of these individuals pollute this forum. That is their right. This is a free country and they are entitled to express an "opinion"......no matter how backward and inbred that opinion may be. NO amount of debate will change them......they usually live and die with their bitter opinions of women and "the system". The best that can be done is to just ridicule them I suppose.

Conservative extremists rarely change: They consider that a strength; it's funny how "weakness" is often viewed as "strength".

philips - damn well said.

I can recall getting into a few verbal stoushes with the anti-feminist brigade here, before realising it's not worth the time and effort.
Unfortunately, the fact that they've been hard done by by a woman has lead them to slur feminism in its entirety without accepting that by and large, most feminists aren't the devils they're convinced they are.

Whilst I can accept that some women may have misused certain advantages that have come about as a result of feminism, the truth of the matter is, most self respecting women (and men who give women due respect) have sympathies for some feminist causes, and rectifying the fact that women have traditionally been relegated to lesser roles.
As I see it, this isn't arguable, it's historical fact.
This isn't to say feminism isn't abused, but honestly, the vitriol here isn't properly directed. These men may indeed have injustices they wish to resolve, but frankly, when they adopt this anti-feminist mentality, they come across as bitter extremists. They should focus on the specific elements of the system being rorted.

Poncan speaks of a wide number of issues - in fact, the topic is so broad it's difficult to keep to the subject. Assessing his position however, I find a number of things troubling.

Firstly, the male as head of the family.

This is pretty complex. I think we need to accept we do have some typical gender roles, but they're never concrete.
Poncan's previous posts speak of sympathies for other countries where women have a different role as wife, and polygamy is acceptable.

I'd be curious as to how many of the women in these countries had the opportunity to attend university and how many have been exposed to even rudimentary feminism. Of course, there are anti-feminists here who would regard this as bad, but to ground that argument before it's launched, I'd say you can only regard ideas as dangerous when you don't trust the people being exposed to them as capable of making their own decisions.

CJ Morgan:"Unfortunately for some, kids don't get to pick their parents"

Any further platitudes you'd like to try? As I said, how do my children and those of the rest of my generation overcome the barriers to personal relationships that their forebears have erected? You're the one that suggested they must "deal with it", after all.

TRTL, the specific subject of the discussion is the breakdown of familial relationships. The fact is that families are in a lot of trouble in Oz, with little incentive being offered for men to enter into relationships and significant disincentives being put in their way.
I, along with many other men feel very badly let down by the Family Law and Child Support Agency and that sense of betrayal is a real factor in our later choices of relationship. I've said before that I'd not consider entering another relationship in which children were a possibility, which is very sad because I dearly love my kids and I'd quite like another couple. In any gathering of men, the topic of the Family Law and the CSA is very close to the surface, which means that even those men who have not yet partnered or had a relationship break down are very aware of the implications of such an event. Many younger ones have seen their father driven to penury and sometimes suicide because of the discriminatory systems that exist. Some of them have seen their Dad disappear over the horizon, never knowing him at all. Why should you find it surprising that they might choose to remain single and take steps to remain childless as well?
Whether women were badly off 100 years ago is truly not relevant to the discussion, despite phillips's misandric little spray.

I would like both my children to feel free to enter into marriage and I'd like them to produce me some grandchildren, but they've seen the impacts on their father and their mother. I'd not be surprised if neither of them are in any hurry to taste the joys of marriage.

Here's a very relevant link to an article in this morning's Courier-Mail.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24190702-952,00.html

A quote:"Jackie Vincent, a partner at family law practice Watts McCray, said requests for pre-nups and BFAs had soared in the past five years.

"People are either older and want to protect their own assets, or they have been through a separation before and they want to make sure they are protected," she said.

Christine Jeffress, a family lawyer at Slater Gordon, said de facto couples were particularly cautious about the legal ramifications of entering into a live-in relationship.

"People are more savvy these days - perhaps they have less expectation that their relationship is going to last forever," she said."

This is the "Brave New World" that the my generation and the previous one have delivered to us all. Feminist-inspired, certainly, but hardly something to be proud of. Is this the best my kids can expect?

Antiseptic: << how do my children and those of the rest of my generation overcome the barriers to personal relationships that their forebears have erected? >>

Antiseptic, I should probably have expressed myself a little less tersely, but it seems to me that those disaffected men like yourself who haven't handled the breakdown of their marriages well, and who project their anger and frustration on to others, are the ones who have "erected the barriers to personal relationships" that their unfortunate offspring will face.

In my experience, any man who assumes that it is his right and role to be "head" of his household in contemporary Australia is doomed inevitably to become head of a single-person household - unless, as I have said, he marries someone from a primitive culture where such arrangements are still the norm, or joins some religious cult where such values are enshrined.

The only barriers to personal relationships lie in the expectations that people have of each other. If one party to the relationship demands a higher status within it than the other, it's doomed from the start. If your kids realise this basic fact of contemporary life, then that's a very good start to "dealing with" the reality that patriarchal relationships are now very much out of step with prevailing values in Australian society.

As for you, if you can't get past your own bitterness, then at the very least you and your ex need to try consciously not to project that bitterness and anger on to your kids. You seem to be an intelligent bloke in other areas, but like so many who have suffered a failed marriage your emotional intelligence doesn't seem to be quite on par with your other faculties.

I think it's perfectly possible for families to be happy and prosperous in contemporary Australia - but they need to approach each other with honesty, openness and equality. "Father Knows Best" is a stereotype that died in the 1950s, thankfully.

Here from my position overseas, I haven’t personally heard of any feminism as we know it in OZ, although women here do everything and anything they want. As I said in the other forum, my bank manager, accountant, attorney, dentist, and neighbor who is a school principal are all women. Our head of state is a woman.

It is also interesting that there is no Family Court here, no CSA, and domestic violence is unheard of. There is in fact no divorce allowed for by law. It is expected that the husband is the family head. Personally, I make no decisions on behalf of any of my family of all girls, but lay down the rules whereby they all have equal say, responsibility, and opportunity, and where we can all live together and share the running of our home.

To suggest that the women here go without opportunity is only sadly said with ignorance. Women here have more opportunity than men do. Men are usually too busy working to support their families.

To return to the argument in hand, I might suggest that it obvious to me that the destruction of the family unit, devaluation of the father, and the rise of feminism driven women’s support mechanisms, will see eventually the destruction of all social values in Australia, and a mass exodus of it’s men looking for something better. This is already underway. What we real men want and need is available elsewhere if one is prepared to adjust ones thinking a little. Those who like it the way it is in OZ can stay there – can’t they?

Thanks – I have “dealt with it” Ms Morgan. Antiseptic echoes the thoughts of most men and quiet a few women. Polycarp, a church is not necessary to adopt good personal values and live them out. TRTL, I have never argued in favor of polygamy. I said that it happens but this is their business, although it does not suit me. Head of family is a responsibility, not a fix for the power hungry, but someone has to do it.

Poncan: << Thanks – I have “dealt with it” Ms Morgan. >>

Ah yes - by emigrating to your mysterious Shangri-La. I suppose it'd be asking too much to ask you to actually name this utopia where there is no divorce and "domestic violence is unheard of"?

P.S. I'm a bloke.

Mr. Morgan – thanks for helping make my point with regard to the decline of masculinity.

No problems Mate – I live as much of my time as possible at my home and with my family in the Northern parts of the Philippines Islands. This is the closest real thing any family and female loving man could find to Utopia. It didn’t come to me, I went out and got it driven by the need to have something better than the system and women in Australia could offer. I am only one of many, but there are plenty of other places in the World just as family friendly.

I might add that I travel a lot and do so displaying the Australian flag on my cabin luggage, cap, and flying jacket arm patches. I am actually a walking advertisement for Australia. I look for discussion, debate, and comment from other fellow travelers. In the past 3 to 4 years, I have not heard one good word said, and feel that I take a risk getting around the way I do.

The fact is Blokes, having any sort of relationship with a woman in Australia is playing Russian roulette with future slavery as the big gun. Like it or not, extreme feminism is killing a good country, and there is no political guts to change anything while this scenario is supported by the general population.

CJ Morgan:"The only barriers to personal relationships lie in the expectations that people have of each other"

The State interference in relationships that have produced children means that our expectations of each other must include an anticipation of the likely outcome when the relationship inevitably fails, as nearly all do. I'd go further and say the State positively encourages women to end relationships on the flimsiest of pretexts. Where once people were encouraged to remain together and work things out, we now have an enormous bureaucracy that exists only to assist women who want to end a relationship and to penalise men for having entered one in the first place. There is an enormous state apparatus pumping out propaganda telling women that they ARE of higher status and providing them with the means to enforce that view.

I see my own role today as that of the canary in the coal mine. To paraphrase someone else, if this could happen to a well-educated, articulate bloke of good will, who didn't beat his wife or have an affair or fail to provide for his children, what chance has a yobbo from the wrong side of the tracks? The system of Laws and bureaucracies as they are constituted today make it almost impossible to avoid a disastrous outcome for a man if a woman chooses not to resist the pressure and sometimes, even if she does. That has to be a factor for any man thinking of entering a live-in relationship.

CJM:"if you can't get past your own bitterness, then at the very least you and your ex need to try consciously not to project that bitterness and anger on to your kids"

I'm not bitter, nor is my ex and my kids are doing just fine, thanks. I don't much discuss the issues here with them, but I don't demur if they ask. As a responsible father, it is my job to ensure they're equipped for the world they'll inherit. It's just a shame my parents generation and my own have screwed that world up so badly.

Poncan: << I live as much of my time as possible at my home and with my family in the Northern parts of the Philippines Islands. This is the closest real thing any family and female loving man could find to Utopia >>

Thanks Poncan. I guess Australia's loss is the Philippines' gain, eh? Mind you, I don't imagine too many Australians would miss blokes like you who apparently have to go to a tribal society in order to find the primitive status they seem to need.

I doubt you're correct that divorce and domestic violence are "unheard of" in the community in which you've found refuge. I'm not aware of any society on earth where those things don't occur - certainly not in mainstream Philippines society. Which tribal group is it, so I can check?

Antiseptic: "The State interference in relationships that have produced children means that our expectations of each other must include an anticipation of the likely outcome when the relationship inevitably fails, as nearly all do"

Antiseptic, it's not the State that has shifted power relations in marriages from the outmoded expectation that men used to have that they would be the heads of their households. This has occurred at the level of popular culture, whereby women have quite reasonably demanded equality with men in their marriages. You're probably correct that relationships where men expect to be in charge are inevitably doomed to failure, but that's hardly the fault of the State.

Rather, it's the fault of that minority of men who haven't come to terms with the fact that gender inequality in Australian society and culture are rapidly becoming relegated to history, where it belongs. You may say that you're not bitter about your failed marriage, but it's pretty clear to an observer that you have by no means "dealt with" it successfully.

CJM, you're talking at cross-purposes to me. My point, which I've backed up many times, is that because the State has made the post-relationship power imbalance so great, the power imbalance is inevitably shifted in the home. I never expected to be "head of the house", but I did expect some give-and-take. What I found was that I was expected to give and she expected to take. When I finally decided I was no longer prepared to be a cash-cow, I was accused of all sorts of things, just as you're doing now. Inevitably, the State backed her when she chose to end the relationship, just as she knew it would. This is a very common experience and if it's not been yours, you're very lucky.

I have always treated women, including my ex-wife, as equals, which means that I'm not prepared to condone discriminatory treatment of men. You argue for equality, but still want the nanny-State to treat women better than men. That's woolly thinking at best.

As for "dealing with it", the State has tried to send me bankrupt on 2 occasions, it has tried to take over 80% of my gross income and it has driven me from a career into a self-employment scenario in which my earnings are so much lower than they may have been it's laughable. At the same time, the State has paid for my ex to attend Uni, provided her with low-cost accommodation, paid her legal bills incurred through trying to take my children away and made every effort to prevent an equable arrangement being arrived at. If I appear somewhat angry about this, I believe I have the right.

Too much LACK of responsibility of young males for their part in preventing baby making – and LACK of ability to remain in relationships.

Equality: do unto others ...
Christianity: love your wife as you would yourself...ie, treat her as an equal, if you can make decisons, so can she.....so many only quote the 'head of household bit'..read on and get the whole instruction..

Young couples - young fathers can not handle the responsibility of kids – he wanted to party and play some more with mates, leaving the marriage and mum holding the baby. Seen it in our social circle as kids grow up.

Mum, - pension, stigmatised, broke and little prospects of advancing in any career. Dad comes and goes to see baby as he pleases

Funny thing though, in my day job (mechanic) I see more & more men who come in and say proudly
“ I am a single dad” wanting a discount.….I wonder when “single fatherhood” on pension will be stigmatized as is the situation for women? Now that would be equality!

<<< I don't imagine too many Australians would miss blokes like you who apparently have to go to a tribal society in order to find the primitive status they seem to need. >>>> Insults won’t get you there CJM. I did though ask my wife and kids over breakfast this morning what tribe they belong to, and none have any idea what I am talking about. Living in an up-market suburb with a broadband connected computer and 100 channel cable TV in every room is not the grass and bamboo hut that maybe you are envisaging.

It is very notable with this debate so far that not one person has yet made comment about the 2 men every day that suicide in Australia, the fact that this is linked to relationship problems, promoted by CSA, and the lack of recognition this appalling scenario receives from both the media and in political circles. It is my mission to assist these men find another better life rather than the one in the hereafter.

I have been there with the full force of the Australian anti male system trying to tramp me out in support of my Russian wife who was not even an Australian, and feel greatly for any other man/father caught in this highly discriminatory trap. If anyone here knows any other man who needs help, please tell them to contact me – help is available in more ways than one. WMM@innocent.co

Foxy,

'the great majority
of Australians will continue to marry to legitimise
any offspring. '
That's pretty offensive.
All offspring are legitimate. A couple doesn't need to marry for their children to be 'legitimate'.

TurnRightThenLeft,

'women have traditionally been relegated to lesser roles.'
Well that's the crux of it isn't it. 'Lesser' as defined by whom?

It's feminism itself that downgraded the role of mother and home maker. Men used to look for a woman who would be a good mother and housewife, they valued this role immensely. Women looked for a provider. All that has changed, and we all have more choice (women more than men currently), but I reject the notion that women's traditional role was lesser.

The power the housewife held in the home was also conveniently ignored by feminists.

See, if you want a revolution, why would you say, 'hey women, your role is important, and valued by men and women alike, and gives you power over the management of time and resources and relationships in the most private space people have.'

Much better to say, 'look, any fool can run a house, and because you don't get paid in cash, the job has no worth. You're being taken for a ride and men have a rosy time, don't you want some of that too?'

Antiseptic: << you're talking at cross-purposes to me >>

We do seem to talking at cross-purposes. I responded to Poncan's question "Has (sic) the man being usually the family head, including all the responsibilities that go with it, a thing of the past in Australia?" in the affirmative, and told him to deal with it. You responded to me in a way that implied that I was wrong, i.e. that the man "being usually the family head" is not "a thing of the past" in Australia.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your response.

Poncan - while the Philippines is indeed one of the few nations on earth that doesn't allow divorce, your claim that "domestic violence is unheard of" is patently false. Google 'philippines domestic violence' and you'll get around 685,000 hits. It seems that many women in your male utopia are trapped in violent marriages, with little recourse.

So your previous bride was Russian - mail order? Yes, Australia's loss is indeed the Philippines' gain.

CJM – yes, the question of domestic violence. I have no doubt that it does happen in the Philippines and particularly in the South, but it is unheard of where I am and around the people I know. But, as usual this is a feminist driven program that supposedly only applies to women and kids. I have no doubt that there is a feminist element here somewhere that promotes the same rhetoric promoted by feminist supporting organizations in Australia that conveniently ignore the violence perpetrated against men. The figures I have seen recently show clearly that most DV perpetrators are women. Men are less likely to report it. The Philippines have about 5 times the population of Australia, so one can expect the numbers to be multiplied by this factor if understanding a balance is important.

I was once told of my wife’s adult brother (in Australia) being hit over the head by the mother wheeling a heavy metal wok. I was told that this was a disciplinary matter, and although he was knocked out cold, it was not considered domestic violence, and never reported. I wonder how this would be considered if the gender roles were reversed?

The Russian experience was a result of me living there for about 6 Months. Call it what you like, it all went well until we arrived in Australia where feminist pressure did a number on us both. Now only our child is the only one suffering as do all kids of broken families.

CJM – please let me know your thoughts about male suicides in OZ

We should have stopped watching TV a long time ago. It is time to do some research now we have the PC and look at control of the masses via the world order. One of the things they point out is,women are being put on the pill then men's infertility being risen, then to control people by braking down the family unit.
As Jacques Cousteau and the David Rockefeller said: "Too many people on this earth",and somebody else (I forgot who)said "To many useless eaters."
As far as my own family is concerned, my wife is Australian and I like the certain toughness in her, but if you can just talk together about general life and spend some time together including your children, instead of watching the box, then the family unit, despite differences of opinion, has more chance to stay together.

Hey Poncan... well said

"Head of family is a responsibility, not a fix for the power hungry, but someone has to do it."

Living as you are in the Phils.. your experience is far more valid than 'airmchair/textbook' Anthropologists who have lost their masculinity and surrendered to unbalanced feminism (it would seem) and then live in blissful denial.

I can quite identify with the 'utopia' you describe.. but it has nothing to do whatsover with the 'status we cannot have in Australia' but EVerything to do with the joy of extended family and mutual support not to mention great fellowship.

You see.. many posters view relationships such as ours (yours and mine) through secular, atheist,racist eyes.. note the slurs 'ignorant tribal woman' kind of thing... aaah..now if they were SUPERIOR 'white' women.. who know what the world is about.. they would quickly put us in our places... right? :) well.. we can just ignore such ingnorance as it will go the way of all emptiness.. fading..fading..gone.

CHURCH.. agreed.. it is not neccessary for good values. I'm simply saying that it helps greatly in my view.. if you haven't yet experienced this particular diminsion of tribal life.. I urge you to reserve judgement until you see/experience it :)

PHILLIPS.. you know what they say "The sin we hate the most in others is the one we have ourselves" :) and I read your post more like a confession than an accusation.

Poncan: << CJM – please let me know your thoughts about male suicides in OZ >>

It's not a topic I think much about, actually. I imagine that men top themselves for various reasons, but I would've thought that suicide is an excessive reaction to not being allowed to rule the roost.

Polycarp, you will never make a believer out of me, although I will admit to attending a church boarding school, and playing the part of an alter boy when I was young. I would never deny others their belief – i.e. my wife is a staunch RC.

I get your point about “The sin we hate the most in others…….etc”, however I don’t think I can relate to being an extreme feminist. I am 6ft and 115kg, and would make the ugliest looking Sheila imaginable. Although, this picture does ring some bells with other feminists I have run across. Confess? Not a problem mate – I will tell you everything if you can make the time to listen – no one else is interested. Let me know when you will be arriving at the Manila airport, and I will pick you up for a week or two of solid listening.

We all had a laugh here over this primitive tribal business. I think CJM should travel a bit more.

What continues to worry me is the fact everyone in this forum so far has totally ignored one very important matter of male suicides in Australia. The link is there to suggest that 2 men every day on average suicide because of relationship problems, and certainly pressure from CSA. Give me your thoughts about this please.

Poncan, you're ascribing a simple reason to a complex problem. First you have to prove the main cause is relationship breakdown, though given that is the likeliest cause of emotional hardship I can believe that.
However there are many reasons why relationships break down and the corresponding suicides. I'd say that suicides also occurred frequently in the past and there's more reporting of them now.

I'd say it's also more likely that typical old fashioned attitudes about men needing to be the 'head of the family' cause these suicides rather than prevent them. When a man feels he has to hold it all together and be the sole bulwark against adversity... not to mention trying to live up to emotionally stunted role models like John Wayne, who would never discuss their feelings... well, sounds like more of a disastrous recipe to me.

Looking at this from a practical standpoint, I really don't see how you could expect self-respecting women to embrace such an idea. Do you really think women in Australia would - or more importantly, do you really think should - just accept having men as the head of the household?

US, the choice of words might have been cavalier, but I stand by them - ultimately, it was about choice and I'd support men being able to choose to be 'homemakers' as it were, just as much as I'd support women being 'providers' and working. Actually, given today's real world economics, chances are both need to be 'providers' anyway, so the feminist push would have been inevitable if such economic imperatives continued.

However, I suspect more men do not wish to be 'homemakers' perhaps because they feel the need to stick to their gender roles a little more. In any case, depriving a woman of the right to choose their role is in itself I think, a lesser role.

CJ, I know that you are having fun baiting Poncan but that last comment seemed to be in very poor taste. If you know so little about male suicide perhaps you could spend some time reading up on it.

A read through the suicde related sections on http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/CF968A10EFD1BF8FCA256BDC00122408?opendocument

Wesley Mission produced a worthwhile paper on the topic http://www.wesleymission.org.au/publications/r&d/suicide.htm

Some work from "Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland" http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/iprs2/cantor/cantor.html

A paper from Beyond Blue http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=105.898&oid=888

Not an issue to be casually dismissed or made light of.

R0bert

I really do agree with CJ that many men simply can't deal with the fact of independent women.

And R0bert is right - it is a very serious issue.

Since women began supporting each other in redefining themselves, men have felt left out and left behind.

Before I separated from my husband, I tried very hard to encourage him to attend counseling sessions with me - but he refused. In the end, I couldn't stand the abuse and had to go. He wanted me to do exactly as he told - all the time. I am simply too independent, intelligent and capable to be anyone's servant, I saw and still see marriage as an equal partnership. Most people do.

There is a wealth of information at the following websites for men in all life situations. I hope that this can be of some help.

http://www.manhood.com.au/

http://www.menslineaus.org.au/MentalWellbeing.aspx]

The level of suicide is a symptom of deep anxiety and a terrible cost to families (partners and children) and society in general.

Fair enough R0bert, my comment was a tad flippant. I agree that the disproportionately higher male suicide rate in Australia is probably evidence that there is still a minority of men who can't cope with the changed nature of gender relations - and indeed of masculinity - in our society.

However, I am contemptuous of suggestions that men should be heads of their households by right. I think that TRTL's observation is most likely on the right track - i.e. that it is the retention of anachronistic ideas about masculinity and male roles that is responsible for some poor losers taking their own lives, rather than adapting to a society where women expect to be equal to their male partners.

Fractelle's right that "many men simply can't deal with the fact of independent women". These are the men who seek compliant wives from societies where women remain subordinate to men, or who are attracted to patriarchal religions and cults that reinforce their obsolete views of the natural leadership of males in the family.

I suppose that in some extreme cases, the dissonance between the anachronistic self-image and the actuality of a world in which women won't do as they're told becomes pathological, so the poor bastards see no other option than to top themselves. As Fractelle also said, this is undoubtedly not only a tragedy for them, but also to the families, friends and children they leave behind.

My view is that it is very possible for men and women to construct healthy and equal partnerships that may or may not lead to the establishment of happy families, but there is very little chance of that happening if men retain ideas of masculinity that belong in the 1950s. John Wayne is dead and buried, guys.

TRTL,

I don't think you understand my point. I'm happy for families to decide what role the man and woman might take, but all I'm saying is the feminist movement downgraded the percieved worth or value of being a stay at home parent. It was necessary to sell the disenchantment to obtain equal working rights.

It achieved a worthwhile and valuable thing, but the side effect was to have people think of being a housewife as somehow a degrading existance. A lot of women who can even afford to be stay at home mothers, now feel the need to justify themselves and retort 'what do you do all day', 'aren't you bored' kind of attitudes.

In terms of men choosing to stay home, it's really a secondary choice to the womans inaliable right to stay home first. Women chooses if she will stay at home or go back to work. If woman goes back to work, man might be able to afford to stay home. The default position is the woman gets first dibs, and the breast feeding brigade enforce this even more so. There will never be equality of access for men to be stay at home fathers. We will always have choice for women, then after that choice is made, some choice left over for men.

Fractelle and CJ,

I can only gather you two are in your twighlight years, or have exposure to some kind of fundamentalist religion. Man who do you people mix with? I don't know any men like the ones you describe.

'Since women began supporting each other in redefining themselves, men have felt left out and left behind.'

Hahaha. What a load of sexist, patronising crap. I'm sure you'd like to believe that Fractelle, but men are infinately more adaptable and able to 'redefine' themselves (should they wish to) than you think.

I for one do believe that men and women can never be equal because of the different gender roles we both play. We can never the less have equal rights, and this is the problem we all are facing in Australia. The fact is that in our family circumstances where we spend most our time and share our all within, we don’t have equal rights. The woman has all the power, and can and do run their homes as dictatorships. And this is the problem I am trying to have discussed.

You see, 2 men every day are not toping themselves through the loss of their wives, but the loss of their kids. Anyone who argues different is certainly not in touch with the facts of modern life in Australia. I can assure you this is the case because I talk to many of these people daily, and understand them after the loss of my own family. In all these cases, the man can live with the wife doing him over, but the enforced loss of his kids is where all the hurt is.

Then comes along CSA and bleeds him to death so he has no likely future for many years to come. These are the circumstances that lead 2 good Australian men to commit suicide every day, it is not the loss of their power base as some have tried to suggest, it is the pain they can no longer stand associated with his kids and hopless future prospects.

I hope a few of you read up on this a bit more and get back to this forum. I am about to be hit by a Typhoon, so could loose my connection anytime - http://www.typhoon2000.ph

CJMorgan>"I think that TRTL's observation is most likely on the right track - i.e. that it is the retention of anachronistic ideas about masculinity and male roles that is responsible for some poor losers taking their own lives, rather than adapting to a society where women expect to be equal to their male partners."

Excuse me... but masculinity and male roles are timeless and infinite. Just as female roles and femininity are so. They have a solid scientific, biological basis. However, do not mistake me for a fool here (I know that by now you will be thinking something to this effect). Many women like the traditional male to take care of them in the traditional manner. Sometimes I have found some feminists to be the most beholden to the archetypes and romanticism about men and cling to them. Feminism freed some of those women who felt oppressed by the laws that forced them into such a role. However now it also poisons other women into going against their nature. Many women do actually need this. I think you would be surprised at how many relationships have the male in the traditional role or a shadow of it. You would not believe it with the feminists and media though. Do not call men who commit suicide "losers". That is a disgrace.

Steel "Many women like the traditional male to take care of them in the traditional manner." some might but I doubt that there are many actaually willing to leave all the important decisions to a partner.

My impression is that in our society amongst groups where traditional roles are "upheld" whats really upheld is men doing the hard yards and the women ensuring the head of the house knows just what decisions to make. The women brought up to expect a man to be head of the house are smart enough to make the most of the vanity of males who see themselves as the head. As Poncan pointed out earlier in relation to his world of headship "Women here have more opportunity than men do. Men are usually too busy working to support their families." Headship is a sucker punch in the modern era.

It's an argument thats been regurgitated many times on OLO, I'm with those who think healthy relationships are based on respect and mutual decision making. I think that nominating who is head on the basis of which appendages they have is damaging to all concerned.

TRTL - "I'd say it's also more likely that typical old fashioned attitudes about men needing to be the 'head of the family' cause these suicides rather than prevent them. When a man feels he has to hold it all together and be the sole bulwark against adversity... not to mention trying to live up to emotionally stunted role models like John Wayne, who would never discuss their feelings... well, sounds like more of a disastrous recipe to me." Spot on.

R0bert

If marriage is so bad for men how come the studies always show that married men have a greater life expectancy than single men, but life expectancy is no better for a married woman than a single woman.


Polygamy: Men don't like the idea of women having multiple husbands because they won't know if the children are theirs or belong to the other men. This is not a problem for women in polygamous relationships except in terms of financial help, because they always know who their children are.

PONCAN: Women voted with their feet and walked away from motherhood and the traditional female role and this is why---women received the message, Quote by Usual Suspect "Look any fool can run a house (and look after children) and because you don't get paid in cash, the job has no worth."

My daughter who has four children and works full time, earning the highest wage, gets really angry when her husband sits on the couch and doesn't put as much time into tending to the childrens needs as she does. She said to me "What do I need him for Mum? I earn double what he earns and I do more of the childcare as well".

I was reading an article by women who have reached forty and havent had children. I thought it was by their own choice. Not so, in a lot of cases, apparently. They said they started relationships with men in their late twenties and five or six years into the relationship when they felt the need to have children around age 35 or 36 the men didn't want to commit and would take up with another 29year old who wasnt interested in having children if they left the relationship. If they stayed with the man they just didnt have children. Only 3% of women can become pregnant after age 40 and a lot miscarry continuously in their very late thirties. So the lack of commitment to family and having children seems to be on the part of the men here.

And why not? with the smorgasboard of sex available all over the place and the men being able to delay fatherhood for longer. The women see this lack of commitment and they think, well I'm not going to have children and then have to do it all by myself. That means less and less families and just constant serial relationships.

Women's liberation has contributed to this because all this available sex is no doubt a result of the pill and the relaxing of societies taboos regarding women having multiple partners like the men.

Usual Suspect: << I can only gather you two are in your twighlight years, or have exposure to some kind of fundamentalist religion. Man who do you people mix with? I don't know any men like the ones you describe. >>

I can't speak for Fractelle, but while I'm not exactly in my 'twilight years' I'm old enough to know to read previous posts in a thread before jumping in and making an idiot of myself. We were responding to comments by some male contributors that suggested that Australia's male suicide rate may be increased by some men not coping with the changed nature of gender relations in Australian society, wherein women are generally no longer willing to automatically defer to their male partners as heads of households. I don't know any men like that either, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that there's some out there.

As for being exposed to fundy religion, I can safely say that OLO is about the only place I ever encounter it directly - a bit like I'm only exposed to the whining of men who'd like to return to the 1950s at OLO, rather than at the pub or my place of business.

Steel: << Excuse me... but masculinity and male roles are timeless and infinite. Just as female roles and femininity are so. They have a solid scientific, biological basis. However, do not mistake me for a fool here (I know that by now you will be thinking something to this effect). >>

I don't think I'm making a mistake, Steel. You should look up the distinction between sex and gender before blathering on about human gender roles. There is very little that is biological about who is the head of the household in contemporary families.

<< Do not call men who commit suicide "losers". That is a disgrace. >>

I think that any man who kills himself rather than adapt to the changed realities of gender roles in Australian society is by definition a 'loser'. What you call him - a winner?

CJM:"
I think that any man who kills himself rather than adapt to the changed realities of gender roles in Australian society is by definition a 'loser'. What you call him - a winner?"

This is the second time you've tried to conflate male suicide with some imagined sense of loss in gender relationships. Frankly, that's idiotic.
The problem of male suicide is a serious one, being a significant cause of premature death for men in the 20-40 age group. One of the significant factors that has been put forward is family breakdown and the consequential loss of contact with children, as well as the financial impacts of having to deal with the CSA. Despite mush circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, the CSA has consistntly refused to release numbers of cases that are closed due to the suicide of the (male) paying parent and has refused to cooperate with Coroners investigating suicide. Even when Coroners have handed down reports implicating the actions of the CSA, that Agency has refused to acknowledge any culpability. The previous Minister, the disgusting Joe Hockey. appeared on TV trumpeting his Government's determination to "hound [fathers] to the grave", a statement that was then backed up by the then National Compliance Manager, now CEO of the CP League of Qld, Angela Tillmans, who stated her intent to "make people fear the next phone call".

The State has deliberately chosen to allow men to be sacrificed on the altar of "gender equality" and their children are the weapon of choice. I can't see how anyone can take any pride in that, or find anything remotely amusing in it.

U-Sus

My previous post was the first contribution that I have made to this discussion. In it, I posited some reasons why men are feeling so disenfranchised. Maybe my opinion is incorrect. But at least I am trying to understand.

If you gave any thought at all to my posts you would be aware I am far from being in my dotage. You would also know that I am an atheist, therefore not subject to any religious dogma.

Anyway, if statistics are true, more men top themselves than do women. That is why I posted some links for men who may be having difficulties coping. Maybe you could check them out. You might learn something.

As for not knowing the type of men CJ, R0bert and I have been discussing, personally I have only known two people to commit suicide, male and female. The male OD'd on smack and the female could no longer deal with her clinical depression - two friends lost forever.

As for my ex-husband, he simply found himself a woman he could manipulate more easily than me. Although I hear she divorced him too.

So just what was the point of your post? You appear to have a personal grudge.

Or was it to have yet another go at people who have the sheer temerity to place their opinions on ONLINE OPINION?

I really think you need to cheer up, the following video clip is from a fave 80's band, The Cramps playing two songs that will make you feel much better about yourself: "All Women are Bad" and "You Got Good Taste".

Rock Out!

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=o7X2M9xvjEw

Sharkfin, the words - "What do I need him for Mum? I earn double what he earns and I do more of the childcare as well" if said here where I am came from by my daughter, I would step in immediately and act as a family elder should.

Did you pull your daughter aside and explain commitment and the vows she took, and maybe what would be best for the kids? Did maybe you explain that just maybe the kids could be trained better and pull their weight as well? Did you also ask your daughter if her career was more important than her family? Did you pull your son in law to one side and seek the other side of the argument? Did you explain that he should be doing something more positive about the early warning signs of marriage failure, and that he should be showing a bit more leadership and resolving problems before they get out of hand. Did you explain to your son in law the hopeless and bias family system in Australia, and what would happen if his wife walked out on him – especially with 4 kids – and if he wants to be a weekend dad or full time dad? Or – did you snigger and support your daughter regardless forgetting your grandkids and their possible future in a broken family?

You see, where I come from, family elders take the responsibility seriously. My response to you is to pull your finger out and take care of the 6 people who should be looking to you for guidance.

I think this string has just about had it’d day, so I will summaries discussion as I see it.

The most disturbing matter to come from this is the lack of empathy shown for Australian citizens by Australians. CJ Morgan I feel typifies this when his fellow man is in pain and suffering, and dying at a faster rate than the national road toll, he just calls them losers. The lack of recognition of this absolute disaster and empathy from our fellow man shows to me the dreadful direction Australia is heading, but worse, there is no possibility of this ever changing while this disease is so prevalent amongst it’s citizens.

To make it worse again, it appears that only a strain of women recognize that there is a problem and are taking up the fight for the men of the country. Talk about the reverse role! It is us men who should be protecting our women and families. Fractelle demonstrated to the contributors of this forum that there is a problem – she knows. Thanks Fractelle, but you are wasting your time with this bunch.

I have expressed my thoughts about Sharkfin’s contribution. Sad, but typical. Some like Polycarp show good directional responsibility.

With all the others agreeing with the decline in Australian masculinity and that the real man images like John Wayne are anachronistic – I feel sorry for you all. I don’t see man’s future role in society as second fiddle to women and increasingly becoming poofters because there is no longer any need for women to appear attractive to their partners etc – nor comply with any family values. Complex? – not at all – just all very simple and traditional.

Check out this site people. http://www.mensrights.com.au/ Also run by a women. See you in the next debate over similar issues.

Very disappointed gang, but I’m grateful that a family orientated country like the Philippines has taken me in.

' I feel sorry for you all. I don’t see man’s future role in society as second fiddle to women and increasingly becoming poofters because there is no longer any need for women to appear attractive to their partners etc – nor comply with any family values'

Haha. How Bizare.