examinator
"forcing the males to advance skills"
Why ONLY males? what about females's future? what about young mother's future?
If we leave them unskilled, if we leave them in weaker position than the males, then we do not give them many chances and we can not blame them for what they are doing in hopless conditions.
If we want a better future, if we want less problems for females then we MUST suport first them, the persons in need, the young mothers.
WE CAN NOT FORCE MALES FOR ADVANCE SKILLS AND IGNORE FEMALES'S NEEDS FOR SIMILAR SKILLS.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

* without really getting to the crux of the problem.*

Well the crux of the problem is that society has changed. Today
recreational sex is common and normal. Agreeing to recreational
sex does not mean that anyone has made a commitment to lifelong
paying for kids. If one party tries to enforce this, there are
going to be tears and resentment.

I still maintain that kids are best, when they are wanted by
both parents.

I heard of a drug the other day, commonly used by Asians, for
chemical abortions. It sounds like its available in Asia but
not here, so they just bring in their own.

If the news report was correct, then clearly there is a demand for
abortions that currently is not being met locally by our present
options.

Better sex education in our schools and making the options clear
to people, is long overdue in Australia.

Taxpayers already cough up over 100 billion$ for social welfare.
Trying to increase that even more, would indeed be foolish and
only encourage even more single career moms, where the Govt foots
the bill.

Hasbeen is correct, there are plenty out there right now, who find
even the present payments attractive. Throw in another 5000$ for
the baby bonus and the deal is clearly quite inviting for many.

AS,
You are right I did say that women should be forced to up grade their skills too as a condition of social security.

Hasbeen,
While not quite so strident as you I do agree with the concept that single mums shouldn't get a free ride rather they do the same as they would probably do if in a both parent family work to help pay.

Unfortunately, whether something if fair to the parents or not the real issue. In my mind is the Child(ren)'s well being that must be the paramount concern.

To really cheese off the OLO women I don't believe that a woman should have an automatic rights to 50%+ or to be the primary care giver.

BTW I got caught with my eldest daughter, sucked into a relationship believing it was prelude to marriage only to find that once mum was safely pregnant there was no room/need for me.(yes I was that naive once!)
The rest you can guess....BUT was that the fault of the child? (the daughter is now 35 and no longer speaks to her mum)

Despite that I still rationally think that there should be strings attached to SMP and the dole of DB dads. The issue is the children to ensure it doesn't become a family dead end trait.

Yabby,
I keep saying make sure there are strings attached to SM pensions seems to make the most practical sense.
I think baby bonus is a joke given that we are 'with current entrenched practices, attitudes etc.' pushing the capacities of our country.
But if you're going to give a baby bonus then make it a rebate on baby specific expenditures food vouchers instead of Plasma TVs et al.

There should be *limited* self indulgent options when it comes from the public purse.

If one added and enforced professional mums to improve their skills and, extra child care so they can work then the 'easy option' has gone.

Likewise the DB dads need to realize ...you want sex then protect, protect hence I advocate if the public has to pay for the consequence of your recreational sex be advised you will pay too would help send the message. People only obey rules if there is some penalty or benefit to do so.

To me all this seems so self evident. no victimizing just consequential responsibilities.

Examinator:“To really cheese off the OLO women I don't believe that a woman should have an automatic rights to 50%+ or to be the primary care giver.”

Yeah you sure socked it to the chicks with that one.

I suspect what would annoy the OLO women was you assuming we wouldn’t find that reasonable.

Examinator's sweeping statement:

"To really cheese off the OLO women I don't believe that a woman should have an automatic rights to 50%+ or to be the primary care giver."

I don't know a single female OLO contributor, or, in my private life female friend, who believes that a woman should have automatic rights to being the primary care giver.

What is important is the best interests of the child, if that proves to be the father, then so be it. The problem is not women, it is the anachronistic family court system that is still in the 19th Century regarding the make-up of families - it hasn't caught up with the fact that many women want careers and the progress many men have made in wanting to be fathers rather than just breadwinners. Currently the system plays into the hands of women who want to retain control of all children and men who still believe that child care is the women's responsibility.

This is the 21st century, no longer "Me Tarzan, you, Jane" we are slowly and painfully breaking free of stereotypes that trap both genders. I am surprised that someone with your enlightened intelligence is unaware of these societal changes. We need to move on from the adversarial court system, which is inadequate to the needs of families and into a system of mediation, where emotional blackmail is limited between warring parents and children given the priority of consideration.