Scout,

You make some good points and I congratulate you on “And if women want to be treated as independent, well then stop treating men as meal tickets and pick up the tab.” It is equally pleasing to note that you are critical of women who abuse the system.

But I must object to your suggestion that some men deserve to be abused by some women (“… I have to question the men who are stupid enough to marry them as well”). . I am very disappointed with you in suggesting this. These high profile miscreants tend to become role models for others and before long, slide into acceptable common practice (if not already).

No-one deserves it. Same goes for abused women. You would be the last person I would expect to make such ill-considered statements – it is tantamount to saying some women deserve to be raped.

No, the system must be fixed to provide unbiased protection to both men and women, from themselves and each other.

Reform of the marriage act is essential - no-fault divorce is a farce. While I believe there are valid reasons for ending a marriage, assigning the majority of family assets and the children to the mother with no questions asked, is a source of great moral hazard. The difference in the law as applied to men and women is that when women lie, it is still in the best interests of children. Not so for men. Women are even protected from themselves e.g. they are actively supported in committing paternity fraud. Outside of a few rare exceptions, men get no protection from family law, even when they are clearly the better parent. Family law is almost always against men. Men are punished, women are not. This is typical for all men and women – not just the bad ones, but all who come before the court. It is routine and systematic.

Ok Seeker, I get where you are coming from. I certainly didn't deserve being abused by my ex. However, had I more self esteem at the time, I would not have married him in the first place. Anyway, that's past.

My point was that there are degrees in culpability - like a car accident. In some, rare cases, there are 100% innocents, but in most cases both have contributed to the eventual breakdown in the relationship. I have to question mature men who marry young vacuous women - do they really think its love? I'm not condoning either - and in degrees of blame I see these women as total parasites. No doubt about that.

However, Seeker, as someone who has crossed paths with me many times on OLO you know that I criticise women as well. My above post was certainly not the first. Nor will it be the last. Sometimes I get the impression that my posts are selectively read - certain males just looking to score a few points and ignoring the entire context.

Cheers m'dear

As for family law - there is no doubt that it needs reform, however, blanket statements like: "men are punished; women are not" is misleading and untrue. Women suffer at the hands of manipulative men also.

As I have stated on other threads, traditional views of male and female roles as carers and breadwinners no longer apply and family law needs to catch up. There are female breadwinners and male carers and custody laws need to reflect this.

For this reason people like R0bert are vital - he is attempting to discuss ways more equitable decisions can be made. Why? Because it is our children's welfare that is being destroyed and while we remain stuck in a cycle of blame, reform is unlikely to be achieved and our children continue to suffer the consequences of OUR behaviour - we are all culpable.

In 1848 Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. In it he identified the traditional family as being of the bourgeois class, the oppressors, and declared that traditional family was to be abolished. This, was hoped, would destroy traditional patriarchal inheritance and privilege.

In the 1960s Labor/Labour parties aligned strongly with Marxism and formed ideological bonds with communist educational institutions. During this time too, women became "liberated" from biological slavery through the invention and introduction of the contraceptive pill - second wave feminism was born in educational institutions and declared that men/husbands/fathers were an oppressor class and traditional marriage was oppressive to women. Gullible women believed it by the millions.

In 1972, Labor, Gough Whitlam, was elected. In 1975, Labor introduced the Family Law Act and "no fault divorce" to streamline and expedite divorces - in the best interests of the child, you understand. Soon after that, Family Courts were established.

In the '80s and '90s feminists denigrated and maligned men/husbands/fathers telling women they were oppressed. Women's refuges were created and run by feminists. Structures were established, Legal Aid, single mother's benefits, child care centers, etc, to permit divorcing women easy access to social services. The state took on the role of the husband/father. Child support payments were created, this would stop divorced men from having further family by keeping them broke.

Put the pieces together. This is a no-brainer. Family Courts were established to abolish traditional marriage. Legal, media and research organisations were created to spin the message. Courts systematically removed the man from the family, destroying patriarchal inheritance and biological lineage. Removing men from their families destroyed traditional patriarchies, made women and children dependent upon the state and put children into Marxist educational institutions without parental guidance and women into the workforce.

Bingo - about a half of all marriages have ended in divorce, bourgeois privilege destroyed, patriarchy smashed - EQUALITY! Marxist success.

This is not a conspiracy theory. Destruction of the traditional family is an overtly and openly stated objective of Marxism and is practised throughout the world by left leaning governments everywhere.

Recent report - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=397647&in_page_id=1770

Maximus, just asssuming for the moment that you are correct that it is a goal of left leaning governments to destroy the family unit and assuming that we are unlikely to stop that trend anytime soon what do we need to do to minimise the harm to kids and parents which results?

I doubt that we will get any kind of consensus on the motivations behind the setup of the current system nor are we likely to see any widespread acceptance in the near future of significant tightening of access to divorce.

What can we do to within the current climate which has a chance of making the system less harmfull to those caught up in it?

R0bert

Unfortunately Maximus you are right on the money, In the united states its referred to as welfare reform, commonly known as Title 4-D. Its much larger then most can fathom. The very first thing one needs to except is the true corruption and motivation. Some facts can be found at www.mich.gov website to show the validity of the true profits that are received in incentives to each and every state. In the united states the federal incentives are 66%. the federal government reimbursed for the collection of child support, that's 66 cents on a dollar. Bottom line the more family's that are broken up, the more divorces that take place the more federal incentives the state will receive. each and every year the federal government puts out extra bonuses for the states to compete for, the states with the highest collection gains custody of the bonuses. Keep in mind the states do not have to account for what they do with these funds, They simply place them in the states general fund.

Another fine example is the collected and undistributed child support funds, In the united states its now in excess of $367 Billion. this too can be seen at the Michigan government web-site. The true goal is to drive all middle class custodial parents, mostly woman to a poverty level to take advantage of the welfare incentives so they can as well intercept the payments as welfare reimbursement. Meaning like in my case, my ex and the biological father were welfare recipients, so in turn the support payments that I was making was sent directly to the state of Michigan, not only did they receive the payments I was making but the federal funding of 66%. Very lucrative business they have developed, as I said the IRS don't hold a candle the to family courts system.

Mr Douglas M Richardson

dougmrich@yahoo.com
www.fixthefoc.co