Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Government creating a fatherless society" - On Line Opinion 15/3/2012 - please comment

Warwick Marsh has penned a piece on fatherlessness for OLO - the largest non-MSM website - and as usual is getting attacked big time for declaring truth. Any supporting comments welcome:

Government creating a fatherless society - On Line Opinion - 15/3/2012
I readthe piece this morning. It's not one of Warwick's better efforts I'm afraid.
Whilst I agree with the statement that a fatherless society is being created I can't help think of the impact the Union bashing Liberals and big business heavy weights had in the 90's where we saw workers go from 8 hour to 12 hour shifts and effectively were removed from their family's routine. Then at the same time mothers have been pushed into the workforce taking more time away from the family. Effectively children have been left to bring themselves up. Both sides of politics are behind all these changes however I would concur that the feminists that only see the world from a profeminist perspective are now the problem makers for the family.

PS: That was also the time before the Liberals got in that Bob Hawke got the C$A up and running with the famous regretful words - Bob Hawke - 'By 1990 No Child will be Living in Poverty'. - YouTube

Last edit: by Fairgo

Fairgo said
Whilst I agree with the statement that a fatherless society is being created I can't help think of the impact the Union bashing Liberals and big business heavy weights had in the 90's where we saw workers go from 8 hour to 12 hour shifts and effectively were removed from their family's routine. Then at the same time mothers have been pushed into the workforce taking more time away from the family. Effectively children have been left to bring themselves up. Both sides of politics are behind all these changes however I would concur that the feminists that only see the world from a profeminist perspective are now the problem makers for the family.

PS: That was also the time before the Liberals got in that Bob Hawke got the C$A up and running with the famous regretful words - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx0IeQQ7WjI
 
Feminism was always supported by big business as a means of getting a larger workforce without having to have a larger population. Of course, it hasn't worked out the way they planned it, with women generally choosing to only do work that they want to do, rather than work that necessarily needs doing from a business POV. It's also lead to a massive increase in costs, with childcare and many domestic tasks now being outsourced rather than being done within the family and as a result the portion of tax revenue that is being redistributed to support women working has become huge. As well, the move of women into paid work has had an inflationary effect on prices of housing, so the rate of home ownership has not increased a s result of increased household incomes and it has moved further from the reach of low-income earners.

On top of that is the rise of fatherless children as a social norm and the resultant problems. I do wish Warwick would concentrate more on the real isues though, instead of being distracted by the homosexuality thing. I don't disagree that it is farcical for people like Penny Wong to pretend they are real parents simply because their girlfriend has a baby, but if they want to have a piece of paper saying they're married, that's up to them and has no real impact on me or mine. Of course Warwick is coming from a fairly fundamentalist christian perspective, so his view on that is different to mine.
it was the libs that brought a little more fairness in the system a few years back regarding CSA and time spent.

one thing about the homosexuality and marriage can anyone fill me in if there are tax concessions for married couples over that of single parents. i dont care about real gay people but if there is a financial rort involved in gay marriage ie 2 non gay females get married both have kids and pretend to have a legitament relationship what benifets could they get that would advantage them over being 2 single mums bringing up kids?
Craigo said
I readthe piece this morning. It's not one of Warwick's better efforts I'm afraid.
Yes I must agree. It would have have been far more supported had Warwick delivered a range of commentary around the men's health conferences that have been held and points arising from those that do not cover just health issues and the responses from Government relating to the suggestions that were tabled. I don't believe these have all been adequately followed up and nor has a proper response been received from Government. There are significant issues in relation to in-vitro fertilisation and parental responsibility which will require further legislative reforms from Government, issues around Birth Certificate naming conventions that will have to have further amendments made especially in NSW at BDM and a range of other topics that could have meant a good well rounded article. The problem I think, is that Warwick as many of us are, was probably time poor on that article and rushed to get it out.  Perhaps a call for a Department of Men and Families may allow additional researchers to put together more comprehensive and qualitative material?


Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Interesting response from a woman

…women have preferential treatment - by law - in any company that gets federal funds (which heaven help us, right now, is most of them.)  Women live longer than men.  Cancers that affect females get more money and more attention than those that affect only men.  Women have the right to be sole deciders on abortion, and if they decide to keep the child and make the man pay, he pays.  (This by the way is a complete reversal of the "penalty" of sex which used to fall mostly on women.)  And if he doesn't pay, he goes to jail.  Divorce courts award primary care to mothers in 90% of cases.  Oh, and in university campuses, women outnumber men.

If this is war it is war on men.  And I've had just about enough of everyone who claims otherwise.

And please don't come back and say women have to carry babies and this is unfair.  Or that men are stronger and this is unfair.  Or that  This is NOT kindergarten.  LIFE is unfair.  NATURE is unfair.  Civilization and society can only go so far to compensate for the basic inequality of nature.  It is not the job of nature or government to turn us all into neuters with the exact same aptitudes and abilities.  And I, for one, am glad.  If you're not, consider your relationship with your own gender.  I suggest your war is mostly internal.

If you truly believe refusing to force employers to pay for birth control/maternity leave/child care superannuation is a war on women, then you are fragile little flowers who deserve to experience life practically anywhere else in the world.  You are also unleashing a monster.  Get the government to force this and NOTHING is out of bonds.  Forget selling you the rope to hang you with.  The government will eventually force you to pay them to hang you.

I'd like to believe the comment is wrong which I read on some blog defining feminists as a potemkin village of bicycled fish.  But judging by how women seem to be so completely embarrassed by their vaginas that they demand all sorts of compensation and affirmation of their specialness, I'm very afraid the comment was right…

 But judging by how women seem to be so completely embarrassed by their vaginas that they demand all sorts of compensation and affirmation of their specialness, I'm very afraid the comment was right…
Should be *some* women :)
Oh, and in university campuses, women outnumber men.
Yes this would be largely because girls outrank boys in education results, it's not because girls are more intelligent. It's because the education system is neglecting boys educational needs. There have been inquires into how improve educational outcomes for boys…but they have come under fire from feminist lobby groups. Any one who is a parent/grand parent ect of a male child should be concerned about this (and other) issues, no matter how gender self-centered and narrow minded they are. 
If men continue to go to foreign lands to fight our wars and leave the home and family to work, little will change.
Essentially feminism is now a fundamentalist religion that has a hold on the West through a sort of cargo-cultism. That means that there is no possibility of having a sensible discussion about it with any of its priestesses, or their chosen male acolytes, who aspire to the crumbs from the altar on which their brethren are to be sacrificed. Of course, most genuinely thinking women see it for what it is, as was shown here in the recent discussion on another thread. That means that the would-be matriarchs will eventually fail, thankfully. The world doesn't need yet another religion. The existing ones have done enough damage.

The article from Sarah Hoyt is excellent and deserves to be widely disseminated. Bravo.

Secretary, the response from the Government to the Men's Health Conferences has been tokenistic and embarrassing. The Cancer Council has recently come out and asked for a change to the way research is funded so that preferential funding to female-specific cancers is reduced, allowing a more balanced an effective approach to the serious cancers that affect both genders, such as lung, bowel, brain and skin cancers. I've not heard a peep from our (female) Health Minister Plibersek, who's one of Emily's Lists MPs and hence has a remit from that group to discriminate in favour of women. Producing an adverising campaign around prostate cancer simply doesn't cut the mustard.

The removal of the father from birth certificates is simply ludicrous and an example of "newspeak" and "doublethink" that has been a feature of feminist evangelism. They call it "framing the debate": I call it "telling lies for women".
Craigo - What about Julia's man? Did she get him do the Men's Sheds etc… to get male votes?
The men's shed thing is tokenistic and has almost no funding. I tried a few years ago to get one up and basically it required the involvement of an existing organisation, usually a church, which is why the Uniting church has such a big involvement. Instead of being a grass-roots movement, it's become controlled by "big religion", which suits the Govt, since they have lots of levers to pull with such groups.

Axxording to Men's Sheds Australia, there were 38 sheds funded with a share of a total pool of just $125,000.

In contrast, Fahcsia have funded an unspecified number of "Women's Alliances" to the tune of $200,000 each per annum for 3 years…

Obviously male votes are cheaper than female ones.
"Essentially feminism is now a fundamentalist religion that has a hold on the West through a sort of cargo-cultism. That means that there is no possibility of having a sensible discussion about it with any of its priestesses, or their chosen male acolytes, who aspire to the crumbs from the altar on which their brethren are to be sacrificed".


Even my better half loved this quote. Well said lad.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
Yes that article is about life in the US, however there are huge similarities to our country.

Women live longer than men. True in Australia, as well

Cancers that affect females get more money and more attention than those that affect only men. - True in Australia as well, eg female teen girls are given the HPV vaccine to reduce cervical cancer for free. Males die from HPV related cancers, the vaccine is effective against these male cancers, however the government refuses to fund it.

Women have the right to be sole deciders on abortion, and if they decide to keep the child and make the man pay, he pays - exactly the same in Australia

Divorce courts award primary care to mothers in 90% of cases - statistics I've seen on this very from,  70% - 80% of mothers in Australia being awarded primary care by the courts.

Oh, and in university campuses, women outnumber men - women in Australian uni's out number men by 24%

Pretty sure most people are switched on enough to realize what relates and what doesn't
craigo i wonder sometimes how you find the time to respond with very well written replies i cannot help myself laugh loud at the computer getting weird looks by family members wondering what i am reading. As funny as it is reading sadly it is the truth.
Frenzy said
April most of those things you mentioned are due to women's choices, not laws forced on them by government.

 

Not choices Frenzy,it was the men's club (in Canberra as well as in the boardrooms) that prevented women breaking through the glass ceiling.  For years when women got into parliament they were usually given the most difficult portfolio so when problems occurred not only were they the "fall guy" but it was used as evidence of their inability to hold such a position.

Anything that divides the sexes is negative and prevents us moving forward.  We are all people.
April, well i guess  now that a female has the top job it can be seen that a female can stuff that position up also :/

For years when women got into parliament they were usually given the most difficult portfolio so when problems occurred not only were they the "fall guy" but it was used as evidence of their inability to hold such a position.
Past tense - It is now 2012, We now have a woman PM, a woman premier and a woman Governor-General currently in office…why is what went on 30 years ago with women in politics relevant to the discussion.  Fact is in the CURRENT legislation and policy there are issues that are effecting men, those who care about those issues should be able to discuss them.
Frenzy said
For years when women got into parliament they were usually given the most difficult portfolio so when problems occurred not only were they the "fall guy" but it was used as evidence of their inability to hold such a position.
 Past tense - It is now 2012, We now have a woman PM, a woman premier and a woman Governor-General currently in office…why is what went on 30 years ago with women in politics relevant to the discussion.  Fact is in the CURRENT legislation and policy there are issues that are effecting men, those who care about those issues should be able to discuss them.
 

Frenzy, this system effects not just men but women and children everyday as well.

Maybe instead of maybe getting angry and shouting "poor me" then go out and do something about it. There are enough male representatives in parliament that should be able to understand your plight, campaign and campaign and campaign. The suffrogettes had to campaign and fight for their rights for years. It is said that the modern feminists are continuing the fight for equality (but that is another thread lol). Dont just get angry and be anti-female and anti-feminists, do somehing. It may take years to achieve what you want but is it not worth it? Oh, and what is exactly that you want? It seems that every law made re family is argued against. Im not sure what would be fair according to the "fathers".

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
gecko - I think all fathers want is a fair deal being a good relationship with their children. The fathers are only saying they want 50% care not 100% care as per the mothers. If fathers were confident of getting this I think you would websites like this one would disappear.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets