Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

April's Rants

April said
It seems that anyone else can say whatever they want on this forum based on any source they find but I can be subject to being called the c word because others don't understand the need of the infant to form an attachment to the person who most consistently cares for it.  It is the infant's "choice" for want of a better word.  The expectation for the infant to  adjust and cope should not be part of this discussion.  We are the adults and contemporary understandings of mental health inform this discussion.

If you don't want me involved in this discussion then stop referring to me in your posts.  I am so over this discussion, nothing is getting achieved.  No matter how much research there is anyone can apparently discredit it by making any unsubstatiated claim they like.  Just make a you tube video based on misleading BS.  Or quote someone out of context. Doesn't matter what any one says to balance the discussion.

I would prefer to be left out of this, so stop asking me questions and misquoting me please.

It's simple April, don't say anything and no body will ask you things. However, if you contribute to a discussion board/forum, then others have the same right to reply and to denigrate and abuse as yourself. I'd suggest you could do far worse then read Charles Kingsley's water babies and especially the two women with rather peculiar but very informative surnames. Furthermore you have no right to make any such demand of any person through this discussions board or any other communication features of this portal.

Last edit: by MikeT

I was called the c word, yet I never called anyone that.

I was told that I am living proof that humans interfere with animals, yet I never said anything like that to anyone.

While I challenged the content of contributor's posts, I have been subject to personal attack in return.

You have a poster on the research forum who is so blatantly misunderstanding concepts and theories in psychology that it is not only misleading but dangerous in terms of the amount of anger that he can incite in others.

I have written many extended explanatory and calmly written posts in response to his misinformation, but frequently my posts get deleted or worse still cut out and put into a new post so the whole flow of discussion is lost.

This site has a name and appearance which sounds like it provides information about family law.  Fathers who are emotionally vulnerable who are in the middle of the horrible emotional storm that follows a separation could come across this web site and believe that the generalised picture which is painted (i.e. mothers are resistant to shared care because they want to be on the parenting pension and claim FTB, women who claim they were abused were most probably abusers themselves, that men who change their jobs to cater for the care needs of their kids are going to be hit up with a CTE COA, that children are in danger if they are with a single mother because she is more likely to abuse them etc) is true for all men and this could lead to MORE conflict with their ex partners, more anxiety and more feelings of hopelessness.  How is that helping the fathers you wish to help?
                    
April said
This site has a name and appearance which sounds like it provides information about family law.
And it does and likely better and less gender biased than any other site that allows open discussion on such issues.


April said
Fathers who are emotionally vulnerable who are in the middle of the horrible emotional storm that follows a separation could come across this web site and believe that the generalised picture which is painted (i.e. mothers are resistant to shared care because they want to be on the parenting pension and claim FTB, women who claim they were abused were most probably abusers themselves, that men who change their jobs to cater for the care needs of their kids are going to be hit up with a CTE COA, that children are in danger if they are with a single mother because she is more likely to abuse them etc) is true for all men and this could lead to MORE conflict with their ex partners, more anxiety and more feelings of hopelessness.

If it's so bad then why do you persist on here? Do what your words are saying you should do, frequent or create a site that caters for the closed minded blind acceptance that you seek and stop abusing others with your attempts to disrupt open minded factual based discussion.
 "open minded factual based discussion."

Really?

You crack me up!
the thing is april as there is 2 sides to every coin.

why is always the father who isnt capable or "the childs not bonded to" let me give u a tip i changed my sons first nappy i nurtured and cared for my son from when he was born, thats right me the father. The mother for reasons i wont ouline on a public forum had "issues" to deal with.

Now in a present day time (my son is a few years older now and reaching new milestones) i could be seen as a dedicated father who is dilligent and committed to the upbringing of his son, on the other side of the fence i could seen as "obsessed" or "demanding" and all sorts of other names under the sun… the thing is im not a slack father im actively involved and just because my ex has moved onto "greener pastures" doesnt mean im willing to drop the commitment of fathering a child. he is equally my responsibility and i firmly believe u get out what u put in therefore this little guy deserves every bit of dedication i can offer him "or obsessiveness" etc etc etc.

im sorry but this makes me mad that there are women who believe the fathers role should be absent and without a voice we are not in a taliban regime in reverse dimensions…. then again we might be, gillard…. osama bin laden? both terrorists to me haha
April said
 "open minded factual based discussion."

Really?

You crack me up!
 
If you come to this forum with a particular issue you need help with, that's what you receive no matter which gender. This forum is not a chat room and you can interpret Bowlby and Ainsworth till the cows come home, it really makes no difference to anyone who is seeking an understanding and input into a problem they are facing either with Family Law or CSA.
April said
Really?

You crack me up!

QED
April - they also want maximum child support. Believe me I was married to one who thought it was OK for her to never work. At the moment she is trying her best to get out of Centrelink's mutual obligation. I have friends in similar situations but then I have other friends that are much more reasonable in their break up where they share care and don't fight over money.

The people that come to FLWG are those where great conflict is occurring and they will feel comforted that they are not alone.

For various reasons - mainly because I'm usually typing whilst juggling a two year old - I'm no academic on here and although I don't always agree with what you are saying, I appreciate your input.

You are right, it is comforting for people going through conflict to feel that they are not alone.  But how does the mother who dearly wishes her kids were in a shared care arrangement, but has an ex whose career comes before kids gain comfort from a site which suggests that her kids are going to be disadvantaged because they are being raised by a mum on her own.  And how about the mum who can't deal with the abusive ex who has ramped the abuse up to turbo since they split up supposed to feel when she reads posts that say she probably abused him as well.  Or the dad who is totally going OK after a separation and is reading this web site for info and starts thinking that he should start to be suspicious of his ex because she is going to withhold kids to rip him off.  All I am saying, as AdelaideD said above, there are 2 sides to each coin (I replied to your post by the way and it was deleted).  However there are threads on this site which sometimes allow the coin to fall more readily on to one side.  
yes april i said 2 sides to the coin but please read the rest of my post.
In your first scenario I don't think the mother would need assistance with family law as whilst it's a sad situation the court cannot make a parent be a parent.

Re the second - I always advise abuse victims to get help and protection and we need to remind ourselves than any conflict does take two as yes there are always two sides. Men are tired of always been told they are the cause of all the problems.

Re happy separation - there is always the period bit like the eye of a storm where it seems OK at first and many of us have made many mistakes during this time thinking that everything will be sweet.

I don't usually post new threads on this site although I did a lot when I was on here under my two previous names back to 2007. I decided to stop whinging and instead provide insight and advice to others where I could. If the mod don't like my posts then I am sure they will tell me as they have done in the past.

We all need a fair go and your posts should not be deleted without reason.

AdelaideD - I did read all of your post, it was interesting and I replied, but it was deleted.  I wrote that my opinion has never been that one parent is better than the other. Often infants go through a period of time where they have a preference for one parent however, and that we shouldn't force infants to adjust when they are very young just because mum and dad aren't together as the little ones can't understand.  I understand others don't agree.

As far as the mum left to raise the kids, well yes she might have family law issues, and it is often around trying to get the other parent to make an appropriate financial contribution in lieu of a physical one.

And as for abuse, there is no doubt that both sexes are capable and guilty of committing abuse.  That does not mean that every person who has been abused has also abused. For example, the only thing a person who is at the receiving end of a narcissistic rage may be guilty of is not living up to the extremely unrealistic expectations that are continuously imposed on them.

Fairgo, you are right, it is better to provide insight and advice because we can all learn from others experiences.
April I do try to do the right thing but sometimes I can get frustrated with some posts and be quite blunt.

I agree that infants can have different types of attachments at various times and there are reasons for this that can be tracked back to personality types, time spent, communications styles between parents for example. For these reasons I do challenge the default mother primary carer model that is touted by the profeminists.

I have been with my 2 year old every day since mid December last year. Last week I had to go away very early in the morning for the whole day before he was up and my wife told me that evening that during the day every now and again he would ask where daddy was. This child is comfortable with both of us and will go to either parent when in trouble. I do notice that when we are out of the house he tends to hang onto me and this would occur during the time he was breast fed on demand (for 2 years).
The same goes when his mother goes out and returns, he expresses that he has missed her. I also notice my wife and I provide different needs. If we were to split up I think day about would work very well.

Re abuse, I don't agree with the "men are the problem" model that is the current mantra as it is suggesting that all women are victims. All I say is that we should see DV from a more balanced perspective.

The guys that don't want to know their kids usually just pay up without too many complaints and I guess there are others that don't but I think this is a minority. The guys on here want to be with their kids regardless.

The rant with Kip is interesting but futile given the size of the foot hold of the profeminist perspectives held in various levels of our government. Even with a Liberal Government we will struggle to get anywhere.
Fairgo said
April I do try to do the right thing but sometimes I can get frustrated with some posts and be quite blunt.

I agree that infants can have different types of attachments at various times and there are reasons for this that can be tracked back to personality types, time spent, communications styles between parents for example. For these reasons I do challenge the default mother primary carer model that is touted by the profeminists.

I have been with my 2 year old every day since mid December last year. Last week I had to go away very early in the morning for the whole day before he was up and my wife told me that evening that during the day every now and again he would ask where daddy was. This child is comfortable with both of us and will go to either parent when in trouble. I do notice that when we are out of the house he tends to hang onto me and this would occur during the time he was breast fed on demand (for 2 years).
The same goes when his mother goes out and returns, he expresses that he has missed her. I also notice my wife and I provide different needs. If we were to split up I think day about would work very well.

Re abuse, I don't agree with the "men are the problem" model that is the current mantra as it is suggesting that all women are victims. All I say is that we should see DV from a more balanced perspective.

The guys that don't want to know their kids usually just pay up without too many complaints and I guess there are others that don't but I think this is a minority. The guys on here want to be with their kids regardless.

The rant with Kip is interesting but futile given the size of the foot hold of the profeminist perspectives held in various levels of our government. Even with a Liberal Government we will struggle to get anywhere.
 
Well said.

The feminist ideological dominance within bureaucratic/Government circles is economically based. It is assumed that having women working increases the national productivity and GDP and that it is an essential componenet of the response to an aging population. This is made clear in reports to business and Parliament going back several decades, most recently the Goldman Sachs report of 2009. What's fascinating about that is that (as Goldman Sachs pointed out), women have not shown great productivity as employees, with female multi-factor productivity running at around 50% that of men in 2009. In fact, during the period of most rapid mobilisation of women into the workforce, the 70s-90s, their workforce participation increased by well over 50%, but the national productivity only increased by about 22% due to that participation.

http://www.eowa.gov.au/Pay_Equity/Files/Australias_hidden_resource.pdf

What has not been taken into account is that women don't actually WANT to work outside the home in very many cases and so their participation in the labour market has had to be massively subsidised/driven, both with direct subsidies and by breaking up the family unit so that they have little choice.

What is needed is a genuinely dispassionate look at the issue and a rethink. Trying to force people to do as desired is not something that a proper democracy should be involved in. I give it about another 20 years until the current demographic bubble bursts and the need for the vast army of (now overpaid thanks to subsidies) care workers to evaporate and with it, the massie influence within Labor Party politics that they exert. Has anyone noticed that it's only the blue collar unions now being run by men?

It will be interesting to see how those with vested interests in femi-politics cope with the post-feminist paradigm. Of course, it may be too late to save the traditional family model by then, but I'm sure the churches will be happy to be involved in promoting it.

Last edit: by Craigo

Craigo - Interesting post but wrong threat. Note in the last 20 years priorities for girls in education has lead them to now outperform boys and pursue careers. Yes I think most are happy staying home but then they best of both worlds by having a career also. With the migration of voters from Labor to the Greens it will be the churches that will draw the line as they wont support the greens when they find out the truth about them. Then the churches might head back to the Liberals.
Please note this thread was discussing shared care of infants and has now changed to shared care of children.  Shared care of children has been shown to be beneficial to children and there is ample evidence to show that is the case (usually).  However, there is evidence to show shared care of infants is not beneficial.

To people following this thread please be aware that the earlier discussion of INFANTS in shared care should not be confused with the subsequent material about CHILDREN in shared care.  
Relax srldad101 (AKA the tooth fairy), I have no intention of hijacking your post.  I was merely pointing out that research into shared care differentiates children from infants and when subsequent findings are generalised to age groups others than those included in the study then conclusions become confused and often  invalid.

Your criticisms of the McIntosh et al study are based on opinion pieces by the way.

I have no intention of refuting whatever you post here srldad101.  I used to reply to Kip's misinformation out of respect for the SPCA as I felt Kip was associating himself with them to gain credibility, and his unscientific understanding of research was presenting the SPCA in a bad light.  I have the qualifications to back what I write, I have no interest to protect here other than that of the children who constantly get screwed up because their parents can't work out their own feelings enough to do the right thing for their kids, and that includes both mums and dads.

I have since discovered that the best way to reveal unscientific or invalid conclusions on this research thread is to say nothing, and let the BS speak for itself.  If you want to write a whole lot of unsubstantiated garbage just go ahead.  It gives me, and others who don't just surf the net to find out what's going on a laugh.

Research Findings!

Convention in most western societies expects that this love and nurturing is delivered by mothers (Sims, 2009). However, the biology of attachment is driven by attachment behaviour, not by the identity of the carer (with the exception of the biochemical reactions associated with child birth and lactation). There is considerable evidence that non-maternal carers do experience a range of biochemical responses to infants. For example Storey and colleagues (Storey, Walsh, Quinton, & Wynne-Edwards, 2000) found higher prolactin and lower testosterone levels in men who displayed greater pregnancy symptoms. Lower levels of testosterone are associated with more nurturing behaviours. Fleming and colleagues (Fleming, Gonzalez, Afonso, & Lovic, 2008) have demonstrated that fathers are more responsive to infant cries than non-fathers and that paternal hormones (prolactin and testosterone) influence that responsivity. It is suggested that the closer the contact and the bond between the mother and father, the more likely the father is to experience these hormonal changes (Storey, et al., 2000). and that these changes "play a role in priming males to provide care for young" (p79).


Other carers for infants also experience biochemical changes. For example exposure to oxytocin in the early years of life for both males and females is found to be associated with a dose-dependant increase in allo-parenting behaviour in praire voles (Bales et al., 2007). Allo-parenting is the term used by bio-social researchers to identify the caring/parenting roles undertaken by those who are not the infants' biological mother (Hrdy, 2008, 2009) thus fathers, grandparents, other relatives and non-relatives can all undertake allo-parental roles. Such behaviour is not unknown in humans, particularly in hunter-gatherer societies. For example, amongst the Ef, infants spend 40% of the day with allo-parents, and by 18 weeks up to 60% of their time with carers other than their mothers. Ef infants have, on average, up to 14 different allo-parents. These carers include fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers and unrelated individuals. Similar patterns of care are seen in Aka, Agta, and Andaman Islanders (Hewlett & Lamb, 2005; Hrdy, 2008). In matrilocal settings (where the infant and mother live with or near maternal kin) fathers engage in approximately 2.6% allo-parental caring. In contrast where infants reside patrilocally, fathers' involvement in allo-parenting rises to 62% (Marlowe, 2005; Meehan, 2005).


Source:  The voices of grandparents with little or no access to their grandchildren.


Professor Margaret Sims, University of New England

November 2010

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  M K Gandhi
Fairgo said
Re the second - I always advise abuse victims to get help and protection and we
need to remind ourselves than any conflict does take two as yes there are always
two sides. Men are tired of always been told they are the cause of all the
problems.
Fairgo may I suggest that you have used two very different situations - conflict and abuse. Conflict is generally bewtween two or more people and this is generally where I would suggest that this takes at least two disagreeing individuals. The other - abuse - is commonly known for situations where one has a position of power over the other and therefore it is very difficult to suggest that this situation would "take 2", more that it is a matter of control.

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
This web site continues to censor the female voice (unless it is the female voice of a second wife or partner) by cutting posts out of context and putting them under a different heading.  One only has to see the mish mash of opinions that appear under this thread that Mike T started to minimise my voice on this site to see evidence of this.  These posts don't relate to each other, rather this thread is the garbage bin for legitimate opinions which do not align with the underlying philosophy of this web site (that men get a worse deal in family law than women).  As a woman who got a raw deal by the family law system this is insulting, but as a tax payer who is helping to fund this biased web site I am appalled.  The men who run this site give men a bad name.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets