5. the Commonwealth of Australia
is a men's organisation in receipt of government funding.

enacted by a parliament
from which women were prohibited.

the men's organisation,
the Child Support Agency
has brought vigilance, propriety and bravery
to the task of bringing
the most belligerent of shirkers
kicking and screaming to men's justice.

“Rubbish. If you read the DOTA site and the DIDs forum you'll see that the biggest source of anger and frustration among fathers is being deprived of time with their kids because the mother wants to remain entitled to government handouts.”

Oh Anti, what happened there you were doing so well then snapped at me? I haven’t read the site, more glanced at them. Read a thread about breastfeeding of all things – just caught my eye. You are talking overnight time with the kids? Is this what affects payments?

Your ex went to uni and then got a job but you believe the motivation was different and directly related to child support? Are you rich? How much did she get off you? Did she spend it on the kids?

My husband may feel the same way; I take all his money and stay at home refusing to go to work.

Everyone knows it is not always the male that is the perpetrator and that it would be much better if every case was not treated on any model but the reality is that it has to be. Not enough man hours to sort each situation in individual ways. Don’t know if who is removed in what situation is related to income later though?

Have we moved from money to the question of custody?

Hey, I still don’t hate men... but Whistler may be on to something and maybe you should.

whistler, "the Commonwealth of Australia
is a men's organisation in receipt of government funding.
enacted by a parliament
from which women were prohibited."

If that is the case there are many women in the federal House of Representatives and Senate who are there on false pretences.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/41/womennow.htm

From the policies and behaviour of women in Parliament they rarely stand out different to the men and they seem to have the same faults. It is the same too with women who are in senior positions in public or private organisations, they seem to be blessed (some may want to question that) with the same personal ambition, have the same skill-set and employ similar dark arts to get there ahead of others of equal or superior ability. Maybe that is something to celebrate, ie., the lack of difference, when it was previously touted that women would act vastly differently when they became senior executives and politicians.

Balance in numbers is pie in the sky as long as many women find meaning, achievement and reward in other pursuits and that is their choice after all. It is a pity that "the women's movement is solely about the minority of women (between 10 and 30 per cent) (who) are work-centred, giving priority to employment, while a similar proportion are home-centred, with their priorities centred on their children and preferring not to work."
Hakin Works on Fertile Ground, The Age, Feb 7, 2003
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/06/1044498913134.html

2//

2/

Referring to the list given by Antiseptic (there is no harm in calling respondents by their correct names) earlier, the problem isn't that there could be a lot of funding being directed to women's organisations, but so little of that funding and representation is for women who are other than work and career centered.

It doesn't take much to see how little the women's movement cares about (say) creating more family friendly transport, medical centres, localities and cities for women who choose paths in life other than career. It will be a long day too before the women's movement gives a hoot about older people, especially pensioners who are mainly women.

A women's legislature? Bah, phooey, who says it will be any different if the careerist women (as opposed to the careerist men) are in-house? More designer threads, BMWs, restaurants and travel for the few and the majority can eat cake. So where is the practical difference?

I understand, A-septic you have really been given the run around by everyone from your conniving ex(?) wife to all those low-life drones at the CSA. I don't don't why you bother with CSA officers, it is not like they have any real power to change anything, they can only do as much as government policies will permit.

I suggest you aim at the top and forget about those low-level workers, start with Chris Bowen, HE is the Minister for Human Services, the policies and procedures are finalised at HIS office; HE gives the final approval to any changes.

You may contact HIM at:

Mr Chris Bowen
Electorate Office
115 The Crescent
Fairfield NSW 2165
Australia

Telephone: 02 9726 4100

Facsimile: 02 9724 6115

Email: chris.bowen.mp@aph.gov.au

Parliament House
M1/24
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Telephone: (02) 6277 7200

Facsimile: (02) 6273 4125

Email: chris.bowen.mp@aph.gov.au

While you're at it, why not air your grievances to the CEO of Centrelink, Finn Pratt. You could ask HIM to investigate your conniving wife's claims for benefits and assistance.

HE looks like a decent bloke, check HIM out here:

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/about_us/ceo.htm

I am sure that you feel much better knowing MEN hold the final responsibility in the welfare and human services sector.

And is it only 50% of women who abuse kids? If women are as violent as you claim, I have to question why the statistic isn't higher given that women still have the greater share in caring for children?

Also if women are so violent why don't we see more homicides, bashings and general mayhem committed by women - are they only violent in the privacy of their own homes? Amazing, unlike men, women can control their aggression outside the home but not in it. Whereas, men, it seems, have difficulty controlling their anger anywhere - as Pynchme has noted:

<< men are more in danger from other men (at a rate of about 40,000 violent incidents a year)>>

Well, A-septic, now you know who to complain to, I wish you all the best.

People, really! It's simply pointless addressing the rubbish Antiwomen writes. It merely gives him the opportunity to type POST after POST after POST of his dogmatic anti women, and "never" anti male, beliefs and assumptions.

You're giving him the opportunity he seeks!

He will NEVER admit he's mixed up and lost.

He's already been thoroughly discredited, and he belittles himself through his ridiculous language which is clearly steeped in "dogma" borrowed from his "menz collectives".

Please just ignore him. Only a mere handful of people are engaging him on this topic, and the thousands of other members are ignoring him. I now feel that that's the best way to go - - - - just ignore the misogynist.