here's is one of the videos I made with members of the police force who are unhappy about having to enforce unjust domestic violence laws. th-cam.com/video/wzs-lFuNluw/w-d-xo.html
The cops are partly to blame for not having enough guts to push back, shame on them all with very few exceptions, they have a union and could go on strike until men were treated better.
@@kenlydon1395 cops on the st just enforce laws. The NZ police association is the only body that can lobby the commissioner, minister or Govt. Admittedly things were different in the 90's when I was in.
Thanks for giving a platform to this courageous woman. There is no more dangerous action than to speak up for men and boys in western society. That just demonstrates how extreme the reach of feminist ideology has been for some time now.
Very refreshing to hear a woman from that generation who realises what this rampant feminism has done to boys and men. Most of us are so disillusioned with this society of 'affirmative action' and 'empowering women', it has become a constant attack on our identity from a very young age.
Thank you John. Bettina is a great advocate. What was done to Bettina Arndt in the Australian senate in early 2020, with the willing assistance and participation of every sitting Coalition senator, the only two senators who refused to support the censure motion was Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts, was a stain on our democracy and an act that I'll never ever forgiven the Coalition for.
Good point and if I remember Senator Amanda Stoker { Liberal} also failed to support Bettina, she had previously sided with what Bettina was saying. The Coalition is no better than Labor in defending men and what Bettina says here about the massive amount of Tax money given to the feminist "industry" was done mostly under a Coalition govt. There seems to be no hope what with a strong Labor victory and today we hear that PM Dutton has put 10 women in the shadow ministry, rest assured if the Libs get back into power men's issues and unfair treatment will be sidelined again, as usual.
The phrase “Happy wife, happy life” is the epitome of coercive control. This, in essence, says do what I say and and I’ll do what I want and you MUST NOT stand in her way.
Woman here: I totally agree. I cringe when I hear this. And similar things on dating aps - woman saying that they want to find someone who will treat them like “a queen”. How bout just an equal, or a human? When did women get this idea that we’re soooo special and entitled to expect this kind of treatment?
Excellent interview and thanks to John for going where others fear to tread. The statistical info provided in the interview is something the public rarely, if ever, get a chance to hear.
If a person has seriously and deliberately lied in court against the accused then the liar should face charges immediately of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Great timing to have such a chat. With the proposed descruction of gender (and especially men) this discussion is VERY much needed. We NEED men to stand up, to be taught how to be men and how to love, live and lead as men.
If men do that they're called misogynists. To be honest, as a man and having seen the constant anti man propaganda over the last 10 years or so, I couldn't care less any more. I'll just live me life on my own, and all women are invisible to me.
Thank you for your work Mr Anderson. What this incisive interview has shown is the paucity of analysis & open conversation regarding the dangerous propagandist distortions surrounding domestic violence. Well done Bettina for your fearless ongoing work.
What a great insight. Thankyou so much Bettina for your work in this area. I will be reading some of these reports and your blogs and sharing them with others.
*This lady is a hero.* Recommended video for women to watch: Fresh and Fit Clips. 160,000 Divorced Men Have Deleted Themselves Since 2002. On you tube.
Again, Thank you Bettina. Thank you John for your interview of Bettina. John, What did you do or think when you received letters about the Dreadful Family Court when you were an MP? In Federal Cabinet>
Came to watch Bettina and have now stayed and subscribed to your channel John. Thank you very much for giving her a chance to speak to a wider audience.
Woman here: I’m so glad to hear Bettinas’s voice. These are all the things I’ve been thinking for years but can’t speak about because I’d be accused of thought crime.
We need more women like you Ms Bettina, the cruel and inhumane treatment men are subjected to is just as horrific as the abuse women endure. Men's abuse is different, not less severe, but not many people care enough to study what men go through. No matter how the picture is painted the numbers don't lie, death, suicide and homeless rates are higher among men for a reason, and it's not because they're more abusive.
Thank you Bettina & John for raising this issue. This wasn't too much of an issue when I grew up as young lad in the 70's. But I really feel for the younger boys and young blokes these days. Thanks for raising awareness of the distorted view on domestic violence and how radical femenism has had an impact on young males growing up.
I think the next generation of women can forget about marriage, at least on a more or lest equal basis. I think more Men Will Go Their Own way because life will be very much less complicated. I have voted Labour most of my life but will no longer vote for people who overtly hate white males. On a positive note I suggest young guys start their own businesses. They will not then be subject to kangaroo courts by employers.
@@chriswatson1698 I'll ignore the fact that you missed the entire section of the podcast about 'dehumanising women' by assuming they lack agency and are only products of violence and never perpetrators. Women would frequently throw things, yell, scream, make threats, seemingly unagitated, they would walk into the apartmet complex and start screaming at people, I assumed they were on drugs and never spoke to any of them. The refugee was once a female and male cohort but they seperated the women and men into different locations, assumably due to the same problems previously. Women from the outside who were visitors world never engaged in the same behaviour, it was the local women who would find an unsuspecting victim and start a fight with him, the men never had anything to say, some mentioned to eachother to get restraining orders or call the police but no body cared enough or took it seriously enough to escalated the problem. The women were extremely unstable and had no interest in the men, none of them ever dated or even visited on a regular schedule, they would just arrive to bully, harrass and abuse men.
@@jakewalklate6226 Every fight? Or just every fight you witnessed? Because there's a difference. I mean, your generalization, in the final analysis, don't mean a lot.
My stepson is going through such a tough time now after being subjected to domestic violence and coercive control for 10+ years. Now withdrawing his one year old son from him. His wife has a double black belt in Tai Kwan Do. The police believe her without question He is a quite mannered sweet man. We need change.
Bettina mentioned that our best source of data on domestic violence statistics is the ABS Personal Safety Survey but this survey has all the indications of being deliberately manipulated to artificially exaggerate the number of violent incident statistics. Firstly, the head of the ABS is invariably a Male Champion of Change which is always a sure indicator. Secondly, the sample group is always manipulated to interview 3 times more women than men even when the survey doesn't achieve the required number of interviews the sample group is manipulated to keep the same proportion. Finally, all of the people who conduct the interviews are women and the only way that an interviewee can be interviewed by a man is if they specifically request it out of the blue. Needless to say this almost never happens. So the end figure of the ABS Personal Safety Survey, given it is our best data source, is highly dubious and should be taken with a tablespoon of salt.
As a male in his 30s, I've already given up on trying to solve this issue or even advocate against feminism. I've already accepted that men will suffer even more in the next decades. While I haven't given up on female partners entirely, I've already got my vasec and I'm not marrying or having kids. I want no part in this joke of a world and society that the current generation is building. I just wish that all those toxic women find their counter part, the worst kind of men there's, which will turn all their nightmares into reality. That's all their deserve in this life.
Today it takes courage and conviction to defend the deliberately marginalised. Universities have so much to answer for, and there are too many female teachers in schools. A healthy equilibrium is desperately needed.
I listened to ABC for a short while a couple of years ago and instantly detected its leftist bias. I quit tuning in, as I did with CNN some decades ago. Brava, Bettina! Keep fighting the good fight. May you find many adherents who will similarly share the facts. 🤗
Thank you for your righteous work Bettina. Evil wins when good people do nothing. Your persecution will always result in blessings. So history has treated the righteous. We need to end the influence of manic feminism destroying our Married Couple culture, our Good men culture and our ideal of happy families led by a loving couple. Society is currently invaded by the insidious liars and communistic lobby groups.
Most likely based on the consumer base.Women are 70 - 80% of the consumers base. But the issue is, in order to consume that much you need the labour class to build the foundation. The problem with that is the labour class is leaving.
But 70% of the income is generated by men, only 30% by women. Yes women may spend 70% of consumer s poending, or more. We hear about the wage gap but never these spending gap!.
A real heroine. Compare her voice with Yossi Gurvitz and RFK ... Witnesses standing up against outrageous, continuous lies often suffer on their vocal cords. A sign of sincerity.
Men and women were made to work together. Nothing is perfectly 50/50, but we need to try our best to support and love each other in life. Feminism has sought to pin men and women against each other and destroy the family. Look at us, more unhappy than ever.
@@bettinaarndt3713 yes I was so encouraged there was another person from a different part of the world speaking this same view of the attack on men. Praying for you both❤️
Wonder what she thought of the interview with Amber Herds attorney lol the disconnect from reality and avoidance of answering the questions was astounding in that interview
The court case was fascinating but also the predictable spin from most of mainstream media following the verdict who are determined to cling to the Believe all Women narrative.
@@bettinaarndt3713 thanks for the response! I didn't really watch it but several attorney's I follow on YT streamed the whole thing and mentioned the unifying factor across political isles and have covered the gasligting of mainstream medias response. The main stream media spin is disappointing and does nothing but gaslight everyone. I'm hoping both sides can/ will use this as a means to communicate further with each other and realize what mainstream media is doing to us.
It's often the very best citizens or researchers who are condemned by name by their governments. What business does a government have condemning anything? That's for the people. Even judges have no legitimate basis to do it.
Growing up in society in the 90s before this was out in the open and being called out widespread- I personally cannot forgive the extreme bias I experienced in all levels - career, personal life, and family. Of course there won’t be a need to forgive since this will continue right up until all of the disenfranchised and loser young men burn down the village to feel it’s warmth. This is Feminisms fault, make no mistake.
Take a well earned rest battina, enjoy the rest off your, to battle now is tuff, everything is instant rebuttal due to social media, you deserve some peace, from your biggest fan
The family violence data is interesting, and I'm glad Bettina presents a balanced view. Despite the dystopian overtones, I wonder if society is at a stage where measures need to be applied to parenting? Adulthood arrives sooner than ever, but takes longer to achieve, based on the mismatch between neurodevelopment and societal complexity. It's now understood that trauma has intergenerational impacts, that "hurt people hurt people", etc. Measures could be controls on having babies (the most dystopian), or at least some form of mandatory therapy and education for expecting parents. Healing parents, as well as educating them about parenting, child development, etc., benefits the recipient (the parent) and any children and people who interacted with healthier children (who ideally become healthier adults), in growing concentric rings of indirect impact. On the education issue, I see it as a symptom of increasing societal feminisation. More and more women as teachers, and fewer men, means that girls are innately understood more easily than boys are. It creates an orthodoxy around a "feminine" way of learning, and implicitly (or explicitly) sees boy behaviour, boy learning styles, etc. as aberrant. The pathologisation of masculinity is a broader issue, including commercial/industrial interests, but largely is the phalanx of societal feminisation. This pathologisation of boys becomes not just an incidental implementation by any individual female teacher, but becomes formalised and incorporated into the system itself. Arriving here means already having disregarded the neurodevelopmental differences (ie, different timing of critical periods for development) between boys and girls that place boys behind their female age peers by default. Then there's labelling theory suggesting that, if boys are deemed to be inferior students to girls, they may internalise it, they may look for covert prestige among boy peers by acting out in other ways, a myriad of consequences perpetuating and exacerbating their educational disadvantages. This has to be made even worse by the modern cheerleading that happens for female students, encouraging them and praising them, no matter what, while the boys hear crickets or are punished for ingrained biological impulses and imperatives. If people stop accepting a "zero sum" view of gender politics, we see that: 1) Taking something from one party usually helps nobody, especially if it is just to take that party/group down a peg. 2) The rising tide lifts all boats. Helping boys helps women. And it doesn't weaken any case for female disadvantage to acknowledge where male disadvantages also exist. 3) The petty self-interested fights among advocacy groups is not in the interest of anyone but those people making names, careers and dollars from "fighting" rather than "cooperating" in the interest of the greater good.
What an important ans necessary discussion. Another example of activists shutting down important discussions for financial gain or false moral posturing. Another example of weak governments and toxic media! Shame we can't discuss the actual facts and statistics and try to work to reduce familial violence in all forms, surely that is the most important thing? Clearly not to those making a fortune from this narrative.
An awesome rant, but only about what is wrong, not how to fix it. I suggest that the primary cause lies in flawed unequal family law. I suggest that family law be changed. Parental custody of children is actually a very simple matter to solve given the true desire of “What is best for the child”. We need to separate and discard marriage from family law as they no longer seem to be connected. We can develop protocols that confer (over time) equal parental rights and responsibilities,…..once parentage is proven. Children’s natural maturation process has 3 essential stages of need. A.The unconditional love of the mother from birth until about 7 years of age. The mother to have “thefinalsay” and to receive child allowance. B.The conditional love of the father, who takes his children out into the world, gives security and teaches social boundaries from 7 until about 13 years of age. This will allow the father to do his "thing" at all stages.The father to have “thefinalsay” and to receive child allowance. C.The friendship and respect of peers from 13 until 18 years of age. The child to have “thefinalsay”. If these 3 stages are not gone through in order, maturation is unlikely to be satisfactorily achieved and mental resilience reduced. This has now become generational. Such a regime of equal parenting rights (over time) would bind parents into a co-operative relationship, because (over time) each will hold the power of “thefinalsay” sequentially when they are best favoured to use it. Such family protocols would be the default position, (allowing love, courtesy and humour to prevail) but could in exceptional cases be varied by the court. Buckminster Fuller said:- “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete”. To alleviate suffering is worthy. To prevent it is divine, but thankless.
I'm grateful that you put your ideas out there. I disagree with several of the points, but support your general stance. I'd be curious to know what model of child development posits those stages? I see developmental stages in even small increments, including early on where children benefit from fathers most as the left hemisphere comes online, from 18-24 months. It's interesting how, in this period of "terrible twos", fathers seem able to implement boundaries without taking abreactions from children as a personal slight on their fathering ability or role, and I don't think that's as true of mothers. I think it represents a concreteness in how men need to operate in the world, and something that needs to be passed on to offspring. So in earlier infancy, in the period of bonding and right brain dominance, mothering is supreme. Once the child starts interacting with the world, fathering becomes a more important influence than it had been prior to that. And ideally, a child is receiving maternal nurturing and paternal boundaries. I absolutely agree that establishing paternity should be mandatory for any imposition of financial burden on a purported father (except for legal adoption, of course). For better or worse, this alone might keep marriages together, if there's any doubt whatsoever in the mother's mind/history. And to have a system where a father who has been duped about a child who is not his should remain obligated to that child, simply because he had previously accepted a responsibility based on deception is abhorrent. As far as family law ideas, mine are as follows; 1) Each parent should have a 50% stake by default. That's both an expectation of custody and a responsibility for the financial burden of that custody. If 50% custody is achieved in the wake of a separation, then each parent simply bears his/her own. 2) If a parent is unable or unwilling to accept their full 50%, then they must incur additional financial burden to compensate the other parent for pulling more parental weight. 3) If a parent fights for more than 50%, then they do so accepting the additional financial burden that comes with it. A parent seeking more custody should be doing it for the desire for / in the interest of the child, not the financial advantage to be obtained. Removing financial incentives might reduce some of the attempts to seek custody as a way to punish an ex. 4) It should be made clear that having been in a relationship with a person does not entitle an ex to any particular standard of living after the separation, nor is a child entitled to have (full-time) the higher standard of living from whichever parent can afford it. If a child has a rich parent and a poor parent, and a rich life with one and a poor life with the other, there is nothing wrong with this. And there /is/ something wrong with expecting a parent to subsidise the lifestyle of a child when not in his/her custody, let alone subsidise the ex who is along for the ride. This can happen incidentally, if one parent chooses and pays for a school, that crosses custody lines, but reason should prevail. 5) Child support amounts should be standardised, not scaling with a parent's financial position. It should be stated that it costs $x to raise a child full-time, and that becomes the figure from which child support is allocated. (I would say index it against minimum wage, or maybe on welfare payment amounts, but I have a whole separate philosophy around that.) Any parent with or without custody may elect to contribute more in money or goods or other, but from a legal standpoint, there is simply a minimum burden to be met. We can see that state contributions made to foster parents is standardised, and it would cost the state a certain amount of money to raise a child who had no parents, and mothers on welfare get a set amount that is different to a single woman on welfare, so it's not without precedent, it's just not in the interest of mothers who want more money from higher earning fathers.
You make some interesting points. I now add a revised copy below that answers some of them, but the generality of what I suggest will (generally) take the relationship between parents out of the hands of the marriage/divorce court (except in extremis) and which are replaced by a set of protocols. Families would be better patrolled without marriage laws and lawyers. We need a Universal family pre-nup system. The acid test in any family should be the question "Who has the final say" within a set of pre-determined protocols over time. Even the child at 12 yrs of age gets it. Family/marriage laws divide and are good for lawyers. Standard pre-determined family protocols are not. A PROTOCOL BASIS FOR FAMILY LAW TO REPLACE MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COURTS. “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete”………………………………………Buckminster Fuller Current Family Law is the cause of western society’s problems and needs changing. Parental custody, care and control of children is a very simple matter to solve in their interest, given the true desire of “What is best for the child”. We need to separate and discard marriage from family law as they no longer seem to be connected. Marriage can be retained as a spiritual commitment, but must lose the connection to family law. Current family laws need to be replaced with "Equal Parenting Laws" but sequential over time determined by the child's age. We can develop protocols that confer (over time) equal parental rights and responsibilities,…..once parentage is proven. Children’s maturation process has 3 stages of need. See “Childhood and Adolescence” by Peter Hadfield. A.The unconditional love of the mother from birth until about 7 years of age. The mother to have “thefinalsay” and to receive child allowance. B.The conditional love of the father, who takes his children out into the world, gives security and teaches social boundaries from 7 until about 13 years of age. The father to have “thefinalsay” and to receive child allowance. This will encourage the mother to engage (as a quid pro quo) the father in her early stage of child custody. C.The friendship and respect of peers from 13 until 18 years of age. The child to have “thefinalsay”, but boys default to dad and girls to mum unless the child defers. If these 3 stages are not gone through in order, maturation is unlikely to be satisfactorily achieved and mental resilience reduced. This has now become generational. Such a regime of equal parenting rights (over time) would bind parents into a co-operative relationship, because (over time) each will hold the power of “thefinalsay” sequentially when they are best favoured to use it. If the mother does not enthusiastically include the father in her first seven years the father may not enthusiastically include hers later. The most common scenario will be for dad to unofficially extend mums jurisdiction as long as he gets what he and his children want. Cooperation will become endemic with equal parental power over time. Such family protocols would be the default position, allowing love, courtesy and humour to prevail, but could in exceptional cases be varied by the court. Such a family court will need to have 3 possible adjudications when an accusation is made against the other parent. 1."Guilty" and the accused punished. 2. "Not Proven" and the case dismissed. 3. "Innocent" and the accuser punished for bearing false witness. Such an arrangement built into English Law would bring dilemmas that need consideration such as:- 1. Ensuring paternity. It is important to fathers that the children that they accept as theirs are indeed so. Compulsory DNA testing of all children at birth would allow fathers to confirm this if he is doubtful. 2. The “finalsay” parent to:- A) Have custody of the child’s passport. If desirous of taking the child abroad the passport to be stamped for how long and that the secondary parent approves. B) Not move the residency of the child more than 30kms from its previous habitation without the secondary parent’s written approval. C) Receive from the secondary parent a sum of £xxx per week towards the costs of keeping the child. Rights do not mean a selfish assumption that we can have whatever we want. As Tom Paine said “A Declaration of Rights is, by reciprocity, a declaration of duties also. Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another, and it becomes my duty to guarantee, as well as to possess”.
@@williamsummers6438 thanks for fleshing out those ideas. You've put some thought into it all, so while I disagree on several points, I'd like to offer my perspective and some (hopefully constructive) feedback. I think that there are kernels of good ideas in your philosophy. I offer food for thought, for you to take or leave as you like. [NB: I think my first draft was too long, so consider this (believe it or not) the truncated version] * Fundamentally, you can't have laws without courts. A law (or a protocol) is worth nothing if it can't be adjudicated and enforced. At best, you might aim to streamline and clarify laws, perhaps delegate some of the court's powers, and the like. This would be a massive step in the right direction. It's also not at all a simple matter to manage custody of children when there are at least three interested parties. It is easy for proposed simplicity to be at the expense of fairness and contextuality and "what's best for the child". If one systemic issue is the assumption that the mother is the better custodial parent (I would say so), I struggle to see how allocating "final say" to either parent really improves on this. It's still based on a gross assumption, and to challenge that assumption brings back the need for courts. * It sounds like "what's best for the child" is at the core of your proposal, but then who decides what's best (not a court, if you're aiming to do away with them)? Preventing harm to a child should be fundamental, but it's a lesser standard. Going beyond that to what's "best"? Do you give the child to the more loving, caring, attentive, involved parent? Or to the richer parent, maybe the one who can afford "better" extra-parental influences too, e.g, schools? The smarter parent? In any given category, one parent will likely be "better" than the other, so do you deprive one parent of parental rights/access because they're deemed inferior in the nominated domain? If one parent was both richer and could be more involved, is that the entire 18 years of custody sorted? Or is it solely based on the decision of the parent with "final say", in turn, based on the age of the child? Otherwise, how heavily do you weight access to both parents throughout their childhood as being in the "best interests of the child", versus the supremacy of one or the other at specific stages? * And how does the above work with "final say"? Could one parent have majority custody but not have "final say"? Would the parent with "final say" then effectively control the other household? I completely disagree with either parent having an absolute "final say" except where there is cause (to the degree of essentially revoking parenting rights from a parent). Each parent should run their own household, major decisions and decisions for the child that affect both households should ideally be made together, and the court should ultimately decide any disputes here that affect the other parent. Again, there is a need for adjudication here. This is the context in which the best interests of the child should be paramount. * I disagree with letting children have "final say" before the law. Children are not reasonable, mature, adult thinkers (neither are parents oftentimes). They can be manipulated through deception, guilt, coercion, bribery, they can want something that is not in their interest, or take on inappropriate roles of supporting a parent rather than the other way around, etc. They are also capable of using manipulation and coercion, etc. eg, against their parents when that child is empowered with the "final say". Children should be allowed to state a preference, but the decisions should not be theirs alone before at least 16, if at all. * Interjecting my own values here, I would suggest that preventing harm to children and simultaneously trying to uphold individual parental rights are the two priorities for the state vis a vis children and families. I think it's overreaching and paternalistic for the state to get into the nitty gritty of determining one parent to be better than the other. (But I think it's also an abdication of state responsibility to assume the mother is better, or to assume one parent deserves "final say" absent clear dereliction of parental duties). If a child is not beyond a harm threshold, then the parent has the right to parent, including the right to be the worse or lesser parent. Think about a pet - there is a positive obligation for the owner not to harm, to protect from harm, but not to demonstrably achieve a certain level of comfort for the pet. One owner can lock a pet inside, another can lock it outside, a third can let it roam freely, but as long as they're not abusing it, it's their right to care as they see fit. Some people would baulk at the comparison to pets, but I hope you see what I'm pointing to. * I think there are better models for child development on which to base laws, policies, etc. As in my first reply, there is a transition to left brain activation that is swept over in the model you used, which would ignore neurodevelopmental critical periods of the child by assuming that maternal influence is more important for the first 7 years. It also conflates emotional nurturing of a mother with nursing and similar physical care. The model you suggested, even if correct, points to how a child is influenced, it doesn't make a mother or father a better parent at any given stage, simply a more important influence. Eg, you wouldn't advocate for peers to have the "final say" because peers are not better influences, simply stronger influences (ie, than parents) at that formative stage. And, in fact, it would suggest even more that careful consideration be given to which parent has "final say", since letting a worse parent with "final say" be in control during a period when the child is more influenced by that parent seems like it would make for even poorer outcomes for the child. * Overall, the picture you attempt to paint seems to assume the best in fathers. That appears to follow from your desire to remove marriage from family law, but they're inextricable in the sense that these mothers and fathers can also be wounded exes, they're still people, and the parenting is, in part, the result of all of their psychological mechanisms, not separate from them. Assuming that cooperation will evolve is a big reach that flies in the face of what we know about human psychology, and what we see in many post-separation situations. This is a flaw in the current system that you would be exacerbating in your proposal. It's made worse by the fact that you would have the parent with less power (ie, not having the "final say") also bearing the financial cost for that lesser position, since that is the parent paying child support. Making one parent go hat in hand to the other to advocate for their own interests or the perceived best interests in the child is not conducive to fairness or equity in parenting. * The "final say" system also privileges fathers, in part, because while they are incentivised to "toe the line" early, they can punish a mother later even if she had behaved honourably, and she cannot respond in kind. Fathers are incentivised to bottle up any resentment instead of rocking the boat, until the "final say" is theirs. Then retribution can begin. Or moving forward, you could easily imagine that a mother might focus on mothering during her "final say" years, then when the father assumes "final say", she starts dating again and he punishes her for it through the child because he has "final say". That is not in the best interests of the child. Giving away years of authority to allow one parent to ride roughshod over the other seems like it could break people, and materially impact how a child sees and respects their parents. * The court stuff is a bit muddled. For starters, the burdens of proof are different (the balance of probabilities in civil court and beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court), and neither of them is conducive to establishing "innocence" per se. Essentially, a finding of "innocence" would be a separate matter to a finding of guilt, and it doesn't serve the court or society to establish innocence, but rather the presence or absence of guilt. Also, finding that the complainant was incorrect in bringing a claim does not make the complainant deserving of punishment. A claim can be brought for honest, innocent reasons, including a sincere belief in the best interests of the child. Subverting this with malice, with vexatious claims, etc. should be a separate matter, and in this, I agree that malicious and vexatious complaints should be handled more severely. Overall, I'm clearly critical of much of your proposal, but the sentiment is truly not antagonistic at all. I suppose what I have concluded is that you want to replace one system with built-in unfairness with another that has different unfairnesses built into it. To that end, it seems to contradict the Buckminster Fuller quote you've used in both of your comments. I appreciate that, fundamentally, you want to improve the system. I'm grateful that you were willing to provide more detail about your ideas, and my feedback is sincerely intended to be as constructive as possible. I do sense that I've come across as overly negative, which was not my aim. I'm happy to point out more positives too, if you'd like to continue discussing.
Last week a nephew of mine committed suicide. He had had enough of fighting his own demons but a Police, Judicial and Society institutions that tarred him with this misogynist mean man syndrome. None attempted to bring he and his family together. Young couples in a city miss the support systems of exte ded family and church.
When I raced B.M.X. as a young Boy, I received an Encouragement Award/Trophy as "recognition" of my potential Talent! I suppose it's a bit like Apprenticeships and RPL's? Where are they now?
As an ex cop from NZ (Domestic Violence capital of the world) everything Bettina says is correct.
NZ is, and has been, all about women for at least 60 years. I left.
here's is one of the videos I made with members of the police force who are unhappy about having to enforce unjust domestic violence laws. th-cam.com/video/wzs-lFuNluw/w-d-xo.html
The cops are partly to blame for not having enough guts to push back, shame on them all with very few exceptions, they have a union and could go on strike until men were treated better.
@@kenlydon1395 cops on the st just enforce laws. The NZ police association is the only body that can lobby the commissioner, minister or Govt. Admittedly things were different in the 90's when I was in.
New Zealand?
Thanks for giving a platform to this courageous woman. There is no more dangerous action than to speak up for men and boys in western society. That just demonstrates how extreme the reach of feminist ideology has been for some time now.
Feminist ideologyis not the enemy, it's just the weapon. No. One weapon of many.
Oh , yes
Very refreshing to hear a woman from that generation who realises what this rampant feminism has done to boys and men. Most of us are so disillusioned with this society of 'affirmative action' and 'empowering women', it has become a constant attack on our identity from a very young age.
Well Done! Bettina... A ' Men too ' movement is long overdue.
Provided it doesn't copy the same evidence-free crybully tactics as metoo.
She's a pretty incredible person. She's quite brave and put up with a lot.
Good to see this woman back. A good choice and provided some food for thought.
Bless you, Bettina. You are fighting a losing battle but it is a beautiful thing to behold a fearless truth teller.
We won't be beaten, don't give up. 😮
Thank you John. Bettina is a great advocate. What was done to Bettina Arndt in the Australian senate in early 2020, with the willing assistance and participation of every sitting Coalition senator, the only two senators who refused to support the censure motion was Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts, was a stain on our democracy and an act that I'll never ever forgiven the Coalition for.
Good point and if I remember Senator Amanda Stoker { Liberal} also failed to support Bettina, she had previously sided with what Bettina was saying. The Coalition is no better than Labor in defending men and what Bettina says here about the massive amount of Tax money given to the feminist "industry" was done mostly under a Coalition govt.
There seems to be no hope what with a strong Labor victory and today we hear that PM Dutton has put 10 women in the shadow ministry, rest assured if the Libs get back into power men's issues and unfair treatment will be sidelined again, as usual.
Me to, I'm with you...
Almost all politicians are fairweather sailors (either cowards or chameleons).
The phrase “Happy wife, happy life” is the epitome of coercive control. This, in essence, says do what I say and and I’ll do what I want and you MUST NOT stand in her way.
I'm a "happy wife" and I agree with you 👏😁100%.
Ever heard the phrase 'Happy husband, happy life"?
No, nor me!
That says it all about how oppressed women are!
@@jonahtwhale1779 there is not such a phrase, because there is no rhyme to it😄
Woman here: I totally agree. I cringe when I hear this. And similar things on dating aps - woman saying that they want to find someone who will treat them like “a queen”. How bout just an equal, or a human? When did women get this idea that we’re soooo special and entitled to expect this kind of treatment?
It started off as a bit a quip, a joke, but it's much more sinister now
Excellent interview and thanks to John for going where others fear to tread. The statistical info provided in the interview is something the public rarely, if ever, get a chance to hear.
Bettina is a treasure, thank you both.
John, you are doing the nation a great service. Keep it up. Bettina, ditto. Heroic stuff!
🙏🏼thank you so much for doing this, Bettina-and John.
If a person has seriously and deliberately lied in court against the accused then the liar should face charges immediately of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
They NEVER make females accountable for their lies and the destruction they inflict on men, families and friends. It’s disgraceful
Great interview Bettina is a lone voice against the evil man hating feminists .
Good on John Anderson for giving Bettina a platform.
Such an important n informative conversation ! Bettina is able to articulate my own experience, both professional n personal so well -Thank you both.
Bettina is so right. I know of several families where the female is the abuser - of the partner and children
So why haven't you called the police? If you know people are being abused, why look the other way?
This was a very interesting discussion with a very interesting woman. Appreciate this
It's wasn't interesting- it was shocking to see how deep spread is the hatred and bigotry toward men in our society.
Great timing to have such a chat. With the proposed descruction of gender (and especially men) this discussion is VERY much needed. We NEED men to stand up, to be taught how to be men and how to love, live and lead as men.
Nope. It is YOUR job.
If men do that they're called misogynists.
To be honest, as a man and having seen the constant anti man propaganda over the last 10 years or so, I couldn't care less any more. I'll just live me life on my own, and all women are invisible to me.
No. Men just want to be. And that's valid. We don't exist to fulfill your constructed gender roles.
Thank-you John & Bettina. Such important information and perspective being discussed.
Great guest - compulsory reading and listening !!
25 min into it i cant watch it anymore, stress is going thru the roof. lived that abuse too many times. good show.
I really wanted this as a young male it touched me deeply
Thank you for your work
Mr Anderson. What this incisive interview has shown is the paucity of analysis & open conversation regarding the dangerous propagandist distortions surrounding domestic violence. Well done Bettina for your fearless ongoing work.
Thank you Bettina you are an honest clear voice in our society.
All your interviews are good John but this was one of your best.
Thank you John, it's refreshing to hear a masculine voice and intelligence.
Love Bettina Arndt, I recommend her book #MenToo whenever I hear the anti-male diatribe. What an intelligent and caring woman.
Tremendous. Well done both. About time.
What a great insight. Thankyou so much Bettina for your work in this area. I will be reading some of these reports and your blogs and sharing them with others.
Thank you for speaking up for men. 🙏
*This lady is a hero.* Recommended video for women to watch: Fresh and Fit Clips. 160,000 Divorced Men Have Deleted Themselves Since 2002. On you tube.
Again, Thank you Bettina. Thank you John for your interview of Bettina. John, What did you do or think when you received letters about the Dreadful Family Court when you were an MP? In Federal Cabinet>
Came to watch Bettina and have now stayed and subscribed to your channel John. Thank you very much for giving her a chance to speak to a wider audience.
thank you bettina and john .
Woman here: I’m so glad to hear Bettinas’s voice. These are all the things I’ve been thinking for years but can’t speak about because I’d be accused of thought crime.
We need more women like you Ms Bettina, the cruel and inhumane treatment men are subjected to is just as horrific as the abuse women endure. Men's abuse is different, not less severe, but not many people care enough to study what men go through.
No matter how the picture is painted the numbers don't lie, death, suicide and homeless rates are higher among men for a reason, and it's not because they're more abusive.
Great conversation! If you get the chance, you should have a conversation with Greg Ellis.
Thank you so much for all you do Bettina.
John Anderson was correct in referring to dangerous men. Keep treating men as we currently are and we will see just how dangerous.
Excellent. Love that this wonderful woman is sticking up for us and fighting back against this one-sided, delusional movement.
Thank you Bettina & John for raising this issue. This wasn't too much of an issue when I grew up as young lad in the 70's. But I really feel for the younger boys and young blokes these days. Thanks for raising awareness of the distorted view on domestic violence and how radical femenism has had an impact on young males growing up.
Thanks John and Bettina. Excellent interview. Respect for you both.
Thank you very much for your voice of reason.
I think the next generation of women can forget about marriage, at least on a more or lest equal basis.
I think more Men Will Go Their Own way because life will be very much less complicated.
I have voted Labour most of my life but will no longer vote for people who overtly hate white males.
On a positive note I suggest young guys start their own businesses. They will not then be subject to kangaroo courts by employers.
Marriage ceased to exist when the Family Law Act of 1975 was passed.
Best interview of Bettina and her exposē of the suppression of female domestic violence
OMG, at last. Bettina, YES! Deeply insightful. Deeply caring.
Keep up the good work Bettina!
Please report on Grace Tame's Lies.
As someone who has lived in a crisis refugee I found that it was always the women who were starting fights
What do you call 'starting fights? Sticking up for themselves? Making demands?
@@chriswatson1698 I'll ignore the fact that you missed the entire section of the podcast about 'dehumanising women' by assuming they lack agency and are only products of violence and never perpetrators.
Women would frequently throw things, yell, scream, make threats, seemingly unagitated, they would walk into the apartmet complex and start screaming at people, I assumed they were on drugs and never spoke to any of them. The refugee was once a female and male cohort but they seperated the women and men into different locations, assumably due to the same problems previously. Women from the outside who were visitors world never engaged in the same behaviour, it was the local women who would find an unsuspecting victim and start a fight with him, the men never had anything to say, some mentioned to eachother to get restraining orders or call the police but no body cared enough or took it seriously enough to escalated the problem. The women were extremely unstable and had no interest in the men, none of them ever dated or even visited on a regular schedule, they would just arrive to bully, harrass and abuse men.
Let's ask Amber Heard shall we?
@@jakewalklate6226 Every fight? Or just every fight you witnessed? Because there's a difference. I mean, your generalization, in the final analysis, don't mean a lot.
My stepson is going through such a tough time now after being subjected to domestic violence and coercive control for 10+ years. Now withdrawing his one year old son from him. His wife has a double black belt in Tai Kwan Do. The police believe her without question He is a quite mannered sweet man. We need change.
Get a body camera. Only explicit evidence works.
Oh my god. Bettina and John together. I’m in listening heaven
I don't suppose it would be possible to have this interview played on 'prime-time' on the ABC?
Bettina mentioned that our best source of data on domestic violence statistics is the ABS Personal Safety Survey but this survey has all the indications of being deliberately manipulated to artificially exaggerate the number of violent incident statistics. Firstly, the head of the ABS is invariably a Male Champion of Change which is always a sure indicator. Secondly, the sample group is always manipulated to interview 3 times more women than men even when the survey doesn't achieve the required number of interviews the sample group is manipulated to keep the same proportion. Finally, all of the people who conduct the interviews are women and the only way that an interviewee can be interviewed by a man is if they specifically request it out of the blue. Needless to say this almost never happens. So the end figure of the ABS Personal Safety Survey, given it is our best data source, is highly dubious and should be taken with a tablespoon of salt.
Yay Tina! And thanks John for maintaining the strain.
As a male in his 30s, I've already given up on trying to solve this issue or even advocate against feminism.
I've already accepted that men will suffer even more in the next decades.
While I haven't given up on female partners entirely, I've already got my vasec and I'm not marrying or having kids.
I want no part in this joke of a world and society that the current generation is building.
I just wish that all those toxic women find their counter part, the worst kind of men there's, which will turn all their nightmares into reality.
That's all their deserve in this life.
Not on Record said "A finding of not guilty, is seen as justice not being done!"
Today it takes courage and conviction to defend the deliberately marginalised. Universities have so much to answer for, and there are too many female teachers in schools. A healthy equilibrium is desperately needed.
Been watching your interviews John and find them excellent.
I listened to ABC for a short while a couple of years ago and instantly detected its leftist bias. I quit tuning in, as I did with CNN some decades ago. Brava, Bettina! Keep fighting the good fight. May you find many adherents who will similarly share the facts. 🤗
Thank you for your righteous work Bettina. Evil wins when good people do nothing. Your persecution will always result in blessings. So history has treated the righteous.
We need to end the influence of manic feminism destroying our Married Couple culture, our Good men culture and our ideal of happy families led by a loving couple. Society is currently invaded by the insidious liars and communistic lobby groups.
Would be good to hear the interviewer giving his view of why politicians favour femunists so much.
Most likely based on the consumer base.Women are 70 - 80% of the consumers base. But the issue is, in order to consume that much you need the labour class to build the foundation. The problem with that is the labour class is leaving.
But 70% of the income is generated by men, only 30% by women.
Yes women may spend 70% of consumer s poending, or more.
We hear about the wage gap but never these spending gap!.
Shame on Grace Tame, hate Malicious people like that. Good on you Bettina Arndt, Keep Fighting the Good Fight ✊
Shine the light John
Bettina Arndt 🙏
Such a cool lady, perfect mom figure.
Bettina Arndt. You bloody legend.
A real heroine. Compare her voice with Yossi Gurvitz and RFK ... Witnesses standing up against outrageous, continuous lies often suffer on their vocal cords. A sign of sincerity.
Men and women were made to work together. Nothing is perfectly 50/50, but we need to try our best to support and love each other in life. Feminism has sought to pin men and women against each other and destroy the family. Look at us, more unhappy than ever.
I want to hug her she is a gem .
Quite apart from the thought provoking content, great to see a classic three camera setup, properly exposed, framed & balanced.
Goodonya jonno
bravo bettina
easily amongst my top 5 favourite aussie women
Bettina is wonderful. The attacks on this wonderful woman shows how vile feminism really is.
Yes
Excellent interview !
How many views? Can't see it listed anywhere on the clip ...
This is a Hero.
Christina Hoff Sommers has been saying this for 10+ years
Yes, she is wonderful...but I have been also promoting these truths for many decades
Go to Bettina’s you tube channel to watch them chat together.
@@trainerdisability thanks so much!!!
@@bettinaarndt3713 yes I was so encouraged there was another person from a different part of the world speaking this same view of the attack on men. Praying for you both❤️
She's a genius, go get'em Bettina. Don't take any prisoners. ... she's so right.
I’ve only got one comment on the whole feminist and woke agenda.
“You reap what you sow”
Anyone got a link to the video they talk about of the male nursing student falsely accused?
Here it is..th-cam.com/video/hItQ9Hd7rD4/w-d-xo.html
Wonder what she thought of the interview with Amber Herds attorney lol the disconnect from reality and avoidance of answering the questions was astounding in that interview
The court case was fascinating but also the predictable spin from most of mainstream media following the verdict who are determined to cling to the Believe all Women narrative.
@@bettinaarndt3713 thanks for the response! I didn't really watch it but several attorney's I follow on YT streamed the whole thing and mentioned the unifying factor across political isles and have covered the gasligting of mainstream medias response. The main stream media spin is disappointing and does nothing but gaslight everyone. I'm hoping both sides can/ will use this as a means to communicate further with each other and realize what mainstream media is doing to us.
It's often the very best citizens or researchers who are condemned by name by their governments.
What business does a government have condemning anything? That's for the people. Even judges have no legitimate basis to do it.
Ok. I just found this one. Is YT playing games? Meh!
This one beats your VDH chat.
Best. Bettina for the gold!
Growing up in society in the 90s before this was out in the open and being called out widespread- I personally cannot forgive the extreme bias I experienced in all levels - career, personal life, and family.
Of course there won’t be a need to forgive since this will continue right up until all of the disenfranchised and loser young men burn down the village to feel it’s warmth.
This is Feminisms fault, make no mistake.
Take a well earned rest battina, enjoy the rest off your, to battle now is tuff, everything is instant rebuttal due to social media, you deserve some peace, from your biggest fan
Coersive Check is now being used by VPOL!
Already women can't find eligible husbands and it will only get worse.
........isn't that better?
The family violence data is interesting, and I'm glad Bettina presents a balanced view. Despite the dystopian overtones, I wonder if society is at a stage where measures need to be applied to parenting? Adulthood arrives sooner than ever, but takes longer to achieve, based on the mismatch between neurodevelopment and societal complexity. It's now understood that trauma has intergenerational impacts, that "hurt people hurt people", etc. Measures could be controls on having babies (the most dystopian), or at least some form of mandatory therapy and education for expecting parents. Healing parents, as well as educating them about parenting, child development, etc., benefits the recipient (the parent) and any children and people who interacted with healthier children (who ideally become healthier adults), in growing concentric rings of indirect impact.
On the education issue, I see it as a symptom of increasing societal feminisation. More and more women as teachers, and fewer men, means that girls are innately understood more easily than boys are. It creates an orthodoxy around a "feminine" way of learning, and implicitly (or explicitly) sees boy behaviour, boy learning styles, etc. as aberrant. The pathologisation of masculinity is a broader issue, including commercial/industrial interests, but largely is the phalanx of societal feminisation. This pathologisation of boys becomes not just an incidental implementation by any individual female teacher, but becomes formalised and incorporated into the system itself. Arriving here means already having disregarded the neurodevelopmental differences (ie, different timing of critical periods for development) between boys and girls that place boys behind their female age peers by default. Then there's labelling theory suggesting that, if boys are deemed to be inferior students to girls, they may internalise it, they may look for covert prestige among boy peers by acting out in other ways, a myriad of consequences perpetuating and exacerbating their educational disadvantages. This has to be made even worse by the modern cheerleading that happens for female students, encouraging them and praising them, no matter what, while the boys hear crickets or are punished for ingrained biological impulses and imperatives.
If people stop accepting a "zero sum" view of gender politics, we see that:
1) Taking something from one party usually helps nobody, especially if it is just to take that party/group down a peg.
2) The rising tide lifts all boats. Helping boys helps women. And it doesn't weaken any case for female disadvantage to acknowledge where male disadvantages also exist.
3) The petty self-interested fights among advocacy groups is not in the interest of anyone but those people making names, careers and dollars from "fighting" rather than "cooperating" in the interest of the greater good.
What an important ans necessary discussion. Another example of activists shutting down important discussions for financial gain or false moral posturing. Another example of weak governments and toxic media! Shame we can't discuss the actual facts and statistics and try to work to reduce familial violence in all forms, surely that is the most important thing? Clearly not to those making a fortune from this narrative.
Men too yes.
Yeah I have issues with Doctors/AMA/Insurance, but I'm Straight. Would that be an issue? HCC reject complaints as well as every Complaints Department.
What can be done about this corruption?
Finally one woman is not blaming men for all the problems in world 😂😂😂
Amazing woman
An awesome rant, but only about what is wrong, not how to fix it. I suggest that the primary cause lies in flawed unequal family law.
I suggest that family law be changed. Parental custody of children is actually a very simple matter to solve given the true desire of “What is best for the child”.
We need to separate and discard marriage from family law as they no longer seem to be connected.
We can develop protocols that confer (over time) equal parental rights and responsibilities,…..once parentage is proven.
Children’s natural maturation process has 3 essential stages of need.
A.The unconditional love of the mother from birth until about 7 years of age. The mother to have “thefinalsay” and to receive child allowance.
B.The conditional love of the father, who takes his children out into the world, gives security and teaches social boundaries from 7 until about 13 years of age. This will allow the father to do his "thing" at all stages.The father to have “thefinalsay” and to receive child allowance.
C.The friendship and respect of peers from 13 until 18 years of age. The child to have “thefinalsay”.
If these 3 stages are not gone through in order, maturation is unlikely to be satisfactorily achieved and mental resilience reduced. This has now become generational.
Such a regime of equal parenting rights (over time) would bind parents into a co-operative relationship, because (over time) each will hold the power of “thefinalsay” sequentially when they are best favoured to use it.
Such family protocols would be the default position, (allowing love, courtesy and humour to prevail) but could in exceptional cases be varied by the court.
Buckminster Fuller said:-
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete”.
To alleviate suffering is worthy. To prevent it is divine, but thankless.
I'm grateful that you put your ideas out there. I disagree with several of the points, but support your general stance. I'd be curious to know what model of child development posits those stages? I see developmental stages in even small increments, including early on where children benefit from fathers most as the left hemisphere comes online, from 18-24 months. It's interesting how, in this period of "terrible twos", fathers seem able to implement boundaries without taking abreactions from children as a personal slight on their fathering ability or role, and I don't think that's as true of mothers. I think it represents a concreteness in how men need to operate in the world, and something that needs to be passed on to offspring. So in earlier infancy, in the period of bonding and right brain dominance, mothering is supreme. Once the child starts interacting with the world, fathering becomes a more important influence than it had been prior to that. And ideally, a child is receiving maternal nurturing and paternal boundaries.
I absolutely agree that establishing paternity should be mandatory for any imposition of financial burden on a purported father (except for legal adoption, of course). For better or worse, this alone might keep marriages together, if there's any doubt whatsoever in the mother's mind/history. And to have a system where a father who has been duped about a child who is not his should remain obligated to that child, simply because he had previously accepted a responsibility based on deception is abhorrent.
As far as family law ideas, mine are as follows;
1) Each parent should have a 50% stake by default. That's both an expectation of custody and a responsibility for the financial burden of that custody. If 50% custody is achieved in the wake of a separation, then each parent simply bears his/her own.
2) If a parent is unable or unwilling to accept their full 50%, then they must incur additional financial burden to compensate the other parent for pulling more parental weight.
3) If a parent fights for more than 50%, then they do so accepting the additional financial burden that comes with it. A parent seeking more custody should be doing it for the desire for / in the interest of the child, not the financial advantage to be obtained. Removing financial incentives might reduce some of the attempts to seek custody as a way to punish an ex.
4) It should be made clear that having been in a relationship with a person does not entitle an ex to any particular standard of living after the separation, nor is a child entitled to have (full-time) the higher standard of living from whichever parent can afford it. If a child has a rich parent and a poor parent, and a rich life with one and a poor life with the other, there is nothing wrong with this. And there /is/ something wrong with expecting a parent to subsidise the lifestyle of a child when not in his/her custody, let alone subsidise the ex who is along for the ride. This can happen incidentally, if one parent chooses and pays for a school, that crosses custody lines, but reason should prevail.
5) Child support amounts should be standardised, not scaling with a parent's financial position. It should be stated that it costs $x to raise a child full-time, and that becomes the figure from which child support is allocated. (I would say index it against minimum wage, or maybe on welfare payment amounts, but I have a whole separate philosophy around that.) Any parent with or without custody may elect to contribute more in money or goods or other, but from a legal standpoint, there is simply a minimum burden to be met. We can see that state contributions made to foster parents is standardised, and it would cost the state a certain amount of money to raise a child who had no parents, and mothers on welfare get a set amount that is different to a single woman on welfare, so it's not without precedent, it's just not in the interest of mothers who want more money from higher earning fathers.
You make some interesting points. I now add a revised copy below that answers some of them, but the generality of what I suggest will (generally) take the relationship between parents out of the hands of the marriage/divorce court (except in extremis) and which are replaced by a set of protocols. Families would be better patrolled without marriage laws and lawyers. We need a Universal family pre-nup system. The acid test in any family should be the question "Who has the final say" within a set of pre-determined protocols over time. Even the child at 12 yrs of age gets it. Family/marriage laws divide and are good for lawyers. Standard pre-determined family protocols are not.
A PROTOCOL BASIS FOR FAMILY LAW TO REPLACE MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COURTS.
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete”………………………………………Buckminster Fuller
Current Family Law is the cause of western society’s problems and needs changing. Parental custody, care and control of children is a very simple matter to solve in their interest, given the true desire of “What is best for the child”.
We need to separate and discard marriage from family law as they no longer seem to be connected. Marriage can be retained as a spiritual commitment, but must lose the connection to family law.
Current family laws need to be replaced with "Equal Parenting Laws" but sequential over time determined by the child's age.
We can develop protocols that confer (over time) equal parental rights and responsibilities,…..once parentage is proven.
Children’s maturation process has 3 stages of need. See “Childhood and Adolescence” by Peter Hadfield.
A.The unconditional love of the mother from birth until about 7 years of age. The mother to have “thefinalsay” and to receive child allowance.
B.The conditional love of the father, who takes his children out into the world, gives security and teaches social boundaries from 7 until about 13 years of age. The father to have “thefinalsay” and to receive child allowance. This will encourage the mother to engage (as a quid pro quo) the father in her early stage of child custody.
C.The friendship and respect of peers from 13 until 18 years of age. The child to have “thefinalsay”, but boys default to dad and girls to mum unless the child defers.
If these 3 stages are not gone through in order, maturation is unlikely to be satisfactorily achieved and mental resilience reduced. This has now become generational.
Such a regime of equal parenting rights (over time) would bind parents into a co-operative relationship, because (over time) each will hold the power of “thefinalsay” sequentially when they are best favoured to use it.
If the mother does not enthusiastically include the father in her first seven years the father may not enthusiastically include hers later.
The most common scenario will be for dad to unofficially extend mums jurisdiction as long as he gets what he and his children want. Cooperation will become endemic with equal parental power over time.
Such family protocols would be the default position, allowing love, courtesy and humour to prevail, but could in exceptional cases be varied by the court.
Such a family court will need to have 3 possible adjudications when an accusation is made against the other parent.
1."Guilty" and the accused punished. 2. "Not Proven" and the case dismissed. 3. "Innocent" and the accuser punished for bearing false witness.
Such an arrangement built into English Law would bring dilemmas that need consideration such as:-
1. Ensuring paternity. It is important to fathers that the children that they accept as theirs are indeed so. Compulsory DNA testing of all children at birth would allow fathers to confirm this if he is doubtful.
2. The “finalsay” parent to:-
A) Have custody of the child’s passport. If desirous of taking the child abroad the passport to be stamped for how long and that the secondary parent approves.
B) Not move the residency of the child more than 30kms from its previous habitation without the secondary parent’s written approval.
C) Receive from the secondary parent a sum of £xxx per week towards the costs of keeping the child.
Rights do not mean a selfish assumption that we can have whatever we want. As Tom Paine said “A Declaration of Rights is, by reciprocity, a declaration of duties also. Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another, and it becomes my duty to guarantee, as well as to possess”.
@@williamsummers6438 thanks for fleshing out those ideas. You've put some thought into it all, so while I disagree on several points, I'd like to offer my perspective and some (hopefully constructive) feedback. I think that there are kernels of good ideas in your philosophy. I offer food for thought, for you to take or leave as you like.
[NB: I think my first draft was too long, so consider this (believe it or not) the truncated version]
* Fundamentally, you can't have laws without courts. A law (or a protocol) is worth nothing if it can't be adjudicated and enforced. At best, you might aim to streamline and clarify laws, perhaps delegate some of the court's powers, and the like. This would be a massive step in the right direction. It's also not at all a simple matter to manage custody of children when there are at least three interested parties. It is easy for proposed simplicity to be at the expense of fairness and contextuality and "what's best for the child". If one systemic issue is the assumption that the mother is the better custodial parent (I would say so), I struggle to see how allocating "final say" to either parent really improves on this. It's still based on a gross assumption, and to challenge that assumption brings back the need for courts.
* It sounds like "what's best for the child" is at the core of your proposal, but then who decides what's best (not a court, if you're aiming to do away with them)? Preventing harm to a child should be fundamental, but it's a lesser standard. Going beyond that to what's "best"? Do you give the child to the more loving, caring, attentive, involved parent? Or to the richer parent, maybe the one who can afford "better" extra-parental influences too, e.g, schools? The smarter parent? In any given category, one parent will likely be "better" than the other, so do you deprive one parent of parental rights/access because they're deemed inferior in the nominated domain? If one parent was both richer and could be more involved, is that the entire 18 years of custody sorted? Or is it solely based on the decision of the parent with "final say", in turn, based on the age of the child? Otherwise, how heavily do you weight access to both parents throughout their childhood as being in the "best interests of the child", versus the supremacy of one or the other at specific stages?
* And how does the above work with "final say"? Could one parent have majority custody but not have "final say"? Would the parent with "final say" then effectively control the other household? I completely disagree with either parent having an absolute "final say" except where there is cause (to the degree of essentially revoking parenting rights from a parent). Each parent should run their own household, major decisions and decisions for the child that affect both households should ideally be made together, and the court should ultimately decide any disputes here that affect the other parent. Again, there is a need for adjudication here. This is the context in which the best interests of the child should be paramount.
* I disagree with letting children have "final say" before the law. Children are not reasonable, mature, adult thinkers (neither are parents oftentimes). They can be manipulated through deception, guilt, coercion, bribery, they can want something that is not in their interest, or take on inappropriate roles of supporting a parent rather than the other way around, etc. They are also capable of using manipulation and coercion, etc. eg, against their parents when that child is empowered with the "final say". Children should be allowed to state a preference, but the decisions should not be theirs alone before at least 16, if at all.
* Interjecting my own values here, I would suggest that preventing harm to children and simultaneously trying to uphold individual parental rights are the two priorities for the state vis a vis children and families. I think it's overreaching and paternalistic for the state to get into the nitty gritty of determining one parent to be better than the other. (But I think it's also an abdication of state responsibility to assume the mother is better, or to assume one parent deserves "final say" absent clear dereliction of parental duties). If a child is not beyond a harm threshold, then the parent has the right to parent, including the right to be the worse or lesser parent. Think about a pet - there is a positive obligation for the owner not to harm, to protect from harm, but not to demonstrably achieve a certain level of comfort for the pet. One owner can lock a pet inside, another can lock it outside, a third can let it roam freely, but as long as they're not abusing it, it's their right to care as they see fit. Some people would baulk at the comparison to pets, but I hope you see what I'm pointing to.
* I think there are better models for child development on which to base laws, policies, etc. As in my first reply, there is a transition to left brain activation that is swept over in the model you used, which would ignore neurodevelopmental critical periods of the child by assuming that maternal influence is more important for the first 7 years. It also conflates emotional nurturing of a mother with nursing and similar physical care. The model you suggested, even if correct, points to how a child is influenced, it doesn't make a mother or father a better parent at any given stage, simply a more important influence. Eg, you wouldn't advocate for peers to have the "final say" because peers are not better influences, simply stronger influences (ie, than parents) at that formative stage. And, in fact, it would suggest even more that careful consideration be given to which parent has "final say", since letting a worse parent with "final say" be in control during a period when the child is more influenced by that parent seems like it would make for even poorer outcomes for the child.
* Overall, the picture you attempt to paint seems to assume the best in fathers. That appears to follow from your desire to remove marriage from family law, but they're inextricable in the sense that these mothers and fathers can also be wounded exes, they're still people, and the parenting is, in part, the result of all of their psychological mechanisms, not separate from them. Assuming that cooperation will evolve is a big reach that flies in the face of what we know about human psychology, and what we see in many post-separation situations. This is a flaw in the current system that you would be exacerbating in your proposal. It's made worse by the fact that you would have the parent with less power (ie, not having the "final say") also bearing the financial cost for that lesser position, since that is the parent paying child support. Making one parent go hat in hand to the other to advocate for their own interests or the perceived best interests in the child is not conducive to fairness or equity in parenting.
* The "final say" system also privileges fathers, in part, because while they are incentivised to "toe the line" early, they can punish a mother later even if she had behaved honourably, and she cannot respond in kind. Fathers are incentivised to bottle up any resentment instead of rocking the boat, until the "final say" is theirs. Then retribution can begin. Or moving forward, you could easily imagine that a mother might focus on mothering during her "final say" years, then when the father assumes "final say", she starts dating again and he punishes her for it through the child because he has "final say". That is not in the best interests of the child. Giving away years of authority to allow one parent to ride roughshod over the other seems like it could break people, and materially impact how a child sees and respects their parents.
* The court stuff is a bit muddled. For starters, the burdens of proof are different (the balance of probabilities in civil court and beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court), and neither of them is conducive to establishing "innocence" per se. Essentially, a finding of "innocence" would be a separate matter to a finding of guilt, and it doesn't serve the court or society to establish innocence, but rather the presence or absence of guilt. Also, finding that the complainant was incorrect in bringing a claim does not make the complainant deserving of punishment. A claim can be brought for honest, innocent reasons, including a sincere belief in the best interests of the child. Subverting this with malice, with vexatious claims, etc. should be a separate matter, and in this, I agree that malicious and vexatious complaints should be handled more severely.
Overall, I'm clearly critical of much of your proposal, but the sentiment is truly not antagonistic at all. I suppose what I have concluded is that you want to replace one system with built-in unfairness with another that has different unfairnesses built into it. To that end, it seems to contradict the Buckminster Fuller quote you've used in both of your comments. I appreciate that, fundamentally, you want to improve the system. I'm grateful that you were willing to provide more detail about your ideas, and my feedback is sincerely intended to be as constructive as possible. I do sense that I've come across as overly negative, which was not my aim. I'm happy to point out more positives too, if you'd like to continue discussing.
let women get on with it. you are fighting a loosing battle.
Last week a nephew of mine committed suicide.
He had had enough of fighting his own demons but a Police, Judicial and Society institutions that tarred him with this misogynist mean man syndrome.
None attempted to bring he and his family together.
Young couples in a city miss the support systems of exte ded family and church.
When I raced B.M.X. as a young Boy, I received an Encouragement Award/Trophy as "recognition" of my potential Talent! I suppose it's a bit like Apprenticeships and RPL's? Where are they now?
Men's rights is an important issue, however I would have huge respect if you interviewed Bret Weinstein or Neil Oliver on covid 19 and vaccines.
Let’s spend an hour on mens issues. It’s really important
@@buildmotosykletist1987 Thankyou I must have missed it.
@@trainerdisability I agree with trainerdisability, we need to spend more time on this issue NOW...the attack on boys n men is relentless