Anansi and Romany thank you both for your input. I'm very encouraged by your stance.

At this stage I think I'll butt out of this thread unless it takes a constructive turn, I could all to easily get caught up in a silly argument which benefits nobody.

R0bert

Woops a correction to my last post - I meant to be thanking Anansi and Celivia, I was thinking of Romany's comments on another thread and didn't go back and check. Sorry about that Celivia.

R0bert

Thank you, RObert, and well said, Anansi.

I decided not to post on this thread anymore either.

It's not worth my time and effort to endlessly argue with people who only post here with a one-and-only biased nonsensical agenda, without a posting history, but with the purpose to vilify or criticise a whole group of people (men in this case, but there was also a pack of anti-vaxers a while ago who also only posted with one really dodo agenda in mind- to prevent parents to vaccinate their kids.)

Cheers!

I agree to saying that this has indeed become distasteful but not in the context implied. My views are pro father but not when it hurts children. My views in respect to fathers lobby groups are that they damage both fatherhood and motherhood when they ignore what is going on for the children. If child abuse occurs during access visits from the father, going to the criminal court can be perceived and intervened as "vexatious" despite the evidence at hand. The propaganda that "all mothers and children lie" has not just put barriers into accessing criminal courts and other courts but built walls in getting to investigating children's matters. The tricks and corruption that lies behind concealing these things is also part of that wall. Its not uncommon for children to "recant" their accounts because they are scared into doing whether it be the family reporter, the child representative or the abusive parent. Superficially, people tend to measure equality in the time that children spend, but the equality in who has the most power over the children and their parents lives is the father. IF domestic violence is present(which Diana Bryant has boasted it being the core business of the court), then survivors are at the mercy of the abuser.
Fathers rights groups can support fathers that do not have violence supportive attitudes, but choose to support what is more financially beneficial - Domestic violence perpetrators as they are very good at economic abuse.

I think it is also very nasty to vilify a member because they don't agree with your statements or support something different. This is a great example of how these fathers lobby groups ganged up on domestic violence shelters and child protection workers. When I began this topic I wanted to hear from two sides - not just one. I have invited others from other groups as there is a strong need to have people with different views. If you support fathers lobby groups thats fine, don't bar other people or insult the discussion itself because you want to dominate a point of view its not diplomatic nor is it progressive.

In regards to the comments about this thread being distasteful, I am very happy indeed that this is the case. The reality of domestic brutality, child sexual abuse, and racketeering in the family court system, is more distasteful as well as far more injurious, and deserves to be brought out into the open so that people can see what actually is going on and cannot hide any longer behind party lines or deceptions.

My wife used to support shared care, and stood against feminism, until she found out the reality of how domestic violence perpetrators control those who have believed them enough to let them in their lives. The people who believe the domestic violence perpetrators - both individual perpetrators and the collusion of perpetrators, the falsely named Fathers Lobby, in reality the domestic violence perpetrators' lobby - make no mistake that the woman who believed the abuser did not make. It's just that, unlike the women who fell into their traps, these people have not had to face horrible consequences for having made that error.

When women speak out in favor of the domestic violence perpetrators lobby, it is their and their future daughters that they are destroying.

And a man who would deny his daughter a right to a future in order that he has advantage in court over his wife, having placed his short-term interest above the long-term needs of his children and his country, is an unworthy father and an unworthy citizen and has no business claiming to speak for fathers, for family, for men, or for Australia.

As a father myself, and one who is not abusive, I resent having these kinds of scum claiming to speak for me. And I hope more men - and women - see through their line and work to create a meaningfully truthful and beautiful future for their children.