The Dads on the Air site seems OK to me.

Seems a lot think as Antiseptic.

Antiseptic has referred to it in Online Opinion, and finding him is simply a case of typing antiseptic+CSA in google. Any feminist Journalist could do it. Hardly a NewsFlash Master, unless of course it does represent unusually great scholarship on your part.

The only substantive contact many men have with "feminism" is the shitfight they get from legal aid lawyers the day after their wife leaves and the iron fist in the iron glove of the Child Support Agency ensuring they can't pay a lawyer to fight back. Their enforced separation from their kids often hingeing on the sort of evidence-free DVO's (and AVO's fer gawds' sake) that Anti consistently objects to. If the CSA could interpret their own hallowed formula and were competant in standard business accounting, you may *never* have heard of him.

The Child Support Agency objected to Antiseptic and tried to shut Dads on the Air down, wholus bolus, a few months ago. When directed to Antiseptic personally, they nicked off. Courage of conviction, perhaps?

I believe that a minute percentage of men are ever physically violent or in any way seriously threaten violence to women. The vast majority of us deeply and with appropriate anger, resent being treated by uninvolved public servants as if we "may be". I believe that only a sad and smaller number are genuinely capable of harming children. The rest of us deeply resent laws and police actions that assume we are on the verge of doing so, ignoring that women can and do. Duluth Model SUX.

I further believe that a substantial majority of women like blokes children and family, and recognise that the single greatest ally they have in raising their kids is their husband. Above government and do-gooder "help", even if divorced, I believe he usually does near enough the right thing for the kids, and women know it. I would prefer my taxes directly help the families of those who don't, rather than be misused to employ the CSA to intimidate.

I believe that "feminism" does as near as nothing for functional females as years of training and effort and post-modern spin can manage, rather than recognising their choice as valid. Instead, it supports the dysfunctional few who, unable to negotiate any kind of (even separated) arrangement with men, attempt to dominate their arrangements in a way that is a sad caricature of the worst, not the best, of male practice. I don't think that *these* are the women I want in positions of responsibility. Or even in the gene pool.

Professionally and otherwise seriously (lawyer, nurse, ambo, first-aid trainer, occasionally academic) employed females with families that I know almost unanimously report that the single worst class of manager/roster-officer/postgrad-supervisor etc they have ever had is "childless career (only) women". Why? men will retreat before "womens business" but the dead-end feminist thinks she knows it all. She means to be boss, with a capital, of her workplace and *your* family. The least "female" females are held up as examples to others. "feminists" know better than females. I laugh to scorn.

We encounter that type a lot at the CSA, they make determinations (estimates) immediately, without calculations or notes (even accountants makes notes, even petty cash vouchers have to be explained in real business, why can't a contractor CSO?) about more of your earnings than the taxman, and cannot add up (COAT team can't even add up in excel). She does so despite clear and just objections, yet She leaves at a dead run at sight of a tape recorder (courage of her convictions, perhaps?). She is the product of "feminist" sociology courses which would rather spiral dive into irrelevancy than address the real needs of the majority of women who involve men substantially in their lives, who recognise that men are critically necessary for both the existence and health of children, regardless of difficulty in living together.

Is it true that the office of "National Compliance Manager" is colloquially known as the "departure Lounge" in memory of a recent Queensland Registrar demoted to the role? ("fear our call" indeed).

Rustopher.

3. the Parliaments and Courts of the States and Territories
are men's organisations in receipt of government funding.

no women's legislature or jurisdiction at law.
women admitted to men's legislatures under male supervision only.
by authority of the Parliament
the Child Support Agency is a men's organisation.

benk,
women and men have exactly the same corporate skills
should Parliament require corporations to manage their business
by agreement between women's and men's committees.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/cocksure-hens-can-rule-the-roost-20090710-dfz5.html?skin=text-only
also, men who fail to provide a dependent spouse with a regular income
'regardless of difficulty in living together'
should not be surprised to encounter a legal aid lawyer, thankfully.

And thus, Rusty Catheter makes the million-and-1th argument on an assumption that all women are either naturally stupid or militantly feminist. After all, I'm sure men never "make determinations (estimates) immediately, without calculations or notes".

When a man is incompetent, it's his own fault. But when a woman is, it's not only the fault of feminism, but probably a conspiracy of the International Sisterhood.

Why are so many men frightened of women? It's passing bizarre.

Just to confirm, Rusty, you're divorced, yes?

Jewelly - the links below might contain the one to which Romany referred (is it one of these Ro?)

http://www.xyonline.net/index.shtml
http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/backlash.pdf

I get what you're saying Romany and I agree except for some additional thoughts:

1. The Menz take every opportunity to splatter their misinformation everywhere even when we don't try to engage. If we don't counter it then people don't have the opportunity to consider accurate informatio unless they bother to check for themselves.

2. I think that men who are hurting are especially vulnerable to being exploited and misled by the Menz agenda.

3. One of the really good things to have happened here is that other men are pointing out that they have no trouble getting along with women (including feminists). Some men will only take notice of other men.

4. I am always reluctant to really give up on anyone - I can't help but have hope.

Whistler - that was a beaut link - most interesting. Thanks.

Sancho - g'day :) I am going to try to not to make the Pancho typo again. Forgive me if in my haste I muck that up again.

Jewelly - I'll have to look at that article again but there are roughly 30,000 DV events to which police respond each year. The article that was mentioned referred to an increase in DV by women from under 1,000 to about 2,000 or something. I don't know if men are speaking up more or not or if their experience is comparable to that of battered women. However, men are more in danger from other men (at a rate of about 40,000 violent incidents a year) - but while men are more likely to get a thumping from a stranger; women are more likely to get a thumping in their own homes and from someone who is supposed to care for them. Also, about 1/2 of homicides of women occur in the context of DV.

Some information on DV and AVOs and the like:

http://www.ncoss.org.au/bookshelf/election2003/DVKitElection2003.pdf

Pynch

Sancho - yes I find it bizarre too.

One of the things that I often wonder about is whether the men who use sites like Dads on the Air ever ask themselves how it is that their partners wanted so desperately to get away from them.

They blame feminism - I guess for making it legally possible?

If it hadn't been legally possible, would those women have been any happier with these sorts of fellows ? (No - then what? They're happy to have someone living with them who doesn't want to be there? That's pretty sad.)

I haven't read all the posts but of what I have read, I've never seen any fellows on that site acknowledge that they had anything to do with why their former partners wanted to leave. No talk of how they might improve things.