Warning: file_put_contents(): Only 0 of 95 bytes written, possibly out of free disk space in /home/flfl1154/git/flwg.com.au/sources/global.php on line 625

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/flfl1154/git/flwg.com.au/sources/global.php:625) in /home/flfl1154/git/flwg.com.au/sources/static_cache.php on line 230
View topic: Government creating a fatherless society" - On Line Opinion 15/3/2012 - please comment – Family Law Web Guide
Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

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

April from the surveys done and the news article on them I posted, it appears at least that nearly 2/3 of women want to stay home and raise their kids, while their men earn $$.

Staying home is not something I'd personally choose to do, i've never change the fact I was a working single mum for 20 years.But women are all different, and I respect the choice of those 2/3 who when surveyed said they want to be full time mums.

Your advocating for 50/50 care and income in a relationship but it's clear it's not what the majority of modern women want. Instead of preaching to men, maybe you need to be preaching to mothers as well that are not living up to or don't want to live up your personal feminist ideals and beliefs. Live your life the way you want, but respect others choices.
Excellent point Frenzy

It is not just men that are the targets of this radical feminist government social engineering but traditional wives and mothers. The cultural assault on marriage, motherhood, and traditional sexuality robs women of choice and their surest source of fulfilment - male companionship and loving family. The campaign for the ostracism of the housewife as a childish "parasite" to be forced into the workforce is evidenced in the childless Gillard's $2BN funding & 20-40% pay increases to social workers & carers for the establishment of a network of day care & collectivised child rearing facilities. And the unexplained $5BN extra funding for education recommended in the Gonski report; ostensibly for disadvantaged children - code for single mothers

The unilateral and underhanded roll back of shared parenting reform should be viewed as part of the agenda enunciated in "The National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children". This is a deliberate strategy to breakdown and re-engineer the feminist nemesis of traditional family; increase divorce to reduce father/child relationships, addict single mothers to government welfare dependence for Left votes, isolate children into state-run childcare & education for indoctrination for future left votes, crimininalise/incarcerate/impoverish & disempower its main rivals, fathers, and force traditional housewives into the workforce to replace them.

The tool for this social engineering is Family Violence, conveniently redefined to be non-violence or effectively anything the accuser thinks it is. DV becomes a feminist license to litigate, reeducate, and resocialize their fellow citizens, men and women.

The National DV Plan then extracts enormous sums of money from the "patriachy", mainly middle class conservative voting families, to be diverted into funding the political arm of the women's movement. This goes to train the judges, the DV advocates, to fund the "gender studies" propaganda which perpetuates the myth and persecution of "evil" men.

Where are all the men & thinking women? Why don't they oppose this group of zealots, claiming to speak for all women, but promote a dangerous agenda that threatens our most cherished ideals and sets women against men in all spheres of life? Real women love men, and need them. We are your fathers, husbands, sons, brothers, friends and future lovers. Men's fate is your fate–this is no zero-sum competition.

Why are Men's Rights Activists the only persons attacking the sexism of this radical feminist government - to be dismissed as extremists and "hate groups"? It is partly because the feminists have so successfully gelded males, and partly because males, through a misplaced notion of chivalry, do not believe in attacking women. But when women cease to be women they must be dealt with.

Sign the F4E "Strength in Numbers \"" Register now! It's free and nothing is required of you, but every person who signs will help us send a loud message to Canberra that the silent majority have numbers, we want to share in the parenting of our children, we will not be persecuted by the National DV Plan's gender laws, we will not have our life savings plundered by the lawyers union, we will preference family friendly politicians and vote out Emily's list extremists, we have a voice, and we intend to use it!
It is not just men that are the targets of this radical feminist government social engineering but traditional wives and mothers. The cultural assault on marriage, motherhood, and traditional sexuality robs women of choice and their surest source of fulfilment - male companionship and loving family.
Spot on!

I find modern feminism insulting and a violation of my human rights that affords me freedom of choice. In the old days women were told they belonged in the kitchen, now we are being told we have to be 'equal' in work and in child rearing, not all women (along with men) want that.

I ( and all women probably) do appreciate that there were feminists that fought for women to be able to fully participate in society. Now that I can do that, I don't appreciate being dictated too on exactly 'how' my participation must be carried out, by anyone. 
Feminists need to hang up their brooms, stop telling us how we should structure relationships with men (or vice versa), or better still turn their attention to issues such as girls/women's body image issues, or girls/women's increasing risk taking behavior or the increase in girl/women's crime rates (including being perpetrators of DV). 

Anyone see on the news, that feminist forum, with Germain Greer and her kind preaching slogans like 'We love men but they dont love us' BS,  some young woman speaker actually got up  on stage with a badge on her that said Shut Up D**k'…imagine the uproar if a man got up on stage with a badge that said Shut Up C**t.

Only the bitter and twisted consumed by hatred of men could support that kind of rhetoric.
Frenzy said
 
I find modern feminism insulting and a violation of my human rights that affords me freedom of choice. In the old days women were told they belonged in the kitchen, now we are being told we have to be 'equal' in work and in child rearing, not all women (along with men) want that.

 
 Feminism is about freedom of choice.  The fact that you have freedom to vote for example was because of feminism.

People are free to make whatever choices they want obviously.  However, alot of our "choices" are ones we just blindly accept because that is what we have grown up seeing others doing.  I would say there are many men who would love to be full time carers to their young children, but feel that doing so isn't the masculine thing to do.  Same as there are women who would love to work more but feel guilty no taking care of the kids.

You can't on one hand complain about a society where the role of the father is undermined, and then on the other hand define fatherhood primarily in terms of being a provider.  If men want to be treated as more than an ATM (someone else's reference) then it is up to them to reassess their role within the family and the work place.
april you say its up to the MAN to change and re assess how about when they WANT to be active parents and hit by "walls" in the family court system!

And id like you to come up with some figures if u can as to where you get the idea that some men think its not masculine to care for their kids! any d!ck can have a baby but it takes a MAN to be a father yet so many fathers face false allegations, get taken to the cleaners during a divorce to the point where they literally are financially incapable of spending time with their kids yet the mother who doesnt work seems to do just fine having 100% time :/

feminism is a movement of social engineering, have you ever heard the saying "how do you eat an elephant?" you eat it one slice at a time….
The "walls" of the family law system is what I am talking about.  The problem is avoiding the "walls" in the first place.

Here is how I see the traditional problem.  Mum mainly takes care of kids, dad mainly works as main breadwinner, typical situation (biology/society?).  After separation courts look at involvement of dad in kids lives, sees mum as main carer, maintain status quo (to an extent) and so mum continues in role as main carer and dad continues as financial provider but this time via CS.

Dad then feels ripped off because he sees kids less and is also paying money to ex.

I am suggesting that if dad did more care of kids from the start, and mum filled in family income gap then there would be less "walls" in court because it would be easier to argue for shared care if a status quo of shared care already existed.

I am not blaming dads, merely suggesting that if they play by the traditional gender roles then they are making a bad situation for themselves if they split form their partner.
April said
The "walls" of the family law system is what I am talking about.  The problem is avoiding the "walls" in the first place.

Here is how I see the traditional problem.  Mum mainly takes care of kids, dad mainly works as main breadwinner, typical situation (biology/society?).  After separation courts look at involvement of dad in kids lives, sees mum as main carer, maintain status quo (to an extent) and so mum continues in role as main carer and dad continues as financial provider but this time via CS.

Dad then feels ripped off because he sees kids less and is also paying money to ex.

I am suggesting that if dad did more care of kids from the start, and mum filled in family income gap then there would be less "walls" in court because it would be easier to argue for shared care if a status quo of shared care already existed.

I am not blaming dads, merely suggesting that if they play by the traditional gender roles then they are making a bad situation for themselves if they split form their partner.
 
This is a silly analysis. I spent all day yesterday in a truckwith a chap whose marriage is failing and who the wife has kicked out. Why? Because they made a business decision to lease a truck for him to drive as a sub-contractor and due to a series of mishaps it hasn't worked out as well as planned. Now she has to go to work and she's not happy about it and of course she blames him.

Tell me, how did he create that situation and why should he suffer through the FLC for honestly trying to do the right thing by his family?

As I said above, the issue is not that fathers cannot care for their children,but that mothers don't want them to once all that "maternal instinct" kicks in. They want them to make money so they don't have to. They want them to look after the kids when they don't feel like it or they have something better to do, but certainly not half the time. Even when both parents don't work, guess who'll take the baby most of the time and find other things for Dad to do? If Dad tries to reverse the situation you can guarantee he'll earn himself a strong talking-to. This is biology in action, not social conditioning. It's the way the human species raises babies, just like dogs or penguins or killer-whales all have specific behavioural instincts around raising babies. It's the basis of the whole Family Law and Child Support schemes in the first place and let's not forget that the feminists who agitated for the paid parental leave scheme conceived it as a MATERNAL leave scheme and it was only broadened in order to get public support after outrage from fathers.

Where the problems arise is that there is a positive feedback mechanism for separated mothers who want to stop dad having time with the kids at all and that is the Child Support scheme's tying of time to amount payable as well as the whole benefits mishmash. This encourages mothers feeling bitter at their ex to reduce his time and hence increase their pay.

I'm sorry, but I think you're living in a dream world. You prefer a fantasy of a dystopian ideological "equality" to a realistic, pragmatic division of labour that is satisfying to the natural inner drives that we all possess to greater or less degree, but only as long as it suits.

Tell me, if mum is going to "fill in the gaps" rather than be a serious worker, why are we mandating preferentially selecting women for professional and bureaucratic roles? It's simply stupid policy.
 For Men to have fair access if separation occurs they should not need to provide equal child care before hand. Courts should regonize and value EACH parties contribution to the relationship whether it's financial or caring even if the % are different. No matter how couples choose to structure it, neither should be denied fair contact after separation, as it is the child's best interest and right to have a relationship with BOTH parents that matters.

If a father is a stay at home carer like lots more are becoming now, then a mother should not be denied fair access to the children on separation either.

I know plenty of cases where both parties work equally, and contribute to child care and the mother still ends up with primary care after separation.  My OH's solicitor told him that even though on separation, he was the stay at home parent for 10 months while his wife worked away from home for 3 weeks a month, she would likely still be granted primary care. He said there is an overwhelming belief in 'uterine rights' from many magistrates.

I have friends whose children are 3 & 5, dad is not working but is studying at Uni, mum works for the ambulance service, often long hours in that job. Dad provides most of the care…should they both give up their carer/study, so they can go 50/50 in child care, just in case they split up?

I have other freinds with a 2 yo and a bub on the way. Dad works in the mines 2 weeks on 1 off (180k pa). Mum stays home provides all care for 3 weeks, every month and she breeds horses (her passion/not his)……….should they re-structure their lives to 50/50 in case of separation?

If the system is unfair to fathers and biased towards them if they provide more financial care, rather then child care, it's the system that should change! Not fathers. Many couples make joint child raising/ work decisions based on necessity and the need survive while together.
Children should not be denied a fair relationship with either parent, based on joint lifestyle decisions the couple made when together.

Men are not morons, even those who have only played a 5% - 49% hands on caring role, could cope perfectly well with a fair role in child raising after separation. There are also parenting classes ect
No one said men were morons.  Don't know why Frenzy wrote that.

The reason why shared care is frequently not ordered is that courts try to minimise the change on the kids.  This is not about men being unable to care for kids, as I have said before men are capable of caring for kids.  Courts try to minimise change to kids lives as much as possible , so the status quo is often maintained for the kids benefit.  I am not saying whether this is right or wrong, just how it is. 

This thread is about society creating a "fatherless" society.  Many posters have written lately about how feminism has gone too far and men are now on the back foot.

What I am saying is simply this.  Time for men to do something about it.

This is no different from the situation women found themselves in decades ago.  Complaining about how the "system" or the other sex is making life hard won't change anything.

Men need to negotiate their role in a marriage/LT relationship before they get into it.  They also need to be more prepared to let their career take a back seat while the kids are young and not expect their wife/partner to be the one to do it (even if the woman wants to).  I am not suggesting these are SHOULDS, but rather the way forward for men is for them to stop making themselves redundant.

Historically the man's role was provider, and this role was protected by rules which said women had to give up their jobs when they got married.  Well now the "role" of the male has no protection.  Women can provide for themselves, so men who continue to see their role as only a provider may just be making themselves redundant, and this is particularly the case when the marriage/relationship ends.

Please note I am not expressing a for/against opinion here.  Just pointing out what I think is contributing to the "fatherless" society.
April said
 Women can provide for themselves, so men who continue to see their role as only a provider may just be making themselves redundant, and this is particularly the case when the marriage/relationship ends.

Please note I am not expressing a for/against opinion here.  Just pointing out what I think is contributing to the "fatherless" society.
  Well, they are obviously not made redundant when it comes to providing money to the ladies after separation, are they? Seems to be the only thing they are useful for, because keeping the kids from Dad is working quite well to increase CS.

Also, when it comes to being equally involved in raising the kids, I know of a couple that had the kids one week on, one week off after separation and both of them went to Centrelink claiming they could not work, because of such an arrangement. Good idea, let the taxpayer fund that one!
April again where is the statistics for reasoning that shared care isnt applied to parents. il give you the number 1 reason and thats allegations of violence or ENTRENCHED conflict. not for minimising change. thats pure bulldust!

give you an example married couple father works mum doesnt, mum cooks cleans etc dad comes hom,e from works spends an hour or so with the kids before they go to bed ie homework. Parents divorce father still works, mother doesnt, mother gets primary care of kids and fathers time with children minimised to lets say one weekend a fortnight, how is that a an order that minimises chnage for the kids? they now only see their what was a daily dad only 2 days a fortnight now as opposed to every night where the father might have been assisting with homework or sport.

fathers post separation have to FIGHT for shared care and they still in 85% of cases will not get it. thems the facts been posted on another thread.

Also april men have been partitioning for equal parenting hence the SHARED CARE legislation being brought in back in 2006. but this is being undermined and indirectly being legislated against be feminist groups by putting laws in place that ALLOW FALSE allegations of DV against parties to exclude that parent from being actively involved.
AdelaideD said
give you an example married couple father works mum doesnt, mum cooks cleans etc dad comes hom,e from works spends an hour or so with the kids before they go to bed ie homework. Parents divorce father still works, mother doesnt, mother gets primary care of kids and fathers time with children minimised to lets say one weekend a fortnight, how is that a an order that minimises chnage for the kids? they now only see their what was a daily dad only 2 days a fortnight now as opposed to every night where the father might have been assisting with homework or sport.

 

Mum was primary carer, mum stays primary carer after split.  Dad was not in 50/50 care prior to split, dad still not in 50/50 care after split.

Get it?  If dads want 50/50 care after split they need to be doing something like that before split.  Courts don't drastically change care patterns of kids after the split.  The system won't change until men's roles change.

The difference is women had to fight for their right to work after marriage.  Men have the right to play a major role in the care of their kids now but most choose not to do it until the relationship ends.  It is too late by then, the system will kick in and prevent it.

Again, I am not condoning this, just explaining how it works.
April said
AdelaideD said
give you an example married couple father works mum doesnt, mum cooks cleans etc dad comes hom,e from works spends an hour or so with the kids before they go to bed ie homework. Parents divorce father still works, mother doesnt, mother gets primary care of kids and fathers time with children minimised to lets say one weekend a fortnight, how is that a an order that minimises chnage for the kids? they now only see their what was a daily dad only 2 days a fortnight now as opposed to every night where the father might have been assisting with homework or sport.

 

Mum was primary carer, mum stays primary carer after split.  Dad was not in 50/50 care prior to split, dad still not in 50/50 care after split.

Get it?  If dads want 50/50 care after split they need to be doing something like that before split.  Courts don't drastically change care patterns of kids after the split.  The system won't change until men's roles change.

The difference is women had to fight for their right to work after marriage.  Men have the right to play a major role in the care of their kids now but most choose not to do it until the relationship ends.  It is too late by then, the system will kick in and prevent it.

Again, I am not condoning this, just explaining how it works.
 
April, that is without a doubt the biggest BS that you have posted so far!

Just because Dad is at work during the day, does not mean he is not in the kids' live full time in their eyes, since he is home every night and is there every weekend. Where does Dad not play a major role in the kids' live?

It's too late after separation? What? Only if Mum prevents it.

The system should then establish the status quo present before separation. If Dad helped with homework every night before bed let's say for 2 hours, he needs to get an extra day with them per week.
Just because father works full time and a mother doesn't, it does not mean the father doesn't play an important role in the child's life. In the majority of relationships I know in that situation, the father provides a great deal of care at night and on weekends. Men playing a hands on role in care, has increased dramatically in the last 30 years.

If a man was to give up work so he can get 50/50, if they separate, how would that status-quo work if one parent was to move away after separation? which commonly happens.

Status quo decisions are common in interim orders -but not given as great a weight in final orders.

There are parents out there that get or agree on 50/50 care even when one worked full time and the other was a stay at home parent.

It's not often a man complains about not getting 50/50, in the vast majority of separations that is not practical. Most complaints are about women with holding contact, and going so far as to make up outrageous lies to gain more $$ from the government and in child support.

Even if a man and woman were equal in all ways before separation. I know many women that give up work on separation and sit on single mothers pensions - they think it's great.

If mothers are capable of working, why are there so many sitting on pensions, funded by us tax payers and by fathers?

It is the system (implemented by government) that allows and encourages children to be used as financial weapons that needs to change. Men more often then women get the rough end of the stick, as women can and do make up false allegations or poison the children's mind against the father to increase $$$ - Overwhelmingly this is what men complain about. A father having 50/50 care beforehand and mother working on equal basis beforehand gives NO protection against this, there are many examples out there and on this forum to prove that.

You might claim your trying to help men April, but clearly you have no understanding of the issues or are trying to twist things to suite your own warped feminist's views.
frenzy has re enforced what i was trying to say earlier but i dare say april is about to side step this fact and come out with another mass produced idealogical comeback that has no bearing on reality.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets