If you are a perennial victim then you can always find a rescuer in a state sponsored organisation.
If you are a woman perennial victim then you can always find a male-hating rescuer in a state sponsored organisation.
Together you can ensure that a male is always placed in the position of persecutor.

Give us all a break – do you really expect us to believe with the plethora of women advocacy groups that exist today that women are still making such poor life decisions?

I have recently seen a number of articles decrying the lack of men willing to commit to marriage. As a backlash there seems to have been an increase in women having children without the involvement of the father. I have even noticed a few women advocating getting pregnant and never telling the father.

Men dont want to get married because of family law concerns and because they are scared they might get shafted and never see their kids while having to pay nearly half their wages as support to a vindictive ex wife. So women are having children on their own and causing the reported increase in fatherless birth certificates.

I wonder where it will all lead and what we are bringing on ourselves with all the changes to familys and marriage in the past 50 years or so. All good intentioned im sure but what are the unintended consequences going to be? Already children are growing up faster and becoming sexualised much younger while at the same time they are much more dependant and likely to remain at home with their parents into their late 20s. Who could have predicted that in the 70s when everything began to be liberalised.

I wonder if more fatherless families will see a reduction in machoism and typical masculine behavior and an increase in feminisation of society?

A funny thought I had is that if this became widespread (women getting up the duff and not telling the bloke) would men respond by restricting their coupling and promiscuity and sexual relations would be turned on its head. Women would be out on the prowl while guys would be selective who they slept with and looked on as sluts if they were "easy". LOL that would be so funny and not that far fetched.

Goodness me, as a female weighing in on this debate, there seems to be a few posts of hysterical-female hating. LOL master, dinosaur is indeed an appropriate description.
calm down guys, and you might want to actually read the article. men aren't around. the majority bugger-off - because they can. the majority of men make great dads. the majority of bugger-offers are men. and all the bleating in the world isn't going to change the fact. no point in putting mr invisible, or mr crazy on the birth certificate, as ultimately, what these women have needed to address is the ultimate protection of their child. and that is the bottom line. the mothers are protecting their children from these fathers. not all fathers - these ones. the ones that for whatever reason, have compelled the mother to ensure that they were not acknowledged on the birth certificate. pity the mothers, pity the children, but i'd think long and hard before pittying the majority of these fathers. okay hysterics - you may resume - LOL!

Singlemumoftwo – these Dinosaurs and Neanderthals are merely the guard dogs of heavily defended male power in this Patriarchal Society with its male-dominated political system, organised religions, the media, the legal system, commerce, and industry. This feudal system treats women and children as serfs. The Howard Family Law Act was a move backwards to Victorian days when women and children were mere Goods and Chattels of the male head of the household and that is why the male establishment, is resisting any attempts to reform this law and give mothers and children, a fair and equal position.
There are still some parts of the Western world such as the Channel Islands which still retain the principles of the goods and chattels acts. Denying children financial independence by failing to provide financial support for them, is one aspect of containment and is also serious form of child abuse.

The Patriarchy in the political system in this country continues to resist and deny the introduction of a Charter of Human Rights for Women and Children, whilst hypocritically condemning human rights abuses in other countries.

If women merely wanted a child but without a partner, then they could simply obtain AID and that removes a permanent male partner. Sperm can be manufactured in a test tube, so males are now completely redundant in the child creation process but this will be suppressed and thereby deny females the choice of the most desirable DNA qualities, they may wish in their children. Sadly the Dinosaurs and Neanderthals will for the moment continue to be reproduced by females who exercise unwise choices or are deceived by them and their false charms.

“Sperm can be manufactured in a test tube, so males are now completely redundant in the child creation process but this will be suppressed and thereby deny females the choice of the most desirable DNA qualities, they may wish in their children.”

It can?

But anyway:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/fathers-go-missing-in-baby-boom/story-e6frewt0-1225757065721

["Commonly it is because the father doesn't want to pay child support or could be married to somebody else,'' she said.]

Okay so an agreement between two grownups about who and/or how a child is going to be raised.

Are there stats available somewhere to say the taxpayer is paying for excess anything? Single and female with young children at home? I have no problem with tax going to that.

Young children; they were/are often still asleep when a dad leaves for work and commonly in bed when he gets home. Traditionally a lot of us were raised fatherless.

Oh, come on.

This has got to be a troll.

Come in spinners.