TZ52HX:"before you started this topic why didn't you contact NAPCAN to ask them why Father's Day was chosen?"

Why should I have to? Their intent should be clear in their advertising, it should not rely on insinuation. Besides, in their advice to those wishing to host an event during National Child Protection Week they say:

"What to include in your media release?

The Headline - It is vital when writing your media release to attract the journalist's interest right away. That is why the headline is so important. You should put a bit of kick, and a bit of creativity, into the headline but keep it short and in active voice:

Date - Just under the headline you need to put down when the release date is.

The Body of the Release -

* Explain the WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and HOW of your story, and do it in the first paragraph.
* List the points of interest in descending order from the most interesting down.
* Try to write the release in the way that you would like to see it reported.
* Use clear, simple and economical language.
* Keep it short - keep your release to a page or page and a half at most.
* Remember the vital details such as the location, the date and the time of your event.
* Make sure your group's contact details are included - and have a spokesperson ready and willing to talk. "

so it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the lack of any explicit mention of fathers in a positive light is deliberate.

Why don't you ring than and ask?

Me: "Before you started this topic why didn't you contact NAPCAN to ask them why Fathers Day was chosen?"

Antiseptic's reply: "Why should I have to?"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You don't "have to". Nobody said that.

It's interesting to see that you felt no need at all to contact NAPCAN before you posted your opinions on the topic.

Logic would suggest that a person would first contact NAPCAN to find out why Father's Day was chosen. Then if the answer showed an association between that date and some type of anti father philosophy from NAPCAN, it would be appropriate indeed to start a topic here lambasting NAPCAN's attitude towards fathers.

But you didn't do that.

You made an assumption, based on an opinion you already had. Therefore you felt no need to ask NAPCAN why the date was chosen.

Readers can draw their own conclusions.

TZ52HX:"Logic would suggest that a person would first contact NAPCAN to find out why Father's Day was chosen. Then if the answer showed an association between that date and some type of anti father philosophy from NAPCAN, it would be appropriate indeed to start a topic here lambasting NAPCAN's attitude towards fathers."

I disagree. The choice of Father's Day offends me as a father. Furthermore, I don't see anything on NAPCAN's website or that of associated entities that makes any mention of an intent to praise fathers. The logo on their website is a stylised pink silhouette of a woman crying. What does that tell you about their agenda?

What it tells me is that they are one of many groups who see their allegiance to "Mothers and their children" and that this is an attempt to link fatherhood with abuse.

If I'm wrong, the group is welcome to make their case here.

Those people who think Anti is being hyper-sensitive are focussing on the isolated incident and missing the broader pattern. This press release and that website may not explicitly say that all child abuse is done by men, they just happen to use anecdotes with male abusers, they just happen to use pictures of men up to no good, they just happen to start awareness week on father's day...

It is a no-win situation using either of the Parent Days. Fathers may either feel overly excluded (using Mother's Day and guilty by exclusion) or overly implicated (using Father's Day and guilty by inclusion).

Best to avoid May and September altogether so any message is not lost to other senstivities of feelings of victimisation. Afterall the message should be about the kids.

While NAPCAN may well have thought this was one way of de-stimgatising fathers by involving them more in 'protective' activities rather than always putting the mother up as the sole protector of children's interests. But if this was indeed the intention, it is evident the strategy has had the opposite effect (if indeed this was the approach - I have no idea).

It is a dilemma. How do you get a message out with offending anyone or demonising men?

Fact is mothers, fathers, neighbours, friends, cousins, uncles and aunts - in fact anyone with two arms and legs - might all play a role in the reporting of child sexual abuse, particularly if one is employed as a teacher, child care worker or in a medical profession.

What about encouraging people who feel as you do and many probably agree with you, to write a polite, respectful, short letter to NAPCAN with a drop copy to each of its partners? Assume they were not trying to be insensitive and trying to score points in the first place and ask them what other alternatives they might have considered. You could raise the all male examples at the same time, without rancour.

You can pen a few suggested letters and invite people to change them to suit. You could draft and get feedback on a para or few in this thread if you wanted to, or do it with friends.

Partners as listed by NAPCAN, you ned to get the addresses:
http://www.napcan.org.au/resources/behavioural-change-tools

It isn't as though all of those bodies are out to trash fathers.

It is about empowerment, not feeling used and abused and taking some action helps with that.