Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Issues arising - Last chance to oppose Gillard's "Hate Men" law

Craigo said
Thanks Babushka, I think you're also pretty close to the mark in your comments about samba being the product of her own experience rather than having any objective basis for her views.
  Craigo, samba and may be also staying_safe feel attacked by your comments because they seem very emotional about the situations they are in or have been in. Psychologically we perceive and evaluate anything we encounter based on our very personal experiences and make subsequent judgements about it. Whatever you say objectively in your mind, can potentially be interpreted completely different to the meaning you intended to portrait. In addition, being challenged is not something someone in an emotional state can handle very well.

I personally love the directness on this site and while it seems that some people might be offended and interpret it as "hate", for me personally, working through emotional issues and dropping the princess syndrome was actually be quite liberating!
Some good answers there Craigo, although there are some I would of answered a bit differently. And would, but I think Samba is closed mined and not open to letting new ideas and considerations in.

Despite her claims I mostly see a great deal of anti male sentiment there.

@Staying_Safe Thankfully I take all people on a as they come basis. To judge enter genders and races etc on single individuals and my own experiences would be both foolish and ignorant.

I now have a wonderful girlfriend of several years and she is awesome.

When I have more time I might provide some answers to Samba's ridiculous questions myself.
Babushka, I think that both samba and staying safe are quite representative of lots of women who tend to hold their emotional hurt close to hand for years after the event and who rarely ever contemplate their own role in the relationship breaking down. I've related my own ex's weird behaviour and we broke up over 12 years ago with no violence at all, merely a few arguments over money in which she gave as good or better than she got. She chose to move out, all I asked her to leave me was a bed, the beer fridge, some cutlery and plates and some small items of furniture which I had made myself. When I came home from work that's exactly what was there.

That didn't stop her trying to pretend there had been violence when she discovered that more care time = more child support and it didn't stop her commencing 6 separate court actions and several COA's over nearly 10 years trying to vindicate herself, none of which were resolved in her favour except one of the COAs, which has been shown to be incorrect. It was only when Legal Aid stopped funding her that the harassment stopped.

I suspect that her response is very common, especially when there is free legal available to one side and the other side has to pay, or when the woman has become enmeshed within the domestic violence industry, where "questioning the victim" is not allowed and so they never get a reality check on their behaviour. To this day she cannot see that she bears any responsibility for the outcomes.

Atomic, I'm sure there are some better answers that could be given. I'd be interested to read what you have to say.
Craigo said
Babushka, I think that both samba and staying safe are quite representative of lots of women who tend to hold their emotional hurt close to hand for years after the event and who rarely ever contemplate their own role in the relationship breaking down. I've related my own ex's weird behaviour and we broke up over 12 years ago with no violence at all, merely a few arguments over money in which she gave as good or better than she got. She chose to move out, all I asked her to leave me was a bed, the beer fridge, some cutlery and plates and some small items of furniture which I had made myself. When I came home from work that's exactly what was there.

That didn't stop her trying to pretend there had been violence when she discovered that more care time = more child support and it didn't stop her commencing 6 separate court actions and several COA's over nearly 10 years trying to vindicate herself, none of which were resolved in her favour except one of the COAs, which has been shown to be incorrect. It was only when Legal Aid stopped funding her that the harassment stopped.

I suspect that her response is very common, especially when there is free legal available to one side and the other side has to pay, or when the woman has become enmeshed within the domestic violence industry, where "questioning the victim" is not allowed and so they never get a reality check on their behaviour. To this day she cannot see that she bears any responsibility for the outcomes.
  I am making assumptions, but from observing Craigos rantings on this site and what Craigo has written here in this thread, then it wouldnt be far off the mark to consider that Craigo is a good example of a psychological abuser. Psychological abusers more often than not suffer from narcisistic or anti social personality disorders. Its rare that they are able to acknowledge the glitch in their behaviour and thus treatment is rarely sought. Not much hope in treatment for such sadly damaged individuals either.
Naturally hes going to come back and deny responsibility for his own disgusting behaviour and start sprouting on about borderline personality disorder…which is the female equivelent.
Recovering from a relationship with such people requires a long and hard road of healing, self reflection, redefining, reclaiming and hopefully empathy. And hopefully a solid understanding of the warning signs to ensure that the subtle and familar pull towards these personalities is not repeated in another disasterous relationship of the same type.
Emotional abuse is motivated by urges for "power and discontrol",[3] and defines emotional abuse as including rejecting, degrading, terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and "denying emotional responsiveness" as characteristic of emotional abuse. Subtler emotionally abusive tactics include insults, putdowns, arbitrary and unpredictable inconsistency, and gaslighting (the denial that previous abusive incidents occurred). Modern technology has led to new forms of abuse, by text messaging and online cyber-bullying.
"patriarchy must interact with psychological variables in order to account for the great variation in power-violence data. It is suggested that some forms of psychopathology lead to some men adopting patriarchal ideology to justify and rationalize their own pathology".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse
http://helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects.htm
Samba said
Craigo said
Babushka, I think that both samba and staying safe are quite representative of lots of women who tend to hold their emotional hurt close to hand for years after the event and who rarely ever contemplate their own role in the relationship breaking down. I've related my own ex's weird behaviour and we broke up over 12 years ago with no violence at all, merely a few arguments over money in which she gave as good or better than she got. She chose to move out, all I asked her to leave me was a bed, the beer fridge, some cutlery and plates and some small items of furniture which I had made myself. When I came home from work that's exactly what was there.

That didn't stop her trying to pretend there had been violence when she discovered that more care time = more child support and it didn't stop her commencing 6 separate court actions and several COA's over nearly 10 years trying to vindicate herself, none of which were resolved in her favour except one of the COAs, which has been shown to be incorrect. It was only when Legal Aid stopped funding her that the harassment stopped.

I suspect that her response is very common, especially when there is free legal available to one side and the other side has to pay, or when the woman has become enmeshed within the domestic violence industry, where "questioning the victim" is not allowed and so they never get a reality check on their behaviour. To this day she cannot see that she bears any responsibility for the outcomes.
  I am making assumptions, but from observing Craigos rantings on this site and what Craigo has written here in this thread, then it wouldnt be far off the mark to consider that Craigo is a good example of a psychological abuser. Psychological abusers more often than not suffer from narcisistic or anti social personality disorders. Its rare that they are able to acknowledge the glitch in their behaviour and thus treatment is rarely sought. Not much hope in treatment for such sadly damaged individuals either.
Naturally hes going to come back and deny responsibility for his own disgusting behaviour and start sprouting on about borderline personality disorder…which is the female equivelent.
Recovering from a relationship with such people requires a long and hard road of healing, self reflection, redefining, reclaiming and hopefully empathy. And hopefully a solid understanding of the warning signs to ensure that the subtle and familar pull towards these personalities is not repeated in another disasterous relationship of the same type.
Emotional abuse is motivated by urges for "power and discontrol",[3] and defines emotional abuse as including rejecting, degrading, terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and "denying emotional responsiveness" as characteristic of emotional abuse. Subtler emotionally abusive tactics include insults, putdowns, arbitrary and unpredictable inconsistency, and gaslighting (the denial that previous abusive incidents occurred). Modern technology has led to new forms of abuse, by text messaging and online cyber-bullying.
"patriarchy must interact with psychological variables in order to account for the great variation in power-violence data. It is suggested that some forms of psychopathology lead to some men adopting patriarchal ideology to justify and rationalize their own pathology".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse
http://helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects.htm
  Samba, you are not making assumptions, you are projecting. If you were actually after some concrete advice on how to deal with your situation , Craigo would be the first to help you and share his knowledge. His comments might give you something to think about, but nevertheless he can offer a perspective to broaden horizons if one is willing to listen.
CrazyWorld said
Craigo, I suspect that the intention behind your equally narrow minded answers to Sambas questions were merely an ignorance matching exercise? 
 
 
The answers addressed the questions and were couched as generalisations, because that's how the questions were phrased, but they're not "narrow-minded". They are (mostly) valid responses, with a couple of tongue-in-cheek flippancies thrown in. Far too much of the policy around women in Australia is predicated on the idea of generalising from the extreme. The worst possible outcomes are the only ones discussed, rather than recognition being made that those extremes are not representative of the experience of most people.

This is called "framing the debate" and Emily's List runs seminars for its politicians in how to do it. I simply choose to frame the debate more broadly.
I think the amendments will make it easier for one parent to make up lies to keep the other parent from the kids.

I don't doubt domestic violence happens but I don't believe all cases are genuine either. I believe men are probably victims as much as women but just don't report it. I used to have to get a DVO done against my ex every 2 years and while waiting in the court house I was horrified that the majority of women there were bragging and laughing about their supposed 'ordeal'. Half the women there were there to ask the judge to remove a DVO. I can honestly see why the police get fed up with having to deal with supposed DV cases and DVO's.

These women that rort the system only make it harder for those that are genuine victims. Those women that take out DVO's based on lies are probably lying to the family court too. These legislation changes are only going to encourage, increase and reward that behavior.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/deadly-divorce-league-player-suspected-of-killing-wife-before-shooting-self-20120111-1pu31.html

These types of tragedies are reported in the news almost everyday and no-one bats an eye. But when a mother does it, then it causes a sensation.
samba, that's not just wrong, it's ridiculous. Take a chill pill, go and kick the cat or whatever it is you do to make yourself feel better and have a bit of a think about what you just posted.
samba - that link you posted is dead, so I can't read the story.Have you had counseling? You come across as still being very bitter, thus unable to look at every situation as different to your own. As understandable as that may be, that bitterness is only going to eat you up inside and possibly negatively effect your children.
Im not hunting down the article in order to repost. Its a horrible news article about another effed up abuser who killed his wife and then himself.
And yes to balance off the ugly news there was the inevitable news stories of mothers doing horrible things to children too (happy about the balanced reporting?)
The thing is, is that women appear to do violence differently from men and for different reasons. Men still dominate in the violence stakes because some of them seem to be neanderthal throwbacks. They want to dominate and control and if a woman doesnt conform to her submissive role, well all hell breaks loose, especially combined with the inherent inequality we (women) must still endure.


I can cope with misogynistic behaviour in any given situation, after all I am a woman and I have had years to come to terms with it. What I find absolutely appalling is that this site is supposed to be a place to get information about family law, not a cesspit for misogynists.  So until this website is renamed The Family Law Web Guide for Men, I will continue to express my disgust at the misogynistic behaviour on here.


I get that we have all had our problems, but that's no reason to be so extremist and ignore the facts.



These new law amendments have been put in place because they were needed. Its not some ploy about denigrating men, they apply to both genders and they are about protecting children.
Samba I am female and have found some of the things you have said on here to be incredibly anti male.

I have spent my life working in male dominated industries and have never had to endure inherent inequality. I have never been treated any less for being female, in fact I've probably been treated better. I guess people treat you the way you treat them.

I was also a single mother, I chose not to get child support. My daughters father lost the right to be part of her life in anyway because of his problem with drugs and the psychotic mental illness he developed because of the drugs. A magistrate determined based on actual police forensic evidence that my ex never be allowed any contact with her. My daughter never ever lived in poverty, no decent mother would use lack of child support as an excuse to raise a child in 'poverty'. 99% of children I see being raised in what i'd define as poverty by single mothers, are being raised that way because their mother has a drug and/or alcohol problem.

Fact is most women who harm their children are substance abusers, not victims of DV!

My current OH has a debt to the CSA not because he is a dead beat as you claim all men with debts are. Last month he spent $700 on air fairs to visit his kids, $300 on a psychiatrist visit for his oldest daughter, $200 on treating head lice, ring worm & school sores for all 3 children, plus $300 on clothing as the clothes the children were wearing looked like they came from the vinnes rag bin. These types of expenses come up every 3 months, which leaves us unable at times to pay the monthly CS bill. His ex earns $130,000 pa, plus collects $330 pw on rental from their property, plus $400 pm in CS.

If you read alot of posts from men on here, this type of negligent treatment of children by their mothers is very common. I think any man that is on this site, is here because they care about their kids.
 
I am with frenzy, I am myself are studying male dominated field, but only cause many women may not choose to work such long hours later on and that's fine. But some expect not to work at all and expect the other parent to finance 100 percent of the spendings. My husbands ex-wife is denying contact after quitting her job cause she needs the extra cash. Not the right way either. Cause my husband is fighting not to pay an extra 1000 bucks per month he can't afford after the divorce debt and hecs debt, plus 500 in flights for whenever he is allowed to see his children, he has been called a debt beat dad. He always paid above what has been estimated when he had regular care and her working. This is just our story. I have friends with other storys. Each of them is different. I think your comments are anti male and you may think that every father who isn't paying what CSA says or fights for his rights, is a bad father, which is very sad. Your own situation may be bad in this way, but not every single mother gets a raw deal. There are certainly many. Just as many fathers getting a raw deal financially and access wise. We are all here for a reason, trying to improve our situations. Myself, I do not expect my husband to finance our wish to have a baby by himself. I will help. Who knows, maybe one day, he will be a stay at home dad lol
Single mothers are often forced into family friendly jobs with family friendly working hours. Theres not usually a choice around it. If you dont make it to the child care centre or after care facility by 6pm you pay $1 a minute and inconvenience everyone. So you can imagine (if youve ever worked in a professional job) how much stress this would cause, how much of a cant do person you are viewed as by the company and how that would lower your chances of advancement, and how it can easily lead to job loss.

Even if a mother with majority custody chooses (as is her right) to stay at home to parent her children (and make up for the lack of input from the father), she is still paying all of her welfare money to cover the costs of raising the kids. I myself had to wait a very substantial time before I was even offered a place for my kids in child care. The waiting lists are long. Once offered the costs were prohibitive and hardly worth the effort, though I did it.


So your point about mothers not choosing to financially support their children is utterly ridiculous.


Oh yes, of course it would be a great way to screw your exs children and her mother over if your hubby decides to be a stay at father, because your income doesnt count! LOL!
Its interesting to note that while ex wifey isnt working your hubby now refuses to pay any money towards the financial well being of his children, thats a double whammy of a poverty hit for the kids. Way to go!
Samba said
The waiting lists are long. Once offered the costs were prohibitive and hardly worth the effort, though I did it.

Why didn't you get the government child care rebate & benefit? All single mothers I know are entitled to it. Most any of them pay is around $16 pw per child after the rebate. Hardly prohibitive. Even before the current childcare scheme was introduced I only paid $3 per day out of pocket for my daughters child care while on a single mums pension and working full time, that was 17 years ago. I too would have had to wait a substantial time for child care when I separated from my ex but ended up choosing to move to an area where childcare was available.

Samba said
Its interesting to note that while ex wifey isnt working your hubby now refuses to pay any money towards the financial well being of his children, thats a double whammy of a poverty hit for the kids. Way to go!

 She never said her hubby "refuses to pay any money" just that they are fighting an increase in what he pays. Could be a very vailed reason for fighting the increase. There is evidence by people such as the ombudsmen that CSA does not always adhere to the legislation when making determinations, so one can hardly blame payers for fighting for a fair assessment. 
Assumptions over assumptions. We have always paid child support and always above. She chose to terminate her employment, as her bf earns a good enough income. This is not our problem. DH is going to be self employed soon and even if he stays at home, we will pay child support. Who says we don't? Who says we are not supporting his children financially. We love them, off course we will support them.

Last edit: by sm10

Frenzy -The discounted child care you are referring to is if you happen to qualify for the JET scheme. Not all single mothers qualify, not all single mothers are on welfare. The JET scheme is only valid for 2 years, so useless if you are trying to complete a degree. It does not have a team of people you can talk to and the guidelines about what qualifies as part of the scheme dont appear to be written down anywhere. As far as I know if you have qualified for the JET scheme because you were studying then you can claim JET when you get a job, but only for 6 months. As badly run as it is, it is one of the only ways some people can afford child care in order to study and get back into the work place. Would you prefer it if women didnt have that opportunity and remained stuck at home with little prospects of finding work or trying to get a better job? All the while of course being blamed for bludging off the government! Are women supposed to leave their children at home unattended?
Most single mothers do not access the JET scheme and just pay the fees which takes up the majority of their wages. In the city child care costs are up to $120 per day. Mine were $85 per day with 2 children, so that was $170 a day upfront. Sure you get the discount and receive half of that back quarterly, but the money still has to be paid upfront.
Samba said
As badly run as it is, it is one of the only ways some people can afford child care in order to study and get back into the work place.
Samba all single mother's on welfare now days are entitled to discounted childcare (up to 50 hours per week) under the child Care benefits scheme. Parents can also have the money for fees paid directly too the childcare center, so only end up on average $15pw per child out of pocket. It is means tested but everyone who earns under $138,000 will qualify for help under the scheme.Jet is an old scheme, think CCB started in 2006.
Frenzy said
Samba said
As badly run as it is, it is one of the only ways some people can afford child care in order to study and get back into the work place.
Samba all single mother's on welfare now days are entitled to discounted childcare (up to 50 hours per week) under the child Care benefits scheme. Parents can also have the money for fees paid directly too the childcare center, so only end up on average $15pw per child out of pocket. It is means tested but everyone who earns under $138,000 will qualify for help under the scheme.Jet is an old scheme, think CCB started in 2006.
 

Frenzy - The jet scheme is still running but on limited options and funds. Childcare is fine if there is child care or OHSC available. The other problem is affordability of courses and the books etc required.

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Gecko single parents wishing to study are generally eligible for the Pensioner Education Supplement (PES). It's about $62 per fortnight, it's to cover things like books ect. Uni books can be hired or often bought second hand, well that's what I did to keep costs down while raising my kids on my own.

Before going to uni I did a tafe course, it was expensive as there was/still is no HELP scheme but I applied to TAFE on hardship grounds and used half the PES supplement to pay off the fees and the other to cover books ect.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets