"anonymum" <anonymums@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1a2fc77b-22f1-47fa-a688-675a53660802@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 9, 4:34 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23403622-910,00.html
>
> > FIVE Australian men commit suicide each day
> > compared with just one woman,
> > according to an academic who says the
> > nation urgently needs a national men's
> > health policy.
>
> > The single major cause of male suicide is
> > the Australian Family Law system,
> > that's common knowledge among divorced men.
> > There are over 400 individual
> > services provided by various levels of
> > government solely for women, from
> > safe shelters for victims of domestic abuse
> > through to free breast cancer
> > screening. Services solely for men... ZERO.
> > No counselling, no health
> > services, nothing.
> > "There's a lot of evidence that that
> > impacts on the stress on your immune
> > system, makes you more vulnerable to not
> > just mental but physical diseases,"
> > he said.
>
> > Let's see, every man is either a child
> > molester, wife beater or a bastard.
> > The labels that are constantly placed on
> > men has been damaging for years.
> > Not surprising that so many take their own
> > lives. Furthermore, the new
> > financial stresses placed on men and
> > families will result in more suicides.
>
> > Child Sup****t is hounding me for over $900
> > a month and I have my kids 50% of
> > the time. I am about to lose my house
> > because of them. I feel like selling
> > up, leaving my job and dissapearing.. It is
> > all getting too hard.. The X has
> > 4 kids with 3 different men and seems to
> > get Rewarded for it... It sucks...
>
> > feminism, feminism, feminism, the downfall
> > of our society, discrimination
> > agaist men is something that society
> > silences.
>
> There are dads in australia that pay $40 per month and still argue
> that its too much.
If they have child 50% of the time with them, why they should pay?
According to ATO, my income for last year was 11,000, my ex income was
70,000, my daughter according to CSA spent 143 days/nights at my home and
I
have order to pay to my ex about $30.
Why?
To denigrate father's role in the family and send fathers to suicide
(probably).
Today, feminist operatives employ similar strategies to encourage divorce
worldwide, often inserting it unnoticed and unopposed into programs for
"human rights," and unilateral divorce is now one of the first measures
implemented by leftist governments. When Spain's socialists came to power
last year, their three domestic priorities were legalized abortion,
same-***
marriage, and liberalized divorce. Iranian feminist Emadeddin Baghi writes
in the Wa****ngton Post that "a 20 percent increase in the divorce rate
is.a
sign that traditional marriage is changing as women gain equality." And
Turkey was required to withdraw a proposal to penalize adultery to gain
acceptance in the European Union, while divorce liberalization counted in
their favor.
The High Cost of Divorce
The damage done by family breakdown -- especially to children -- is now so
well known that it hardly needs laboring. Children of divorced parents
suffer far more emotional and behavioral problems than do children from
intact families. They are more likely to attempt suicide and to suffer
poor
health. They perform more poorly in school and are more inclined to become
involved with drugs, alcohol, gangs, and crime. These problems continue
into
adulthood, when children of divorce have more trouble forming and keeping
stable relation****ps of their own.
While lamenting the high divorce rate is conventional piety among family
advocates, most have refused to challenge the divorce laws. The standard
rationalization is that to control divorce we must first change the
culture.
But no one suggests that changing the culture is a prerequisite for
preventing, say, abortion. While cultural forces certainly contribute, the
divorce epidemic has proceeded directly from a legal system which permits
and even encourages it.
No-fault divorce laws were introduced in the United States and other
industrialized countries during the 1970s and are being expanded into
other
regions of the world today. "No-fault" is a misnomer (taken from car
insurance), for the new laws did not stop at removing the requirement that
grounds be cited for a divorce. But they did create unilateral and
involuntary divorce, so that one spouse may end a marriage without any
agreement or fault by the other. Moreover, the spouse who divorces or
otherwise abrogates the marriage contract incurs no liability for the
costs
or consequences, creating a unique and unprecedented legal anomaly. "In
all
other areas of contract law those who break a contract are expected to
compensate their partner," writes Robert Whelan of London's Institute of
Economic Affairs, "but under a system of 'no fault' divorce, this
essential
element of contract law is abrogated."
In fact, the legal implications go further, since the courts actively
assist
the violator. Attorney Steven Varnis points out that "the law generally
sup****ts the spouse seeking the divorce, even if that spouse was the
wrongdoer." "No-fault" did not really remove fault, therefore; it simply
allowed judges to redefine it however they pleased. It introduced the
novel
concept that one could be deemed guilty of violating an agreement that one
had, in fact, not violated. "According to therapeutic precepts, the fault
for marital breakup must be shared, even when one spouse unilaterally
seeks
a divorce," observes Barbara Whitehead in The Divorce Culture. "Many
husbands and wives who did not seek or want divorce were stunned to
learn.that they were equally 'at fault' in the dissolution of their
marriages."
The "fault" that was ostensibly thrown out the front door of divorce
proceedings re-entered through the back, but now with no precise
definition.
The judiciary was expanded from its traditional role of puni****ng crime or
tort to puni****ng personal imperfections and private differences: One
could
now be summoned to court without having committed any infraction; the
verdict was pre-determined; and one could be found "guilty" of things that
were not illegal. Lawmakers created an "automatic outcome," writes Judy
Parejko, author of Stolen Vows. "A defendant is automatically found
'guilty'
of irreconcilable differences and is not allowed a defense."
Though marriage ostensibly falls under civil law, the logic quickly
extended
into the criminal. The "automatic outcome" expanded into what effectively
became a presumption of guilt against the involuntarily divorced spouse
(the
defendant). Yet the due process protections of formal criminal proceedings
did not apply, so involuntary divorcees could become criminals without any
action on their part and in ways they were powerless to avoid. In some
jurisdictions, a divorce defendant is the only party in the courtroom
without legal immunity.
Contrary to the assumptions of "change the culture" thinking, these laws
were not enacted in response to public demand: No popular clamor to
dispense
with divorce restrictions preceded their passage; no public outrage at any
perceived injustice provided the impetus; no public debate was ever held
in
the media. Legislators "were not responding to widespread public pressure
but rather acceding to the well-orchestrated lobbying of a few activists,"
writes Christensen. "Eclipsed in the media.by other issues -- such as
civil
rights, Vietnam, Watergate, and abortion" -- the new laws rapidly swept
the
nation "with little publicity and no mass sup****t."
In retrospect, these laws can be seen as one of the boldest social
experiments in history. The result effectively abolished marriage as a
legal
contract. As a result, it's no longer possible to form a binding agreement
to create a family.
Though the changes were passed largely by and for the legal business, the
ideological engine that has never been properly appreciated was organized
feminism. Not generally perceived as a gender battle -- and never one they
wished to advertise -- divorce became the most devastating weapon in the
arsenal of feminism, because it creates millions of gender battles on the
most personal level. Germaine Greer openly celebrates divorce as the
foremost indicator of feminist triumph: "Exactly the thing that people
tear
their hair out about is exactly the thing I am very proud of," she tells
the
Australian newspaper.
|
