Feminism
DIVORCE LAWS: Family Court loathed for the vast harm it does
The Americans have a well-known saying for politicians, “It’s the economy, stupid!” — meaning that what matters most for people are economic issues. It’s false.
What matters most to people, and most affects their well-being, are close relationships, and above all family relationships. These are areas where politicians and bureaucrats can do only limited good but almost limitless harm, and huge harm is being done.
Here are some facts regarding Australia today. If there’s a marriage or relationship break-up involving children, and custody or access is in dispute, the parties must submit to an inquisition by Family Court social-workers or the latters’ pet psychologists regarding their past behaviour towards and in the presence of the children.
A major purpose of the exercise is to identify “family violence” by the male, with this being defined as any behaviour “actual or threatened” which causes any member of the family “to fear for, or reasonably to be apprehensive about, his or her personal well-being or safety”.
The term “well-being” is infinitely elastic, and meant to be, as are the other catch-all Family Court categories of “family violence”, such as “psychological violence/abuse”, “emotional violence/abuse”, and “controlling behaviours”.
Where Good Men Don’t Count: The Dire Repercussions of Ignoring Men’s Welfare – Story Bridge Murder/Suicide
In another case reflecting the lack of support experienced by separated fathers in this country, many Australians are now questioning the wisdom of Australia’s family support services which have focussed almost exclusively on the welfare and support of women, while ignoring the needs men, resulting in a culture of vilification that has driven some men over the edge, with dire consequences for the innocent children of separated families.
IT WAS dark outside when Danielle Lees woke and reached for her mobile phone. It had only been hours since she last saw him, but something made her dial her husband to see if everything was OK.
By the time the call connected with Jason Lees’ mobile, both he and their son, Brad, were already dead.
Danielle, a psychologist, had been staying with her parents on the Gold Coast.
Neighbours say the couple appeared to have separated, but Jason, a teacher at Brisbane’s “Churchie” and a former rugby union referee, drove to meet her for lunch on Sunday.
He left again for home in the afternoon, taking Brad with him – the two-year-old attended his school’s kindergarten.
It was about 2am when Jason strapped Brad into the car, loaded his bike and drove from their Seven Hills home in suburban Brisbane to Kangaroo Point.
ABS Releases Gender Indicators and Ignores Male Disadvantage
Today the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Australia’s so-called impartial statistical body released its Gender Indicators report: “a summary of gender specific data in six domains representing Economic security, Education, Health, Work and family balance, Safety and justice, and Democracy, governance and citizenship”.
The ABS produced a media release about the publication. This release could have noted that:
- Across the board males fare much worse than females in the education system – most notably being 24% less likely to be enrolled in a bachelor degree or above
- Across the board males fare much worse than females in the health arena – most notably suffering death rates from cancer, heart disease, suicide, motor vehicle accidents and drug abuse between 1.6 and 3.4 times higher
Women bark, Men bite. The Apologist View of Child Murder
Editor: The below article is another piece of fanciful writing from a well-known journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald, Adele Horin, who can always be relied upon to creatively re-interpret the facts to absolve females of the same crimes that men are vilified for.
This insulting commentary on the automatic culpability of men in cases of child murder, even when the murderer is the mother, and the ”acceptability” of the murder of children, when committed by the mother, is a sad indictment on the extent that these feminist ideologues go to to sanitise all female mis-conduct, even at the expense of the best interests of children.
Horin relies upon a small sample of Child Murders, and selective interpretations of the reasons behind these murders, to paint a Mother’s murder of a child as an almost Saint-Like endeavour, worthy of praise, not condemnation.
But of course she does not afford men anything like the same type of sympathy, because Fathers after-all only murder children for selfish reasons.
Shared custody a mistake for the under-2s, says Lobbyist Researcher
Controversial: 'sleeping is stressful, but not daycare'.
SEPARATED PARENTS should not share custody of babies or toddlers under two, according to controversial guidelines released this week by a national infant welfare group, which seem to contradict decades of research and conclude the exact opposite.
”Prior to the age of two years, overnight time away from the primary care-giver should be avoided, unless necessary” according to the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health’s ”guidelines for protecting the very young child’s sense of comfort and security”.
The guidelines recommend that non-custodial parents, nine out of 10 of whom are fathers, should instead see children under two during the day, up to three times a week, gradually phasing in overnight visits after the second birthday. Families fighting custody battles in the Family Court should not share custody until the child is three, according to the guidelines.
Robert McClelland – threatened to quit Parliament if not retained as AG, according to new source
According to an un-named source within the Gillard government, former Attorney General Robert McClelland argued forcefully to be retained as Attorney General, when advised that he was being dumped from Cabinet.
The dumping of Robert McClelland, as predicted by Fathers4Equality in May of this year, was on the cards because, according to this same source, “McClelland had made a mess of the family law reform package.”
This source claims that the 2011 family violence legislation had been perceived by the majority in the Labor government, especially in response to the thousands of phone calls and tens of thousands of emails from disaffected constituents, mostly fathers and grandparents, as “going too far and lending credence to the criticisms that the changes were anti-father and anti-shared-care.”
Australian Parliament Rolls Back Children’s Rights to Their Dad
Attorney General - repealed children's rights to their dad.
The long-anticipated roll-back of children’s rights in Australia has happened. The Australian Parliament has passed the bill aimed at scuttling the 2006 amendments to the Family Law Act that promised children greater access to their fathers.
The Howard government’s modest attempt at making shared parenting the rule in Australia was met with a firestorm of protest from anti-father forces across the country. Lacking any comprehensive data for their claim, they nevertheless argued that the 2006 reforms endangered children. That of course was premised on the notion that fathers are uniquely harmful to children. The fact that, in Australia as in the United States, mothers commit more abuse and neglect of children than do fathers is a concept the anti-dad crowd preferred to ignore. They shouted to the skies their narrative of paternal violence, irrespective of known science.
Raise Your Voice, Lose Your Child
“He raised his voice at me, and I was frightened he was going to hurt me and the kids.”
That’s it. That’s all it takes for a man to lose his children in today’s hyper-sensitive landscape of domestic violence prevention.
This sea change can be traced to the days and months following the tragic death of Nicole Brown Simpson, when the public outcry by the domestic violence lobby moved beyond confronting actual physical altercations and began focusing on the perceived threat of violence. By casting such a wide net, centered almost entirely on male against female domestic violence, there have been unintended consequences that play themselves out in Family Court every day.
With nothing more than a woman stating, “I was frightened he might hurt us,” a court can remove a man from his home and prevent him from seeing his children for a minimum of three weeks. Often the court will also order either an anger management or a batterer’s intervention class and generally grant the demand by his ex-spouse that he have supervised visitation.
The intrusion by the courts into family dynamics has become so extreme that the domestic violence laws are no longer being used to protect potential victims, but rather to victimize potential abusers.
Let me be clear about this: in the eyes of the court, all men are considered to be potential abusers. No matter his history, if there was any provocation, or if he was in fact the abused victim. This last point is made even more interesting when considering that female-on-male domestic violence make up 50-percent of all cases, yet it is the man who is singled out as being potentially dangerous. And while as an attorney, my professional life is predicated on “innocent until proven guilty,” and “all” is a word to be carefully considered before using, I will say that due to O.J. Simpson’s horrific, inexcusable, and deadly behavior, a shadow has been cast on all men in all cases.
The courts no longer believe there is any appropriate expression of anger and, in essence, have outlawed the emotion. We have made it strategically impossible for a person to display anger in any form, whether a mental health professional would label it a “healthy expression” or not, without the line being automatically drawn to an actual act of physical violence.
But the fact is that humans have a full range of emotions. We get happy, we get sad, and yes, we get angry. And while it is absurd to think that our judicial system could legislate our happiness or sadness, it appears to gladly accept the notion that expressing anger in any fashion should have legal consequences.
In states across the country, if one parent is determined to be an “abuser”—and in California that means a raised voice—that person is no longer presumed to be a fit parent. The “victim parent” is now presumed to be a better parent and has an advantage when the court makes final determinations of child custody, visitation, and move-away plans to new cities, states, or countries.
This has created the unintended consequence of the strategic domestic violence restraining order. When one parent wants to take unfair advantage in a divorce or paternity case, all that is needed is the granting of domestic violence restraining order and the court will automatically suspend the other parent’s parental rights—usually for a short period. But to the cut-off parent, that brief time can seem like an eternity.
If the court determines that there are grounds for a permanent order, the cut-off parent may be forced to endure a 52-week batterer’s intervention course. The problem with this is that in the flimsy guidelines of what defines domestic violence these days, almost any fact pattern can be twisted to create “violence.”
For fathers who are required to have a monitor to see their children, which is becoming a more common occurrence as a requirement due to the domestic violence allegations, they may be unable to see their children. The costs of a paid monitor can quickly become prohibitive since the man will also be ordered to pay child support, often spousal support, the cost of the batterer’s intervention or anger management classes, and he has to find his own apartment since he’s been evicted from his home.
Domestic Violence Restraining Orders originally were meant to be a protective measure by the courts. But they have become a fast track process by which unscrupulous parties gain sole legal and sole physical custody of the children.
And, as is typical in “win at all cost” child custody cases, it is often the child that suffers the most. The “victim parent” strategy may yield short-term results for the accusing spouse, but the bad lessons learned by the child may last a lifetime.
Fathers who are truly guilty of domestic violence or child abuse should be viewed as criminals and treated as such. But in our rush to avoid these types of tragedies through a “zero tolerance policy,” we have gone against the most important tenet of the law: Innocent Until Proven Guilty. And the result is that we are creating and perpetuating a new type of abuse—the marginalization of fathers.
JULY 20, 2011 BY DAVID PISARRA
Fathers4Equality would like to encourage you to forward this excellent article to the following paternal-Abuse deniers.
Email: Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au
Email: senator.bob.brown@aph.gov.au
Email: R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
Email: Kate.Ellis.MP@aph.gov.au
—
Discover ways of managing family discipline through authority books and management books
SlutWalks, Slammed for Portraying Women as Sexual Objects
LAST year, more than 9,500 reports of alleged sexual and indecent assaults were made to NSW police by both males and females, but hardly any attention was paid by the media when the figures were released by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Last month’s SlutWalk in Sydney however had everyone talking about sexual violence against women, says the executive officer of the NSW Rape Crisis Centre, Karen Willis.
”All of a sudden we have sexual assault being discussed,” she said. ”And the more we talk and understand the myths and realities; the more we can develop a better response.”
The SlutWalk phenomenon, held across North America and Europe, is now infamous for the theatricality and hyper-sexualised dress code of the participants. These protests began after a Toronto policeman told students that if they wanted to protect themselves against the likelihood of rape, they should ”avoid dressing like sluts”.
Ms Willis said Reclaim the Night marches held in Australia for 30 years were losing their power to focus attention on sexual assault.
These SlutWalks had reminded people that women should be able to dress any way they like, without concern about how it may affect others.
Many critics however, such as Maiy Azize, a Canberra health and social policy analyst, have decried the walks as another example of women ”defining their sexuality on male terms”.
And Gail Dines, the author of Pornland, said recently during a visit to Australia: ”Men want women to be sluts and now they are buying into it.”
Sonja Hastings, writer and columnist on social policy and gender issues, claimed that these Slutwalks were promoting the idea that women’s rights had become a movement obsessed with Rights, but unwilling to accept the responsibilities that come hand-in-hand with these rights.
Hastings claimed that no one in society had the right to dress as they wanted, without responsible reference to social convention and standards. By way of example, Hastings asked how a mother would feel if Kindergarden teachers exerted their right to dress in sexually provocative clothing while at school?
Hastings refers to this as an example because she laments the recent experience of her 7 year old son who was exposed to a young woman in a shopping center with a skirt so high that her g-string and bottom were fully exposed for all to see, including little children.
Hastings said that although it was a most inappropriate sight for a 7 year old child to witness, who she said was visibly traumatised by the experience, as a mother she felt helpless in this situation because the message from women’s groups has made it clear that women’s rights trumps the rights of other more vulnerable members in our community.
“The message of these SlutWalks seems to prioritise the rights of women to dress in sexually provocative clothing, without any concern as to how such exposure affects all those around them”, she said.
Dr PG Stuart, a GP who has treated numerous victims of sexual abuse, including teens and children, has stated that “in a society that is fighting against the sexualisation of children at a younger and younger age, these SlutWalk movements are perceived by most on-lookers as the acceptance of the sexualisation of all females, rather than a genuine protest against sexual abuse.”
Dr Stuart claims that women have been fighting for a generation not to be seen as sexual objects, and now it seems that these SlutWalks have taken the movement back 50 years by re-inforcing a woman’s identity through the prism of sexualisation.
“Women are much more than this,” she claims, “and we do not need to resort to cheap media stunts while dressed as prostitutes in order to make a potent and responsible protest for the protection of the vulnerable in our society against sexual abuse.”
—
Wear uniquely fabricated women’s skirts and cutting edge women dresses for stylish women clothing.
Gillard a turn-off for Men…even before she passes new anti-father family law changes
Julia’s man problems
Julia Gillard has got a serious problem with Australian men. So much so that she is soon about to pass the most malicious anti-male laws this country has ever seen, which will effectively presume that all separated men are Wife Abusers or Child Sexual Predators, that is an effective presumption of Guilt against separated fathers. This bill will rely on the subjective thoughts of the alleged victim to determine guilt or innocence, not on objective or conclusive facts.
So these new laws effectively mean that even if an event did not occur, a separated father will still be judged to be an abuser, because all the alleged victim has to do is say that she is scared…no facts or proof required.
Julia Gillard has even more man problem’s on the horizon, even before this anti-male bill is passed into law. As the popularity of our first female prime minister plummets, government insiders fear men are turning on Ms Gillard for a variety of reasons, some to do with her anti-male feminist background, others to do with her consistent dishonesty in the public arena.
While Opposition leader Tony Abbott fought off a perception that he had a problem with female voters, polling suggests the PM has a much more significant gender battle to wage.
Political analysts say polling shows she is significantly losing the support of male voters compared to women.
Newspoll figures over the course of Ms Gillard’s leadership show the gap between males and females has widened in her satisfaction rating and that of better prime minister.
A Newspoll in August, shortly after Ms Gillard became leader, shows 49 per cent of men thought she would make a better prime minister than Tony Abbott. In the latest Newspoll published last month, the figure dropped to 39 per cent.
Among female voters, 47 per cent of women believe Ms Gillard would make a better prime minister, down from 52 per cent last year.
In contrast, support for Mr Abbott among males and females over the same period remained almost unchanged.
Ms Gillard’s satisfaction rating also had the biggest decline among men – down from 43 per cent last year to 31 per cent among males compared with a fall from 45 per cent to 38 per cent for women.
An analysis of Newspoll results for Kevin Rudd shows support among male and female voters in terms of satisfaction and better prime minister when he was leader dropped almost equally.
Galaxy pollster David Briggs said the figures showed men appeared to be turning off Ms Gillard.
He said the trend was similar to poll results experienced by Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, who was also losing support among men faster than women.
“The results for Gillard paint a similar picture to Anna Bligh, with support for both tending to hold up more strongly among women,” Mr Briggs said.
“Men do appear to be turning off Gillard while women are appearing more willing to give her a go.”
Mr Briggs said the latest Galaxy poll shows support for Ms Bligh had dropped to pre-flood levels, with the biggest loss of support also among men.
A Labor source said it was clear Ms Gillard was being judged more harshly by men.
“Men are definitely tougher on female leaders,” the source said.
“People have said Tony has a problem with women, but the results show Julia does seem to be having a problem with the blokes.
“Unfortunately for Julia, she has been at the centre of a political shit-storm – the whole Rudd stuff – not being able to govern in her own right. It certainly hasn’t been easy for her.”
—
Get a deep knowledge of your entitled human rights through reading rights books.
