Rise of Australian Fathers' Groups worries the Feminists

Men's Rights Agency - Feminism

Rise of Australian Fathers' Groups worries the Feminists

Go to MRA commentary on this report.....

Visit The Report: Fathers' Rights Groups in Australia and their Engagement with Issues in Family Law.

Introduction
Who are the fathers' rights groups?
How influential has the fathers' rights agenda been?
1. Media coverage
2. Political influence
3. Law reform
The agenda of the fathers' rights movement
1. The erosion of the family unit
The agenda of the fathers' rights movement continued
2. Custody/residence
3. Enforcement of access/contact
3b. Suggested solutions to the problems of enforcing access
The agenda of the fathers' rights movement continued
4. Child Support
4a. "Excessive" child support liability
4b. Equality critiques
4c. Further specific reform proposals
The agenda of the fathers' rights movement continued
5. Domestic violence and child abuse
5a. False allegtions of violence
5b. Violence as "marital discord"
5c. Degendering violence
5d. Violence as evidence of victimisation
The agenda of the fathers' rights movement continued
6. Property division and spousal maintenance
7. Reintroduction of fault into divorce proceedings
8. Secrecy and S 121
9. Bias in the process of family law decision making
9a. The family law "system", the Family Court, the Family Law Act, and the child support legislation
9b. The adversarial process and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
9c. Lawyers and Legal Aid
9d. The Child Support Agency
10. Funding for men's groups
Conclusion
Appendix

MRA Comments .....

The rise of fathers' rights groups in Australia is obviously causing some concern among feminist academics, prompting the production of a 50 page critique about the groups. Using interviews with researchers and submissions provided to government inquiries as the basis for the report, Miranda Kaye and Julia Tolmie, lecturers at the Faculty of Law, Sydney University, have displayed their lack of impartiality in the lead-in paragraph by featuring one of Alistair Nicholson's, the Chief Justice of the Family Court, more objectionable statements. Nicholson J. publicly accused those who disagreed with the practices of the Family Court , mostly men, as being "discontented litigants, sometimes obviously dysfunctional". Nicholson J. further abused his advantaged position , (i.e. protected from rebuttal under the secrecy provisions within the Family Law Act), by claiming "most persistent critics behaved in a way which cannot stand up to public scrutiny, particularly in relation to issues of violence against women and children". An outlandish statement with no substance, and indicative of the anti-male views held by some in the Family Court environs.

At the time, even the feminist friendly newspaper, the Brisbane Courier Mail (editorial 21/9/95) came to the defence of those who have to remain silent about their experiences with the Family Court by declaring "the fact that the court has decided that a father should not have custody of his child does not mean he is dysfunctional, nor that he cannot agitate for changes in the system".

Kaye & Tolmie's analysis attempts to define the groups' attitudes to issues concerning family law, contact with children, child support, and domestic violence. Paying particular attention to the divergence of opinions, that naturally occurs when submissions are made by various branches, even though, the same organisation over different time periods, they portray this to be a fatal flaw upon which to question the logic and validity of the expressed opinions and ideas. Men's/father's groups do not enjoy the stability of continuous leadership, primarily because they are totally unfunded. Whereas women's groups , who have been well funded for many years, have been able to establish a hierarchy and agenda that remains relatively unchanged.

Obviously submissions put forward by most groups will vary year to year according to the opinions of the volunteers who at that time take on the role of "submission writers". Their ideas vary because their experiences are varied. This should not be seen as a fault, but an advantage, presenting the opportunity to examine many differing opinions and suggested solutions. It is indeed fortunate that fathers' views have not been subjected to the rigid dictates that feminism demands of their followers. One issue, however, does not vary ... the welfare of their children. The vast majority of fathers want to play a role in the upbringing of their children, not be relegated to the sidelines as "an every other weekend dad".

If and when fathers' groups receive funding, an opportunity will be given to formulate strategies that encompass the views of most groups across the nation. This is now happening to some extent via the internet which has allowed father's groups to exchange ideas and formulate co-ordinated strategies.

Considering, the difficulties faced by fathers' groups I believe they have excelled themselves with the number and quality of the submissions put forward ..... all without the benefit of paid researchers. It's certainly shocked the feminists out of their complacency and belief they had control of the "system". Comments like "the movement appears to have gathered momentum, credibility and popular support as a political and media force in more recent years." or "the apparent success fathers' rights groups have had in setting the agenda for family law reform in Australia" shows the level of Kaye and Tolmie's concern.

The standards normally expected from university faculty members appear to have been forgotten in their attempts to grasp at straws to belittle the men's groups. I cannot speak for other groups, but in our own case I well remember the conversation with the researcher and as an example of the errors or deliberate misinformation contained in the report I refer to the following.

Under the heading Custody/residence the authors write: "Men's Rights Agency CLAIMS that, of the men who actually go to court, only 18% get sole custody" and then they comment "these statistcal claims are generally unreferenced by the groups and so it is unclear what their data sources are".

Firstly, I found the researcher who questioned me under the guise of compiling data about men's groups for government reference to be singularly ill informed about family law issues. I attempted to add to the researcher's education by referring to Sophy Bordow's study in 1994 , whose findings showed that in the case of custody "agreed to by consent" ... in 18% of the cases the father would have custody and of the cases "decided by the Court" then in 31% of the cases the father gains sole custody and that figure rises to 39% when joint, and split custody is involved. Bordow's research was very familiar to me as we had featured the study on the front page of our Newsletter in July, 1996. The authors published incorrectly the detail supplied by MRA: they used the word CLAIM to cast doubt on any information provided by MRA, stating sources are "unreferenced" and then they had the gall to use the Bordow study correctly in the next paragraph!!

Secondly, and this is a classic, under the Legal Aid section , note 313, the authors wrote "The Men's Rights Agency CLAIMS that the legal aid dollar is split 2:1 in favour of women". Once again using the word "CLAIMS" Kaye and Tolmie attempt to cast doubt on the information tendered, but only 6 lines later they confirm what MRA said was correct, that is if mathematical calculation has not nowadays succumbed to feminisation. According to Kaye and Tolmie's version "men receive approximately 32 - 39 percent of all Legal Aid funding in family law matters, Legal Aid in Australia 1993-1994, Statistical Yearbook. Now doesn't that equate pretty closely to 2 to 1 ratio of distribution?

Kaye and Tolmie describe their work as a "basis for future critical engagement". (Pg 20/21) If this is the standard as illustrated by the two examples concerning MRA, I don't think we'll have much problem in countering this report. But don't take my word for it, judge for yourself the quality of academic excellence!!!

Sue Price
MRA

Go back to top of page and Report Index

Go back to "Feminism" intro page

Viewers are welcome to use the information on these pages, but should acknowledge their source as being Men's Rights Agency Internet Site. Visitors to this site should also be aware that views expressed in the articles are not necessarily the views of MRA