Antiseptic: Confabulating something I didn't say: <"Pynchme:"because you can't give concrete figures their deaths are unimportant. carry on"

Right you are then...">

You didn't provide concrete figures to support your inferences. I went and found the figures that show that suicide rates have been dropping for about the past century, with the largest drop for male suicide of 25% occurring in the past decade.

Figures also make apparent the exploitation of male suicide rates and male death rates to try and heap some unwarranted blame on the CSA.

If you care about male mortality, you would consider the proper range of causes of suicide, such as one or a combination of: childhood abuse; grief - such as that caused by loss of work or breakdown of relationships; rape; drug and alcohol use; mental health conditions of various types; chronic illness and so on.

Their deaths are important enough that health authorities have worked hard to reduce the rate by 25% in the past decade; rather than exploit them for some personally self serving agenda.

"...it would be more effective when fathers take ownership of of it."

Oh?

Difficult to see how it would be better when one father at least is whinging here about being obliged to pay $20.00 and another thinks it's an imposition to pay anything at all.

"I would really like to join the workforce again"

You would really rather not use that degree or whatever you obtained via HECS, deprive your kids of a reasonable standard of support and yourself of a career goal, just to - what? what's the purpose and satisfaction for you in refusing to contribute to the cost of raising your kids?

Pat: <"The fact that mostly when the family separates the kids stay with their mother, which many people including myself have no issue with">

At least you are being honest I suspect about this. History shows that when authority over children was automatically held by the father, that usually his mother or a maiden sister ended up raising them. In a time when men were expected to go to work and there was extended family available, no doubt it made sense.

- but why wouldn't you want to raise your kids?

I see Divorce Doctor has not been able to reply to my contention that his claim regarding male suicides needs proof if it is to be taken seriously. If he makes up figures in one area (based on his 'opinion'), then he's capable of making other false claims.

He claimed 3 deaths of fathers every day are a result of CSA "illegality" (his term). That equals 1095 deaths of fathers per year.

The Aust. Bureau Of Statistics says Australia's suicide rate is about 1 in 10,000 per year. This includes male and female. That equates to about 2,200 suicides in Australia every year. Divorce Doctor would like to have us believe that 1095 of these suicides in Australia are committed by fathers because of CSA "illegality". Now, because we're only talking about suicides of "males", Divorce Doctor's figures would add up to WELL over 50% of all male suicides. Absolutely ludicrous: And absolutely untruthful.

Divorce Doctor now has no credibility here.

It's interesting to note that the other main protagonist here, antiseptic, when commenting on my initial reply to Divorce Doctor's claim that this many fathers die as a result of CSA "illegality", did NOT for one second dispute Divorce Doctor's outrageously false "opinion". That speaks for itself. It shows how embittered people can often be strangers to truth.

Robert wrote on page 11, " you refuse to accept the possibility that CSA could be biased".

INCORRECT. A false claim based on mere "opinion".

You should have actually read my written statement on the same page which was posted **PRIOR**, just several posts **PRIOR**, to your above quoted accusation.

This is what I wrote, " To all - - - - I'm more than happy to admit that the CSA is biased against people specifically because they're 'male', if that claim can be proven".

So there ya go.

As I've stated before, so far we have not had one shred of evidence that the CSA discriminates against males because of their gender.

If CSA non custodial clients are 90% male and 10% female, as has been stated here, **OBVIOUSLY** about 9 times as many payment orders will be made against the men, compared to the women. THIS IS **NOT** gender bias, for obvious reasons. Also, you will almost certainly have 9 male complaints compared to every 1 female complaint, NOT because there is an anti male gender bias, but simply because male non custodial clients greatly outnumber female non custodial clients by 9 to 1.

So far, the anti CSA protagonists here have been incapable of showing there's a gender "bias" within the CSA.

What we've had is:

opinion

opinion

opinion

opinion

from people who have had difficulty communicating with CSA, and people who have had decisions against them that they believe to be unfair. Their "opinion" and "assumption" is that their CSA difficulties are the result of them being specifically "male".

I've already informed antiseptic, within this topic, that his problems may very well be because of his manner and attitude and NOT because he's "male". In topics on this site that don't go his way I've noticed he eventually gets sarcastic, aggressive and rude. I've told him that if he's like that in "real" life, then that's a very good reason why he's had so much trouble. No company, government department or any organisation gives best service to rude and arrogant/aggressive clients

Antiseptic wrote, "Now where's your proven documentary evidence, in full of course, that the CSA is completely competent in every respect".

As you are aware antiseptic, at no stage have I ever claimed the CSA is either competent, completely competent or completely competent in every respect. Nice ploy though, to word a demand in such a way as to give the "impression" that I actually wrote those things.

I wrote, "An inaccurate assumption was that the CSA is interested in only getting money from fathers", to which antiseptic replied, "Prove it's inaccurate".

Well that's easy: Non custodial orders have been issued against women. Surely you are not saying that since the CSA's origin in 1988, there has not been even one non custodial order issued to a woman? Or are you saying that? Clearly the CSA issues orders against BOTH males and females.

Nice try antiseptic.

I'm still waiting for the proof that the CSA is gender biased: So far you've all failed miserably on that one.

I'll be the loudest one to shout from the hill tops that the CSA practices gender bias against men specifically because they are men **IF** people can prove it. So far all we've had is - - - -

opinion

opinion

and

more opinion

that the CSA practices gender bias.

Not good enough!