|
Not so much the end of equality as the failure of feminism
December 9, 2003
Child care is not a "women's" issue. It is a matter to be dealt with by both parents, writes Babette Francis.
The sisterhood is in strife - well, actually they are not my sisters, but feminists tend to conflate all women into one movement as if we were all of uniform mind and ambition.
Anne Summers' new book The End of Equality (Random House) would have been better titled The Failure of Feminism because realist women have never thought of ourselves as "unequal".
Summers defines equality by the narrow criteria of income and corporate power, and does not acknowledge other kinds of achievements or their value - such as raising happy children and maintaining a life-long relationship.
She also confuses "equality" with identity of function and presupposes that all women have the same internal drives and priorities as men.
However, it is her argument (and that of the feminist movement in general) about child care that is most puzzling. Why do feminists consider child care a "women's" issue? True equality in feminist terms should involve fathers taking equal responsibility for the care of children.
Why aren't feminists negotiating with the fathers of their children (dare I say "husbands"?) about caring for these children instead of dumping them in creches where they will be cared for by strangers with all the associated problems?
Are realist women more successful in persuading their husbands to stay around and share the tasks of child care and financial support?
Summers's linking taxpayer-funded child care to the birthrate won't wash - Sweden and Norway, which had generously funded child care, have lower birthrates than Australia, while the US, which does not fund child care, is a developed country with a replacement level birth rate. Fertility in developed countries is more linked to church attendance: belief in God and that raising a family is a worthwhile vocation.
And both Norway and Sweden have found it is uneconomic (and impossible) to provide the kind of child care that will equate to care provided by loving parents. Both countries are starting to implement policies that will enable a parent to remain out of the paid workforce to care for pre-school children.
Summers seems to despise women who choose "traditional" marriage, but such wives have the same standard of living as their husbands and indeed have more freedom (because they are not constrained by the pressures of being the sole or main wage earner) to pursue other options - such as raising children, full or part-time careers or voluntary work, and sport or hobbies.
These women are not dumb victims of political oppression; rather, they have chosen wisely. At the end of life, no one says: "I wish I had spent more time at the office." Realist mothers may be income poor but they are asset rich in the things that are truly valuable.
Trends in Australia tend to lag a few years behind the US, but data provided by Lisa Belkin in a recent New York Times Magazine article entitled "The Opt-Out Revolution" suggests that many well-qualified and successful career women are opting out of careers in favour of rearing families.
Only 38 per cent of women graduates from Harvard Business School work full-time. Half the Princeton graduates Belkin interviewed left their top-rating jobs, and the numbers of full-time mothers caring for children increased 13 per cent in less than a decade.
Feminists tend to write off successful professional women if they happen to be conservative and/or pro-family (Margaret Thatcher was never a feminist icon). Thus Summers dismisses successful columnists such as Bettina Arndt, Angela Shanahan, Miranda Devine and Janet Albrechtsen; they cannot figure in the feminist pantheon because they are pro-family. Successful career women have to be left-wing to be considered feminist role models.
This is reminiscent of the joke told among conservatives: one feminist says to another, "I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the Pope has agreed to ordain a woman. The bad news is that it will be Phyllis Schlafly."
Cheer up, Anne, it took realists more than 70 years to defeat Marxism - and the malady still lingers on in places like China and Cuba. Gender feminism emerged in the '60s, so you probably have another 30 years to sell your books before realism prevails.
Babette Francis is co-ordinator of the Melbourne-based Endeavour Forum.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/08/1070732140728.html
END
Funeral shock for suicide families
05 March 2004
By SID PICKERING
An unqualified counsellor has been turning up uninvited to the funerals of Hamilton people who have committed suicide, warning other family members could be next to take their lives.
Jack Gielen's New Zealand Suicide Prevention Trust, which operates only in the Waikato, has been labelled "dangerous" and "inappropriate" by other counselling groups and the Youth Development Ministry.
Sharyn Kerr first met Mr Gielen at her 16-year-old son's funeral in December.
After the service, he came back to Ms Kerr's house for the wake where he circulated among family members for two hours.
Mr Gielen did not approach Ms Kerr until he was about to leave. He told her he feared Ms Kerr's elder son might go on to commit suicide.
Ms Kerr told the Waikato Times she was shocked by Mr Gielen's advance.
"You're traumatised anyway. For someone to be saying that might happen is too much."
Mr Gielen later gave Ms Kerr's sister-in-law, Morna Kerr, a training booklet and encouraged her to set up a counselling group in her hometown of Te Awamutu. "I could have been anyone, he didn't do a police check or anything," Morna Kerr said.
The booklet stresses the need for counsellors to go through "cleansing rituals" after speaking with relatives of the bereaved. These include sprinkling yourself with water, symbolically flicking away negative energy, and "lying on your back in the cruciform position, lying in the wounds of Jesus".
Youth Development Ministry suicide prevention national co-ordinator Sue van Daatselaar said the trust's literature was not backed by any research. The trust had misrepresented suicide rates in New Zealand and wrongly blamed the increasing rates of suicide on feminism and political correctness.
The trust has been handing out wallet-sized cards featuring an 0800 number on the front, and a list of organisations on the back. But some of those ???- Hamilton's Rape and Sexual Abuse Healing Centre, Relationship Services, and the Union of Fathers ???- have all asked to be removed from the card.
Suicide Prevention Information New Zealand, an organisation contracted by the Government to provide information about suicide prevention, said the trust's methods were not ethical.
Manager Merryn Stathan said the practice of counsellors attending funerals uninvited was "dangerous" because the counsellor would not know what emotional state the family was in.
The trust was included with a range of other community groups in Waikato District Health Board meetings last year designed to plan suicide prevention strategies.
Project manager Grant O'Brien said it made a valuable contribution to the discussion, despite the fact that the other groups present did not agree with its methods.
"We involved them in that exercise because they are a stakeholder in that area of health. They supposedly meet a need ???- they have a client base, so I suppose people find them useful."
None of the trust's suggestions in the meeting was used in the strategy, but it encouraged the board to consider a more "lateral" approach, Mr O'Brien said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2836607a10,00.html
Media releases
Chief Justice Calls for a New Approach to Tackling Family Violence
Tuesday, 25 November 2003
The Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Alastair Nicholson, today called for a new approach to tackling family violence.
Justice Nicholson told a forum organised by the Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre that family violence is a scourge that permeates all aspects of society.
"At the Family Court we deal with the tragic end of a problem that is impacting on families the length and breadth of the country," he said.
"Family violence, in all its forms, destroys relationships and leaves children distraught and vulnerable.
"For too long it has been tagged with the label of 'domestic violence', something that happens within families and is none of our business.
"But it is our business when 60 per cent of couples site family violence as a contributing factor in the break down of their marriages and 30 per cent describe it as a major reason why their relationship ended.
"The emotional and physical impact of family violence on the people involved is immeasurable as are the cost implications for our health, law enforcement and welfare services".
Justice Nicholson said that only by a total new approach to the issue could it be tackled properly.
"A survey of three Edinburgh based schools in Scotland by the Zero Tolerance Campaign revealed that 60 per cent of 12 year old boys thought it was okay to hit your wife if she 'deserved it'.
"Similar attitudes prevail in Australia and if we don't get the message through to our children, at an early age, that family violence in all its manifestations is wrong and unacceptable, it will continue with every new generation".
Justice Nicholson said that a Steering Committee of the Family Court had spent the past 18 months reviewing its Family Violence policy.
"It was clearly time to revisit the court's current policy which I initiated in 1992," he said.
"As a result of a wide ranging consultation with clients, service providers, community organisations, government bodies and Court staff we have a list of recommendations which I believe will improve the ways in which the Court deals with family violence issues".
Justice Nicholson said that a final report would be available for public scrutiny next March. He said that as the Court could not make recommendations for legislative amendments any proposals related to law reform would be referred to the Family Violence Committee of the Family Law Council for consideration.
An internal committee would consider recommendations in the New Year on family violence issues; more focussed family reports and the safety of Family Court buildings.
He said that the Steering Committee has identified and made recommendations in five key areas: information dissemination; security; management of the resolution phase of court proceedings; management of the determination phase of court proceedings; and training.
Justice Nicholson said that the report would include a broader definition of family violence than that contained in legislation and defined it as:
'A broad range of controlling behaviours, commonly of a physical, sexual and/pr psychological nature which typically involve, fear, harm, intimidation and emotional deprivation. It occurs within a variety of close interpersonal relationships such as between spouses, partners, parents and children, siblings and in other relationships where significant others are not part of the physical household but are part of the family and/or fulfilling the function of family'
Common forms of violence in families include:
Spouse/partner abuse (violence among adult partners); child abuse/neglect (abuse/neglect of children by an adult)
Parental abuse (violence perpetrated by a child against their parent); and
Sibling abuse (violence among siblings).
"Family violence knows no boundaries and is to be found in every community. The Court needs to be sensitive and responsive to the needs of clients from culturally diverse backgrounds, and those with disabilities, who face particular barriers to understanding how to access services".
Justice Nicholson stressed that it was crucial to have ongoing monitoring and evaluation of how the Court handled family violence.
"One of the things we can do is try to protect the physical safety of those who attend court. We also need to ensure that court staff take responsibility for informing clients about services outside the court that can provide for their ongoing protection".
"The Family Court cannot handle this issue on its own. It is essential that we form effective working partnerships with organisations such as the Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre, that work in these areas," he added.
Further information for the media from:
Susan Gavaghan, Media Manager, Family Court of Australia
Tel: (03) 8600 4362, Mobile: 0438 285 741
Email: susan.gavaghan@familyCourt.gov.au
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/media/html/fv.html
END
Source unknown
17 March 2004
Dads advised to sack their legal teams
Men and women entangled in family law cases were advised to sack their lawyers this week.
Dozens of men and women attended Monday's first local meeting of radical civil rights group Fathers-4-Justice (F4J) in Newbury. The group campaigns for reform of family law.
Mothers and grandmothers joined men at the meeting, angry at the obstacles they face in seeing their children or grandchildren after divorce or separation.
But members and guests were advised to avoid using solicitors.
Co-ordinator Mike Ellis said: "Barristers and solicitors see each other every day, they see the same judge and they won't want to cause offence to that judge because they may want to be promoted to an area judge.
"It's a real game to them. There are real advantages in not having a solicitor. You don't play the game, you put them on the back foot."
The group offers McKenzie Friends - F4J colleagues who can help and advise in court hearings - to replace solicitors.
Phil Osgood from F4J in Hampshire, a veteran of 81 court hearings in his own case, told the meeting he was now taking his local social services department to court.
Those present were urged to take part in protests outside the offices of their local CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) on April 1, the service's third birthday. CAFCASS has had a controversial existence since setting up and has prompted numerous complaints.
The meeting heard that both militant and non militant members were welcome to be part of F4J and high profile stunts were to be planned.
Friday, March 12, 2004
Joint custody drive kicks off
Dads of Michigan seek law mandating divorced couples must share kids
By Kim Kozlowski / The Detroit News
Fathers would no longer spend thousands of dollars and hours in court fighting for joint custody of their children under a proposed ballot initiative being launched today by Dads of Michigan, a local fathers rights group.
The group is beginning a petition drive, which needs 254,206 signatures by May 26 for the measure to appear on the November ballot, to amend Michigan???s custody law so there is a presumption of joint physical and legal custody of divorcing couples, unless one party is declared unfit.
Family court judges decide custody issues, and fathers have long pointed to statistics that they say shows the system is biased and nearly always favors the mother in custody decisions.
???Right now, the paradigm is one parent is better than the other and will have custody of the children while the other parent should be the every-other-weekend kind of parent,??? said James Semerad, chairman of the Dads of Michigan Political Action Committee based in Bloomfield Hills.
Called Children Need Both Parents, the initiative follows two similar but unsuccessful legislative attempts in the mid-1990s and 2002 and a petition drive in 2000 that failed because the 10 people who collected signatures failed to get enough.
This time, Semerad said, there are more than 1,000 people collecting signatures, and many will be outside local post offices Saturday and other days until enough support is collected.
Gary McDonald, a Dearborn Heights father who recently fought for nine months and spent $11,000 to get joint custody of his 2-year-old son, Justin, hopes to see the measure on the ballot and written into law.
???The love from a father is no different from what a mother would have,??? said McDonald, 44. ???They are equal to begin with.???
You can reach Kim Kozlowski at (313) 222-2024 or kkozlowski@detnews.com.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0403/12/d06-89688.htm
END
Open Justice Is Fair Says NZ First
Wednesday, 17 March 2004, 10:24 am
Press Release: New Zealand First Party
Open Justice Is Fair Says NZ First
New Zealand First supports the recommendation of the Law Commission that accredited news media representatives should be permitted to attend Family Court proceedings.
???We also support its recommendation that in cases involving children of domestic violence, the media reporting of proceedings should be permitted, but details, without identifying those involved in the proceedings, must not be published unless the leave of the court is obtained,??? said courts spokesperson Dail Jones.
???Whether this actually goes far enough remains to be seen and this matter will have to be considered by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee when considering the Care of Children Bill.
???The publication of a defendant???s name in criminal cases is important because it is extremely helpful in obtaining evidence either in favour of or against the defendant.
???Open justice should mean what it says, and people who put themselves before the courts, which are essentially the courts of the people, should be prepared to be scrutinised by the people,??? said Mr Jones.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00356.htm
END
NZ News
Editorial: Commission too keen on secrecy
18.03.2004
Justice, it is said, should be open. If a court chooses to conceal matters from the public gaze, that should be the exception, not the rule. The precept, unfortunately, has too often been ignored in this country. A penchant for secrecy is no better illustrated than in the almost willy-nilly granting of name suppression. A Law Commission report seeking to remedy the court system's failings should have had a remedy for this propensity high on its list of recommendations. Astoundingly, however, that report, "Delivering Justice for All", seeks to perpetuate and extend it.
In the first instance, the Law Commission wants name suppression automatically extended to all victims. They would give evidence in court from behind a screen to protect their identity. In some cases, most obviously those involving sexual abuse, there is a clear need for such protection. But in the vast majority, it is unwarranted. Indeed, to recommend it is to suggest the court system somehow vilifies victims. Clearly, that is not so.
Worse still, the commission wants automatic name suppression for alleged offenders until their case is heard. The justice system, however, is predicated on a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is understood by all, and is a sufficient safeguard. The commission's proposal could not, in fact, be applied fairly. It wants suppression to apply once a person has been charged, thereby allowing police to alert the public to the identity of a person suspected of a crime. That person would, of course, be denied the anonymity granted to other alleged offenders.
Consistency is, indeed, not the report's strong point. Commendably, if somewhat perversely, it also recommends that the Family Court and the Youth Court operate more openly. It suggests the media should be able to attend both, and should be free to report proceedings, as long as identifying details in all cases involving children or domestic violence are not published.
Perceptively, the report notes that restrictions on reporting have led to accusations of secrecy, particularly against the "intimate and emotionally charged" Family Court. Fathers' groups have long accused judges in that court of bias in child custody cases. The lack of a media presence has meant, in sum, that the judges have never been subjected to public scrutiny, or accountability.
The Law Commission's most throughgoing proposal involves a radical reshaping of the court structure. A new community court would hear most criminal offences as one of nine primary courts replacing the district court, which would no longer exist. There is no doubt that the district court's caseload is far greater than envisaged when it was set up in 1980. It, and the overall system, operate slowly and inefficiently - at times like cattleyards, as one public submission put it.
The commission's solution, however, is not fully appropriate. A system incorporating nine primary courts would be ponderous, and expensive to establish and operate. Already, it has caused the Minister of Justice to blanch, and talk of a better cost-benefit analysis.
A more appropriate structure would see the primary courts split into three divisions - civil, criminal and family. The likes of the Employment Court and the Environment Court would be part of the civil division, and the Youth Court would be in the family division, except where recidivist criminal offending was involved. This structure has the cardinal advantage of being less expensive - and would, therefore, stand a greater chance of being adopted by the Government.
Many Law Commission reports have gathered nothing more than dust on ministerial bookshelves. The recommendations in this offering that would cultivate a closed justice system invite just that fate. Nonetheless, it is clear the system is riddled with operational shortcomings. And that a Government response must not be long in coming.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3555315&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
END
Celebrating Families 18 March 2004
Judith Collins 18 March 2004
National Party Family Spokesperson
How much does the break-up of the family cost us? Recently I spoke to a group of men who had experienced what for them was the tragedy of a family break-up. Many were no longer working because the financial and emotional cost had become too much for them. One gave me a depressing insight into the situation on the estranged father: ???They give up because they are emotionally thrashed. They give most of what they have financially to their lawyer, they have no home after years of working.??? In economic and social terms, what costs do divorce, separation from children, and custody disputes have upon the country? This same person believed that equal shared custody of children as an automatic starting point would allow both parents to rebuild their emotional, financial and working lives. Many men who have been through the Family Court believe they are disadvantaged because they are men, and the court is more likely to award custody to mothers.
Is it the view of most divorced men that their ex-wives are at an advantage because they have access to the Domestic Purposes Benefit and legal aid? By the same token surely we should be putting much more emphasis on keeping families together whenever this is realistic and best for the children. Family break-ups are a sad reality for many. Let???s not turn them into tragedies for our children, or for Mum, Dad and grandparents.
The Law Commission has this week produced a comprehensive report on the Court structure and made many wide-ranging suggestions for change. Those relating to the Family Court go some way to addressing the need to open the Court but I suggest, they do not go quite far enough.
Even if all the recommendations are accepted, it would still not help a Mum and Dad who waited more than 3 years for a custody hearing ??? too late to get back their little child. It would still not help people to speak out about their own cases and identify counsel, counsel for the child, social workers, psychologists or judges who they believed had not acted competently.
Clearly, no one in their right mind would want distressed children paraded through the news media. What must happen though, is that incompetent or under resourced professionals and government departments should not be able to hide behind the shield of anonymity.
Good news for those concerned about the social engineering that has taken place since the 1970???s. The Women???s Electoral Lobby has announced that after 27 years it is to disband. Set up in 1975, it now acknowledges that it is past its use-by date. As a relict of a sexist past, it should soon be joined by the Ministry of Women???s Affairs ??? an institution which persists in portraying women as victims.
END
Dominion Post
March 18, 2004
Dads need fair go - judge
by Leah Haines
The retiring head of the Family Court has called for law changes to make life fairer for fathers blocked from seeing their children following allegations of domestic violence.
Judge Patrick Mahony told MPs yesterday that life would be easier for families if the system of granting ex parte domestic violence orders which are granted without one party, usually the father, knowing was time limited and reviewed.
"There would be a lot less heartbreak," he told a select committee looking into the proposed Care of Children Bill.
At the moment temporary orders can become final after a certain time and can then last forever, blocking the parent, usually the father, from gaining custody.
But it would be better if final orders were reviewed after six months so families had a chance to heal, Judge Mahony said. Usually such orders resulted from intensely emotional relationship breakups.
Judge Mahony also recommended that the committee grant the Family Court power to order Child, Youth and Family Services not to place children back into situations in which they are in danger.
At the moment, the court had no power to attach conditions to a custody order in favour of the department, he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END
Law Commission Proposal Doesn't Go Far Enough
Tuesday, 16 March 2004, 3:09 pm
Press Release: ACT New Zealand
Law Commission Proposal Doesn't Go Far Enough
Tuesday 16 Mar 2004 Dr Muriel Newman Press Releases -- Social Welfare
While ACT New Zealand Social Welfare Spokesman Dr Muriel Newman today welcomed the Law Commission's proposal to allow the media access to the Family Court, she warned that it did not go far enough - being just the first step toward opening up the secret Family Court.
"`Delivering Justice for All' recommends that the Family Court remain closed to the general public, but that judges be given the discretion to allow accredited media to attend and report on court proceedings," Dr Newman said.
"It is important to remember, however, that these are just recommendations - there is no guarantee that the Labour Government will adopt these proposals. Even if it did, there is still much to do to ensure that the Family Court is made properly open and transparent.
"The Family Court is the only court in New Zealand that operates behind closed doors. Opening up the Court would allow proper public scrutiny of the Court's proceedings and issues that arise.
"I am calling on the Government to heed the Law Commission recommendation and take the first step as proposed. But I also urge Labour not to prevaricate on the next step. It must properly open up the Family Court where appropriate to the public and the media - like our Youth Court - to ensure that finally we have open justice in New Zealand," Dr Newman said.
ENDS
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|