Yahoo, I am a proud Grand dad for the first time. The latest addition to my family is a beautiful blonde haired, blue eyed baby Grand son who is healthy as. I thank God for his successful entrance into what can only be described as a sad and mixed up world. My daughter has done well and I have no doubts as to her parenting ability despite her young age.
This gift from God has produced deep thoughts within about family loyalties and the strength of bonds of love, which can only be cemented solid when they are genuine feelings from a loving heart. Controlling governments really fear family bomds because they are the hardest to break.
I am a lucky dad who has four good looking children , two handsome blonde haired mid twenty twin boys and two stunning teenage daughters. I am jubilant with the arrival of a Grand son, its unreal, who could possibly complain about life.
I am soon to hit up a rugged half century of life on planet earth. I have little in the way of material wealth; however my four children love and respect me as a good father who always has his door open for his children when life throws them a curly ball.
Nothing in this world can buy love. Having all the money in the world cannot bring the feelings of happiness experienced by a father who is loved by his children and Grand child. The richest person in the world must leave their collected wealth behind when they die {can’t take the money honey) however, this father of four will leave copious amounts of love behind on planet earth when he moves on.
Love will conquer all.
What will you leave behind?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Feminism reaffirms its fighting focus
Quote: Research suggests that while the term "feminist" might be out of favour with young women, its central tenet of equal rights and opportunities is anything but. "It's hard to tell, but I think something is happening, that women are getting angry again," says Mackay, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Edinburgh. "There are a lot of really uncomfortable truths about the fact that women's position is still disadvantaged, and it's systematic. It can't be explained away as a series of choices."
http://www.theage.com.au/
The Age (Melbourne)
20 March 2010
By Kelsey Munro
Three ideas you won't hear in Parliament: introducing quotas to guarantee a number of women MPs; making half the senior public service jobs part-time to encourage more women to apply; or mandating paternity leave to ensure child-rearing is more fairly shared.
Yet while the po-faced feminism of old has become, as writer and academic Rebecca Huntley puts it, "daggy or passe", a new front is opening up.
In this election year in Britain, for example, academic Fiona Mackay detects a resurgence under way. A run of new books is reinvigorating the topic, including Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism, by Natasha Walter; The Equality Illusion, by Kat Banyard; and a reissue of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan.
There's new energy in campus women's groups and gender studies courses; a blooming of feminist blogs; and membership of the venerable British women's group the Fawcett Society jumped 25 per cent last year, she says.
Research suggests that while the term "feminist" might be out of favour with young women, its central tenet of equal rights and opportunities is anything but. "It's hard to tell, but I think something is happening, that women are getting angry again," says Mackay, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Edinburgh. "There are a lot of really uncomfortable truths about the fact that women's position is still disadvantaged, and it's systematic. It can't be explained away as a series of choices."
Yes, 1970s-era feminism is finished, a victim, according to some narratives, of its own success. In Western countries feminism achieved the mainstreaming of once-radical claims for women's rights to self-determination, Huntley says.
But then it split into warring factions preoccupied with incompatible concerns and sometimes self-defeating trivialities: the cosmetics of sexual empowerment versus exploitation, gender separatism and glass ceilings.
Today those fights continue around the fringes, while in the centre is the harsh reality: a 17 per cent pay gap and scandalously low representation of women in Parliament and on corporate boards mean that even in Australia there is still a long way to go to achieve true equality, says Professor Louise Chappell, a researcher in gender and politics at the University of NSW.
With women making up only 27 per cent of lower house MPs and 35 per cent in the Senate, Australia is on a par with Afghanistan, but doing better than the US (16 per cent in Congress) and Britain (close to 20 per cent). However, we lag behind Cuba (43 per cent), Sweden (46 per cent) and Rwanda (56 per cent).
"Those countries where women have higher representation are countries that have quotas," Chappell says. "Quotas are not the perfect solution, because … there are debates about the best person not getting the job. [But] without those sort of measures it's really hard to overcome entrenched stereotypes."
Huntley says that while there are notable women such as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the experience of a few striking individuals does not represent the reality of women's power in politics.
Gillard says that instead of parliamentary quotas, the onus should be on political parties to recruit candidates of merit from "particular groups".
Since 2002, the ALP has required 35 per cent of candidates for winnable seats to be women, but the Liberals are against resorting to quotas.
Finding ways to boost female representation is important, says Karen Beckwith, a political science professor from Case Western University in Cleveland, who, along with Huntley, Mackay, Chappell and others, will debate the new fronts of feminism and politics in Sydney on Monday.
"Women constitute half the population ... I see no reason why they shouldn't constitute half the elected government," Beckwith says. "Women constitute a majority in university, in postgraduate study. We should be asking, what's wrong here?"
The US party system requirement for independently financed, self-nominated political candidacy erects barriers, she says. But she sees some progress.
"Parties have been responsive ... because they think that by running a woman against an incumbent they may be able to win when there's a perceived gender gap, a marginal district, or a man who's behaved in a scandalous way."
Dr Susan Goodwin, a senior lecturer in policy studies at the University of Sydney, who is also joining the debate, sees a novel alternative to the revival of affirmative action. She says the time demands of management jobs effectively preclude mothers from advancing to higher positions, and that creating part-time senior roles in the public service would change that.
"Many men just don't seem to feel they have to be devoted to their family in the same way women do … It means those women with kids doing senior jobs are under all this additional pressure and men aren't," Goodwin says.
Which takes us back to feminism's oldest battlefield: the domestic sphere. While women have become more involved in the paid workforce, research repeatedly shows men have taken up little of the slack at home. A solution for those who can afford it is to hire a cleaner or use childcare - to outsource what men won't take on. For those who can't, women still tend to carry the burden of household duties.
"We haven't necessarily got men taking on some of those [domestic] responsibilities or redefining those roles," Huntley says. "The solution … is not just to kick this work down the food chain."
Taking time off to raise children is a factor affecting women's position in many ways, from the pay gap to less superannuation to career seniority.
Says Mackay: "Having a human life which involves caring for other people shouldn't have such a detrimental effect on your career."
Both major parties in Australia "support" flexible work conditions, and paid parental leave is finally on the political agenda. In the US, it's a distant dream, but in Britain statutory maternity pay lasts 39 weeks.
Chappell points out that feminism has a lot of work to do in the many countries where women still have few rights and are subject to sex trafficking and other abuses. But a reinvigorated, diverse feminism has a lot to say in advanced industrialised countries, too, she says.
"These inequalities are still the product of policies and decision-making that's happening within political institutions and workplaces. Feminism offers a way of critically thinking about it and really shining a light on these things."
http://www.theage.com.au/
The Age (Melbourne)
20 March 2010
By Kelsey Munro
Three ideas you won't hear in Parliament: introducing quotas to guarantee a number of women MPs; making half the senior public service jobs part-time to encourage more women to apply; or mandating paternity leave to ensure child-rearing is more fairly shared.
Yet while the po-faced feminism of old has become, as writer and academic Rebecca Huntley puts it, "daggy or passe", a new front is opening up.
In this election year in Britain, for example, academic Fiona Mackay detects a resurgence under way. A run of new books is reinvigorating the topic, including Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism, by Natasha Walter; The Equality Illusion, by Kat Banyard; and a reissue of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan.
There's new energy in campus women's groups and gender studies courses; a blooming of feminist blogs; and membership of the venerable British women's group the Fawcett Society jumped 25 per cent last year, she says.
Research suggests that while the term "feminist" might be out of favour with young women, its central tenet of equal rights and opportunities is anything but. "It's hard to tell, but I think something is happening, that women are getting angry again," says Mackay, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Edinburgh. "There are a lot of really uncomfortable truths about the fact that women's position is still disadvantaged, and it's systematic. It can't be explained away as a series of choices."
Yes, 1970s-era feminism is finished, a victim, according to some narratives, of its own success. In Western countries feminism achieved the mainstreaming of once-radical claims for women's rights to self-determination, Huntley says.
But then it split into warring factions preoccupied with incompatible concerns and sometimes self-defeating trivialities: the cosmetics of sexual empowerment versus exploitation, gender separatism and glass ceilings.
Today those fights continue around the fringes, while in the centre is the harsh reality: a 17 per cent pay gap and scandalously low representation of women in Parliament and on corporate boards mean that even in Australia there is still a long way to go to achieve true equality, says Professor Louise Chappell, a researcher in gender and politics at the University of NSW.
With women making up only 27 per cent of lower house MPs and 35 per cent in the Senate, Australia is on a par with Afghanistan, but doing better than the US (16 per cent in Congress) and Britain (close to 20 per cent). However, we lag behind Cuba (43 per cent), Sweden (46 per cent) and Rwanda (56 per cent).
"Those countries where women have higher representation are countries that have quotas," Chappell says. "Quotas are not the perfect solution, because … there are debates about the best person not getting the job. [But] without those sort of measures it's really hard to overcome entrenched stereotypes."
Huntley says that while there are notable women such as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the experience of a few striking individuals does not represent the reality of women's power in politics.
Gillard says that instead of parliamentary quotas, the onus should be on political parties to recruit candidates of merit from "particular groups".
Since 2002, the ALP has required 35 per cent of candidates for winnable seats to be women, but the Liberals are against resorting to quotas.
Finding ways to boost female representation is important, says Karen Beckwith, a political science professor from Case Western University in Cleveland, who, along with Huntley, Mackay, Chappell and others, will debate the new fronts of feminism and politics in Sydney on Monday.
"Women constitute half the population ... I see no reason why they shouldn't constitute half the elected government," Beckwith says. "Women constitute a majority in university, in postgraduate study. We should be asking, what's wrong here?"
The US party system requirement for independently financed, self-nominated political candidacy erects barriers, she says. But she sees some progress.
"Parties have been responsive ... because they think that by running a woman against an incumbent they may be able to win when there's a perceived gender gap, a marginal district, or a man who's behaved in a scandalous way."
Dr Susan Goodwin, a senior lecturer in policy studies at the University of Sydney, who is also joining the debate, sees a novel alternative to the revival of affirmative action. She says the time demands of management jobs effectively preclude mothers from advancing to higher positions, and that creating part-time senior roles in the public service would change that.
"Many men just don't seem to feel they have to be devoted to their family in the same way women do … It means those women with kids doing senior jobs are under all this additional pressure and men aren't," Goodwin says.
Which takes us back to feminism's oldest battlefield: the domestic sphere. While women have become more involved in the paid workforce, research repeatedly shows men have taken up little of the slack at home. A solution for those who can afford it is to hire a cleaner or use childcare - to outsource what men won't take on. For those who can't, women still tend to carry the burden of household duties.
"We haven't necessarily got men taking on some of those [domestic] responsibilities or redefining those roles," Huntley says. "The solution … is not just to kick this work down the food chain."
Taking time off to raise children is a factor affecting women's position in many ways, from the pay gap to less superannuation to career seniority.
Says Mackay: "Having a human life which involves caring for other people shouldn't have such a detrimental effect on your career."
Both major parties in Australia "support" flexible work conditions, and paid parental leave is finally on the political agenda. In the US, it's a distant dream, but in Britain statutory maternity pay lasts 39 weeks.
Chappell points out that feminism has a lot of work to do in the many countries where women still have few rights and are subject to sex trafficking and other abuses. But a reinvigorated, diverse feminism has a lot to say in advanced industrialised countries, too, she says.
"These inequalities are still the product of policies and decision-making that's happening within political institutions and workplaces. Feminism offers a way of critically thinking about it and really shining a light on these things."
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Wanted: Solo parents and their kids
Wanted: Solo parents and their kids
We are looking for people to film with for a television documentary about solo parenting in New Zealand.
We can pay $1500 for the week to mitigate the time spent liaising during preproduction and for the week of a (small) TV crew following you around and we are looking for someone who might be:
- A solo mother with one or more children, one of whom is below the age of three.
- Prepared to show us their daily life over the course of one typical week.
- Raising kids in a positive environment but able to explain about and show the challenges of solo parenting
The documentary will be shot and edited by professional crew using the best professional equipment and will be a fantastic high quality memento of your young family at the time of filming.
Filming can take place anywhere in New Zealand and will be sometime in mid April this year.
If you are embarrassed about being on TV don’t worry as the program will not be aired in New Zealand. It is a Japanese TV series being shot around the world but aired only in Japan.
If you are interesting in being involved please contact us. We will need to ask some questions to build up a profile about you and your family then discus with the director whether your story is the one she is looking for. (The series is being filmed all over the world and we need to avoid double ups and similarities with episodes shot in other countries so please don’t be disappointed if you are not selected as this does not reflect on you but on the balance of stories being filmed for the whole series)
If you wish to know more about the series please don’t hesitate to contact us. Your call will be treated with the strictest confidence and we hope to hear from you soon.
New Zealand Network Ltd.
Phone (09) 424 6388
Email info@nznetwork.com
www.nznetwork.com
We can pay $1500 for the week to mitigate the time spent liaising during preproduction and for the week of a (small) TV crew following you around and we are looking for someone who might be:
- A solo mother with one or more children, one of whom is below the age of three.
- Prepared to show us their daily life over the course of one typical week.
- Raising kids in a positive environment but able to explain about and show the challenges of solo parenting
The documentary will be shot and edited by professional crew using the best professional equipment and will be a fantastic high quality memento of your young family at the time of filming.
Filming can take place anywhere in New Zealand and will be sometime in mid April this year.
If you are embarrassed about being on TV don’t worry as the program will not be aired in New Zealand. It is a Japanese TV series being shot around the world but aired only in Japan.
If you are interesting in being involved please contact us. We will need to ask some questions to build up a profile about you and your family then discus with the director whether your story is the one she is looking for. (The series is being filmed all over the world and we need to avoid double ups and similarities with episodes shot in other countries so please don’t be disappointed if you are not selected as this does not reflect on you but on the balance of stories being filmed for the whole series)
If you wish to know more about the series please don’t hesitate to contact us. Your call will be treated with the strictest confidence and we hope to hear from you soon.
New Zealand Network Ltd.
Phone (09) 424 6388
Email info@nznetwork.com
www.nznetwork.com
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tUoOO4m52mr5h5Fd_wU-VQvrlQWBvPKecqqsWqm9u0JPY9nA1Ina5rRr5HYet9eI24dpwSsev67aAnlYGWWcf847glkN3rpVFwatZvAuxBcXQgmSUQzvxrlKzlUvP5ahEi833B-ifvowV7Hdnq4YW1=s0-d)
Airline’s new restroom policy doesn’t fly with men’s group
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/16/airlines-new-restroom-policy-doesnt-fly-with-mens/
'When he heard the news that Japan’s All Nippon Airways would start offering women-only bathrooms on most of its international routes served by large aircraft, San Diegan Harry Crouch wasted no time in drafting a letter of protest to All Nippon CEO Ito Shinichiro.
Crouch, who heads the National Coalition for Men, based in San Diego, said the policy, implemented March 1, was gender-based discrimination.
“All passengers, male and female, should be treated equally,” Crouch wrote.
The fact that men would be allowed to use the women-only designated lavatory only when few female passengers were on board or in emergency situations is considered a violation of California law by Crouch and his group.
Crouch received a response from All Nippon’s Torrance office the other day, thanking him for bringing the matter to the airline’s attention and explaining that the airline is carefully reviewing the issue with its headquarters in Japan and will have a response soon.
...
Members of the Coalition for Men, which welcomes female members, have filed lawsuits on numerous inequality issues, such as local nightclubs’ “ladies’ nights,” in which women were offered special discounts or benefits. In this instance, a lawsuit would be “way down the road,” said Crouch, who awaits the airline’s full response.'
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ti400uRIaw2-9HfdLhM87RlL94Qyjh0VNcNKMUfgs7j_gZ62yKPKTPYqdowkNq5blrJ30-qpoMIqjbNqzkEEpCx2EnBTNNifXmC8urmkAbEevOuMVrCgE220rniTl2-0q1kgzbce9CQAc_30bWH3e9=s0-d)
'When he heard the news that Japan’s All Nippon Airways would start offering women-only bathrooms on most of its international routes served by large aircraft, San Diegan Harry Crouch wasted no time in drafting a letter of protest to All Nippon CEO Ito Shinichiro.
Crouch, who heads the National Coalition for Men, based in San Diego, said the policy, implemented March 1, was gender-based discrimination.
“All passengers, male and female, should be treated equally,” Crouch wrote.
The fact that men would be allowed to use the women-only designated lavatory only when few female passengers were on board or in emergency situations is considered a violation of California law by Crouch and his group.
Crouch received a response from All Nippon’s Torrance office the other day, thanking him for bringing the matter to the airline’s attention and explaining that the airline is carefully reviewing the issue with its headquarters in Japan and will have a response soon.
...
Members of the Coalition for Men, which welcomes female members, have filed lawsuits on numerous inequality issues, such as local nightclubs’ “ladies’ nights,” in which women were offered special discounts or benefits. In this instance, a lawsuit would be “way down the road,” said Crouch, who awaits the airline’s full response.'
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
UK - The role of the father has been downgraded
Legislation has effectively dismissed the contribution of half the population to the upbringing of the next generation, says Ruth Deech, the chairman of the Bar Standards Board.
Published: 3:08PM GMT 16 Mar 2010
Over the last half a century there has been a sea change in society’s attitude towards same-sex relationships, marriage and the family. Homosexuality has moved from criminal status to legalisation, from legalisation to acceptance and the same respectfulness as heterosexual relationships. We have now reached the stage where, in the event of an election victory, the Conservative leader has promised that civil partners will benefit from extended paternity and maternity leave (in the case of adoption or artificial insemination babies). David Cameron has also promised that proposals to extend flexible working and married couples’ tax breaks would be granted as well. He has stated that the party is no longer hostile to same sex couples.
While changes to the law which have given homosexual couples the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples are welcome, there are two issues involving modern society’s attitude towards children which give me unease.
One is the new possibility of birth certificates for children born to couples of the same sex, which name two persons of the same sex as their parents. This is logical following on the extension of rights to same sex couples, but there is an issue of principle here, which is the truth. Sections of the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) even allow a dead woman, never known to the baby and not related, to be named with her previous consent on the birth certificate by the choice of the birth mother, while preventing the child from having a father. Birth registration is about genetic inheritance (albeit that sometimes the truth is not told) and about the welfare of the child, not about the relationship, legal or otherwise, between the adults whose will gave rise to it. The birth certificate that names two female parents will disclose to anyone perusing it that the child was necessarily born from donor sperm or a donor embryo or a surrogate mother. It could even result in deception to exclude the natural father where the mother conceived naturally but uses this provision to cut him out of the child’s life.
There are other ways for two adults of the same sex to gain parental responsibility over a baby, and it should not have to be through the birth certificate. It puts the demands of the adults ahead of the rights of children to know and benefit from both sides of their genetic makeup. It sits uneasily with the ending of donor anonymity in reproduction generally, and for the call for mothers to name fathers on birth certificates. This is not a moral issue; it is about disguising true facts, and it is about confusing biological parenthood with legal and social parenthood. Civil partnerships do still differ from marriage a little, and this is an area where the difference ought to be preserved with justification.
The other area of regret for me is the removal from the law of the provision in the 2000 HFEA that when a doctor is considering whether or not to give infertility treatment to a woman, he or she had to consider the welfare of the potential baby, “including the child’s need for a father.” It was removed on the ground that it was discriminatory against single mothers and lesbians, and replaced by the need to check for “supportive parenting”, whatever that may mean. Reproductive services are in fact quite readily available to single women, and it is thought that about 25 per cent of lesbian couples have children. I regret the downgrading of the father as a person of importance – the legislative dismissal of the contribution of half the population to the upbringing of the next generation. The removal of the requirement to consider the need for a father is to make a fresh statement that the child does not need a father, no matter how liberally the old law’s requirement was interpreted. It sends a message to men, at a time when many of them feel undermined as providers and parents, contrary to government policy in this field.
Government policy is that men should take financial responsibility for their children and stay in touch with them after separation; that they should take paternity leave and be involved. There is a wealth of research showing that children need fathers, not just two parents. Children need to see complementary roles, the relationship between the sexes, a microcosm of society, as they grow up. Recent reports have placed Britain at the bottom of international league tables for the welfare of children and we know that boys without fathers do worse at school and turn to worse role models. Research shows that their presence gives girls as well as boys advantages in educational and social development. The limit to same sex relationships is that they cannot be a reproductive unit in a way that is best for the welfare of the child if they cut out all contact with members of the other sex or falsify the birth registration. Tolerance of both types of parenting has to be ensured.
Baroness Deech is the chairman of the Bar Standards Board.
__._,_.___
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Violence law faces challenge
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/14/133845_scalesofjustice.html
It is believed to be the first Australian class action against a law.
JAIL (Juries Against Illegal Laws) filed papers with the Federal Court of Australia on February 4 claiming that the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tasmania) was invalid.
The group is claiming $200 million in damages under Section 46 of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.
JAIL is also seeking an additional $200,000 in damages for unlawful assault, trespass, negligence, conspiracy to cause economic loss, intimidation and defamation.
The writ further seeks an order that the Tasmanian Government and DPP Tim Ellis cease to engage in arresting people without proper evidence or procedures, giving police judicial powers, denying people the right to a fair and proper hearing and usurping the proper role of the courts.
JAIL president Ray Escobar said that if the class action was successful the money would be given to all the Tasmanians who had suffered under the Family Violence Act.
JAIL, formed in early 2008, now has more than 200 members around Tasmania who have been, or are related to, victims of false applications for violence orders.
Mr Escobar said JAIL was being represented by one of the finest legal minds in Australia, Sir John Walsh of Brannagh, who lives on Norfolk Island.
Sir John said he agreed to represent JAIL because the case raised important and fundamental questions of human rights, such as the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and the separation of powers.
"The legislation, and the way it is enforced, is contrary to human rights and to international law as accepted by Australia," Sir John said.
"The legislation conflicts with the Constitution of Australia and with the fundamental rights of all Australians."
Sir John said he was confident a federal judge would apply the law of the Commonwealth and the fundamental principles of Australia's legal system.
JAIL's application has been set down for hearing in the Tasmanian registry of the Federal Court of Australia at 10am on Monday, April 12.
Violence law faces challenge
March 14, 2010 08:50am
A TASMANIAN group has filed a $200 million class action against Premier David Bartlett and the Director of Public Prosecutions.It is believed to be the first Australian class action against a law.
JAIL (Juries Against Illegal Laws) filed papers with the Federal Court of Australia on February 4 claiming that the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tasmania) was invalid.
The group is claiming $200 million in damages under Section 46 of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.
JAIL is also seeking an additional $200,000 in damages for unlawful assault, trespass, negligence, conspiracy to cause economic loss, intimidation and defamation.
The writ further seeks an order that the Tasmanian Government and DPP Tim Ellis cease to engage in arresting people without proper evidence or procedures, giving police judicial powers, denying people the right to a fair and proper hearing and usurping the proper role of the courts.
JAIL president Ray Escobar said that if the class action was successful the money would be given to all the Tasmanians who had suffered under the Family Violence Act.
JAIL, formed in early 2008, now has more than 200 members around Tasmania who have been, or are related to, victims of false applications for violence orders.
Mr Escobar said JAIL was being represented by one of the finest legal minds in Australia, Sir John Walsh of Brannagh, who lives on Norfolk Island.
Sir John said he agreed to represent JAIL because the case raised important and fundamental questions of human rights, such as the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and the separation of powers.
"The legislation, and the way it is enforced, is contrary to human rights and to international law as accepted by Australia," Sir John said.
"The legislation conflicts with the Constitution of Australia and with the fundamental rights of all Australians."
Sir John said he was confident a federal judge would apply the law of the Commonwealth and the fundamental principles of Australia's legal system.
JAIL's application has been set down for hearing in the Tasmanian registry of the Federal Court of Australia at 10am on Monday, April 12.
Friday, March 12, 2010
reBlog from shrink4men.wordpress.com: A Shrink for Men
I found this fascinating quote today:
Do your children refuse to see you since you and your ex separated? When you actually get to see your kid(s), do they lash out at you? Do they know things about your break-up or divorce that they shouldn’t know? Do they “diagnose” or berate you by using adult terms and expressions that are beyond their years?shrink4men.wordpress.com, A Shrink for Men, Mar 2009
You should read the whole article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)