The murder of 10-year-old Zahra Baker was horrific. No surprises there. Homicides are rarely known for their rainbows, fluffy puppies and happy endings.

Zahra Baker's father didn't notice she was missing for 15 days. Pic: AP

But there is one aspect of the killing that is especially shocking – not because it reflects a particularly perverse aspect of criminality but because it exemplifies a family problem that is so prevalent it’s rarely seen as a problem.

I’m speaking here of absent fathers.

Common ab-dad stereotypes include Bucket Bong Teen Dad (who abandons his up-the-duff girlfriend to pursue a career in advanced stonerism) and Convertible Buying Mid-Life Crisis Dad (who trades in his reproductively exhausted lifewife for a younger and more gravity defiant model). 

But the absent fathers I’m talking about are those who officially live with their female partners and offspring, yet in reality are rarely present.

These are the dads who miss much of their children’s lives or – in the dreadful case of Adam Baker – their children’s deaths.

Zahra was the freckle-faced, Australian-born girl who disappeared from her North Carolina home last October after losing a leg and her hearing to bone cancer.

Her American stepmother, Elisa Baker, is now facing up to 18 years in jail for killing the disabled child and scattering her dismembered remains through bushland.

During Baker’s September 15 sentencing, Zahra’s father, Adam, said he had no words to express his hatred for the woman he’d met via a goth-themed website in 2006.

The rest of us, meanwhile, are struggling to find words to express our incredulity at the fact that it took the former North Queensland saw miller 15 days to realise that his daughter was missing; that the lump he saw each night in her bed was just that.

An inanimate lump.

In a TV interview, Adam insisted that the pressure associated with his work as a tree feller meant he was gone first thing in the morning and didn’t get home until late.

“I was told that Zahra was in bed because Zahra normally went to bed early,” he said. “I checked every night. From what I could tell, she was in bed. There was something in bed.”

When he finally rang the police emergency line to report his daughter missing, he laughingly blamed her absence on adolescence.

“My daughter is, I think, coming into puberty,” he chuckled to the operator, “‘cause she is hitting that brooding stage, so we only see her when she comes out when she wants something. And that’s about it.”

The Baker case is a particularly extreme and terrible example.
Yet I can’t help thinking of all those normal, non-murderous families which contain fathers whose non-weekend interactions with their children are also limited to cursory viewings of bed lumps.

Like Adam, these ab-dads leave for work early and return home long after their ankle biters have been fed, bathed, played with, de-tantrum-ed, read to and patted to sleep.

As such, they could also be fooled by child-shaped bed lumps.

I personally know of no mums who could be similarly tricked.

While the world obviously does contain some negligent and noxious mothers (hello Elisa Baker), most of us poke our heads into our children’s bedrooms at night not in lieu but in addition to all the other stuff we’ve done beforehand.

And the shapes and sounds of those bed lumps speak volumes.

I reckon I can tell from the tossed blankets and snuffles whether my four-year-old is too hot or too cold; whether her perforated eardrum is finally healing or whether we need to head back to the grommet doc; whether she’s dreaming of happy things or of that scary “spider stranger monster” that’s been scuttling round her subconscious lately.

I also know whether Pinky Yik Yak – her fluffy yellow elephant from Bangkok – needs to be returned to her arms to avoid the night terrors that ensue if she wakes and can’t locate this not-negotiable bed toy.

As a single mum, I’m intrigued and irritated by claims that sole parenting, declining marriage rates and defacto-ism are to blame for spiraling rates of child abuse and neglect.

Apart from feeling supremely confident about the safety, stability and happiness of the home life I offer my daughter, I wonder about all those supposedly superior nuclear families where the kids actually see their fathers way less than Alice ends up seeing hers.

After all, does a wedding certificate and a live-in dad really count for all that much if the latter’s primary engagement with his offspring is a brief, post-work lump check?

The explanations for the sexist asymmetry associated with child raising are complex.

Some families prefer to have hubby bring home the bacon while a barefoot and duffed up wife cooks it. But others feel pressured by labour force chauvinism.

The gap between male and female full-time earnings is as wide as it has been in more than two decades.

As such, it often makes financial sense for fathers to continue full-time work while their female partners raise the kids – or, as is far more often the case – raise the kids in addition to juggling some version of paid employment.

Exacerbating these structural inequities are those chaps whose minimal domestic involvement is entirely of their own selfish and sexist choosing.

When I last worked in an open-plan office, I was always intrigued to watch the metamorphosis of my colleagues post baby-making.

The women developed that dark-eyed look of malignant exhaustion while trying desperately not to be seen as slackers as they expressed breast milk in the toilets or made sudden, frazzled exits to collect sick kiddies from day care.

The work routines of the new dads, on the other hand, often remained blissfully unchanged. One 30-something ab-dad actually increased his seeking of evening assignments and after-work alcohol commitments after the arrival of his infant daughter.

This led to the strong suspicion among his female colleagues that the number of cutesy baby photos he tacked up round his work station was in inverse proportion to the amount of time he spent with his child.

If you’re a father reading this column and are feeling miffed because you make a multitude of work and social sacrifices in order to spend quality, daily time with your children (perhaps even serving as their primary caregivers) – then that’s fantastic.

I’m so very glad there are some of you out there.

I do, however, wish you could find a way to reproduce your egalitarian attitudes as well as your genetic material. 

As feminist icon Gloria Steinem put it recently, women have spent decades showing they can do what men can do. Isn’t it about time men proved the reverse?

318 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:03am | 26/09/11

      The above article is an example of the discrimination faced by men in our society.

      First of all, the author uses the murder of a child by a mother to somehow blame the father. Bear in mind that the largest number of child murders are committed by mothers. Yet it’s still somehow the father’s fault.

      Then we go on to the issue of “absent fathers”. Oddly enough, the huge number of fathers who are forced to be absent by sexist family courts and custody laws are not mentioned. Even if a father is prevented by law from seeing his child, it’s presumably his fault that he’s absent.

      Then we have the old wage-gap myth. Simply put, there are a limited number of hours in a day. The more time a parent spends working, the less time he or she spends parenting. This trade-off applies to both sexes - only a feminist would see it as a conspiracy against women.

      There is much vilification of men, and particularly fathers, in our society. This man-bashing article is simply one more example.

    • Sceptic says:

      07:35am | 26/09/11

      The father wasn’t absent here, he was working his arse off from dawn to dusk to provide for this foul woman and his daughter.

      This blogger (the author, because she’s no journalist) can’t pen an article how the poor little girl was hacked to pieces, that’s somehow not as significant as a man who works his arse off providing for his daughter.

    • Fiona says:

      07:48am | 26/09/11

      Erick, whether you like it or not, that man made poor choices. Firstly moving in with a woman he met on a goth web site FFS. Secondly hedidnt even do w basic check of the lump in bed. Most parents do at least that. Admittedly, she was (hearsay only) an abusive wife, but he was the legal guardian. She was merely his stepmother. This case is nearly as abhorrent as the Daniel Valerrio case of the 90s, but in that the mother knew of the abuse there. He was merely neglectful. But it still led to her death.
      For the recursive seen lots of mums crying in my office about the fact that their partners spend their weekends fishing, wat hinge sports, playing xbox etc or trail bike riding while leaving them to it. Anecdotal, I know and not a biaised blog, but there you have it. Before you accuse me of sexism, I’ve notified far more mothers than fathers to the authorities.

    • marley says:

      08:03am | 26/09/11

      @Erick - it’s not true that the largest number of child murders are committed by mothers.  If you pick a single year, as your paper does, that might be the case because the number of murders in a single year isn’t that large, and therefore you can get statistical anomalies.  If you look at the murders over a longer time, however, you get a clearer pattern - and figures from Canada, the US, the UK and Australia all show that the rate of mothers and of fathers murdering their children is roughly 50/50. 

      As for the rest of your points, I’m inclined to agree with you.  This is a poorly thought out article which focuses too much on the father and not enough on the actual killer.  And frankly, the two examples of absent fathers hardly outweigh the many fathers who are present in their kids lives, even if there have been marriage breakups, or the many step-dads who step in and do the job of the biological father.  I know plenty of examples of both.

    • Erick says:

      08:05am | 26/09/11

      @Fiona - So you’re suggesting it’s a father’s duty to check that his children are alive, each day, in case the mother has murdered them? Or would it be safer to check them each our, or every five minutes? You never know when a mother is going to flip out, after all!

      Alternately, parents could simply trust each other, and not be too paranoid. The vast majority don’t kill or abuse their children.

    • Anne71 says:

      08:13am | 26/09/11

      For once in my life I agree with Erick. How can you twist this particular story to blame the father? Okay, so he was fooled by a “lump in a bed”. The poor man got home late from working his @r$e off to support his family.  He probably didn’t want to risk waking his daughter by trying to kiss her good night, or even going too far into the room.
      Yes, he made a poor choice by hooking up with this woman in the first place. Big deal. Women make stupid choices all the time.  How many cases do you hear where a kid has been killed by the step-father, for whom the woman left the perfectly decent, hard-working biological father?
      Poor form, Emma Jane, for using poor little Zahra Baker’s death to bash fathers and sing the praises of single motherhood.

    • Anne71 says:

      08:13am | 26/09/11

      For once in my life I agree with Erick. How can you twist this particular story to blame the father? Okay, so he was fooled by a “lump in a bed”. The poor man got home late from working his @r$e off to support his family.  He probably didn’t want to risk waking his daughter by trying to kiss her good night, or even going too far into the room.
      Yes, he made a poor choice by hooking up with this woman in the first place. Big deal. Women make stupid choices all the time.  How many cases do you hear where a kid has been killed by the step-father, for whom the woman left the perfectly decent, hard-working biological father?
      Poor form, Emma Jane, for using poor little Zahra Baker’s death to bash fathers and sing the praises of single motherhood.

    • Rainbow Dash says:

      08:17am | 26/09/11

      @Erick
      It’s a parent’s responsibility to ensure their kids are OK. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

      You are vile.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:22am | 26/09/11

      @Fiona, I find your comment about goths highly offensive.

      I was a goth, many of my friends are goth and, yes, I met my current lady of four years in a goth chat channel on the ‘web.

      Just because you don’t like the ‘net, doesn’t mean everyone else doesn’t.  Whatever you might think of the tragedy inherent in these words, where they met or what cultural preferences they enjoy are of absolutely no concern to anyone.

    • Brenda says:

      08:26am | 26/09/11

      I wholeheartedly agree with Erick’s views. Australian men are turning their backs on the self-absorbed, nit-picking female phenomenon I’ve noticed in workplaces everywhere. Women wanted it all. We got it. Now they don’t like it or want it and so they blame mostly decent, hardworking uncomplicated men who would generally do anything for the happiness and comfort of their loved ones.
      Some of the bitchiest, nastiest women have decent, hardworking husbands who find it impossible to fulfil women’s never-ending material, psychological and domestic demands. Yet no matter what they say or do, how hard they work and pay out, it’s never enough.
      Mothers should teach their daughters some manners. Unless something changes there’s going to be a peculiar demographic of frizzled up old thirty-forty somethings creeping around lonely and miserable while waiting for Mr Perfect, Mr Mother, Mr Gardener, Mr Builder, Mr Car Fixer, Mr Wealthy, Mr Ruggedly Handsome, Mr Time Giver, Mr Superman - and girls, he just ain’t going to land on Miss Very Ordinary’s complaining, whinging doorstep.
      Emma Jane’s story about one absent father reads like another excuse to bash to smithereens all the good men. Increasing numbers of them are wandering around blissfully happy and uncatchable because   women’s selfish demanding ways are a thorough turn-off.
      Men are required to shoulder way too much female emotional baggage for way too little consideration. It’s no wonder men are leaving women to it so they can “have it all” -  all by themselves.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      08:41am | 26/09/11

      I’m with Erick on this one. What a disgraceful cherry picking of events- done with the aim of rationalising the author’s obvious contempt for the Y chromosone.

      Even the fathers doing the right thing are according to the author doing the wrong thing, Explains the absent father in her own daughters life,

    • Bev says:

      08:49am | 26/09/11

      marley says:08:03am | 26/09/11

      it’s not true that the largest number of child murders are committed by mothers.

      We have had this discusion before.  While I accept your point that looking at one year in isolation can skew perceptions so can other factors.  In our original discussion I used 2007 figures.  At first glance 22 children were murdered,  11 by mothers 11 by fathers so the numbers are equal.  Looking at figures before this date gave similar results.  2007 was important in Australia as it was the first year in which the figures we broken down further. 11 children were murdered by mothers, 6 children by 5 fathers (one father murdered 2 children) and 5 children by a boyfriend/step father.  By lumping together biological parents and others a misleading picture was created.  I don’t have a breakdown for years previous to 2007 (they were not published) but the ABS themselves admitted that by not breaking the figures down a distorted picture had been created which is why they changed the way the figures were presented.

    • Tina says:

      08:51am | 26/09/11

      I think in order to write a piece on “absent minded” fathers this is a bad example. There are fathers who are not present for their children. Same as some mothers. Too busy with work, with own interests, with their crumbling marriage.

      But to pick an example where the mother has murdered her child and THEN point a finger at the dad is not a very good idea. A different example for how some people dont care enough for their children would have been better.

    • marley says:

      09:12am | 26/09/11

      @Bev - I think the point is, really, that the figures for Australia are consistent with those for the other three countries in showing that parents murdering their children are pretty much 50/50 father/mother.  There’s no reason to demonize one sex over the other on this issue.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:12am | 26/09/11

      Yes, how the man in this story was demonised is beyond me.

      He worked his butt off to provide for his family. That is honourable. He had the woman there to look after the kids. That’s called division of labour.

      Emma probably thinks her trifling $45k pa job would pay off a mortgage in this city and that she is equally contributing = delusions of grandeur.

      Each parent must perform their role. You cannot expect both to do both jobs. It’s unrealistic and doesn’t produce an effective outcome. These days most jobs expect you to be on-call all day every day and to work long hours. The price of houses mean you have to work these jobs.

      Laying a guilt-trip on “ab-dads” is as shameful as laying a guilt-trip on mothers who do not contribute equally to the finances.

    • acotrel says:

      09:12am | 26/09/11

      @Brenda
      ‘Some of the bitchiest, nastiest women have decent, hardworking husbands who find it impossible to fulfil women’s never-ending material, psychological and domestic demands. ‘

      You are right !  Some women simply get ‘on the use’ !  They find a decent bloke, and they are never happy !  And some of them are so weak that they get into the passive resistance/poisonous mode.  Fortunately some of us men sometimes escape to a better life !
      I’m still laughing ! !

    • Woodsy says:

      09:37am | 26/09/11

      @Rainbow Dash, I saw no suggestion like that in Erick’s comments.

      What he said was that it’s perfectly reasonable to expect that Zahra’s stepmother was taking care of her and that there was no reason to expect otherwise.

      I think you twisting his words in the way you did suggests a degree of vileness on your part.

    • MadKat of Melbourne says:

      09:56am | 26/09/11

      Why is the writer criticising hard-working men that provide for their families - as for women being tired at work when they have children, I’ve seen it all before - when planning children they could wait a year or two, save and then not have such a struggle, but they choose to have the child now - why should I feel sorry for them -

    • acotrel says:

      09:59am | 26/09/11

      ’ I was a goth, many of my friends are goth. ‘
      Did you vote for Goth Whitlam ?

    • Fiona says:

      10:03am | 26/09/11

      Actually mahrat, I don’t care whether she was a goth, I hung out with punks and sharpies when I was young. I actually don’t like Internet chat rooms and didn’t mean to cause offense that way.
      Erick, I’m just saying a lot of parents will go in an look at their kids without waking them. We do and I’m sure we’re not the only ones. It’s not paranoia, I just like seeing them when they’re asleep, even the big, grown up ones.

    • Arthur says:

      10:07am | 26/09/11

      Here’s my standard facebook message conversation. Had it with dozens of old mates trying to make contact and get their lives together after separation.

      Old mate….Hey mate haven’t spoken to you for years. How’s things going?

      Me…Yeah good. sharing care of my kids with the ex, she ran off with the guy from work. I’m working at ........trying to get my life back together. What about you?

      Old mate….Yeah, broke up about 3 months ago. Can’t see my kids even though I’ve got court papers. She’s being a real cow.

      Me…hang in there mate it gets easier.

      What i want to tell him but don’t have the heart to, is he’s got about another 2 years of head banging frustration and about 40k in legal bills ahead of him. If he swears or the ex calls violence, he can forget ever seeing his kids again. She, her family and her friends will turn the kids against him, so even in 10 years when he tries to make contact they’ll reject him. SEEN IT dozens of times.

      To say it’s sad and lacks justice is a gross understatement. Australian family law is a horrendous mess. It is corrupt, ridiculously expensive and it favours woman.

      Did you know that if a woman claims violence she is GIVEN legal assistance? Gillard’s solution? Make it worse!

    • Bev says:

      10:07am | 26/09/11

      marley says:09:12am | 26/09/11

      @Bev - There’s no reason to demonize one sex over the other on this issue.

      I am not trying to.  The point remains that demonization of men was and to a certain extent still happening. Many still believe fathers/men kill children and women don’t or if they do there is an excuse for their behavior.  Redressing that impression is important don’t you think?

    • Richard M says:

      10:29am | 26/09/11

      Actually, it’s the mother’s new boyfriend who tends to abuse and/or kill the kids most often, if you want to be accurate.

    • marley says:

      10:37am | 26/09/11

      @Bev - as you know, the Punch has run a couple of articles in the last few days about the wild and woolly side of the internet, the acrimony and vituperation against those who have different ideas from one’s own, and the rather selective nature of arguments being presented in support of one’s own position.  Whether it’s feminism or asylum seekers or climate change, people take a stance and then find whatever evidence they can to back their position.

      Like you, I want to introduce some balance into the discussion, and perhaps take some heat out of it as well - and I think that requires finding objective information, not just cherry-picking data on the opposite side of he argument, as too often happens with all these subjects. 

      And yes, as a matter of fact, I do think there’s too much demonization of men - this article being a prime example.  But let’s attack it for its logical fallacies and extremely smug and self-centered worldview, rather than by using somewhat shaky figures to reverse the argument into an attack on women.

    • andye says:

      10:43am | 26/09/11

      @Arthur - Having gone through a divorce myself I am constantly amazed at these tales. How do people manage to get into such bitter combative circumstances?

      Perhaps the difference is acceptance? I fought for my marriage, but when the writing was on the wall we both agreed and did it amicably. No lawyers, no courts (apart from the basic divorce legalities) and there was no great issues with dividing up and so on. In fact we were both generous and fair in any negotiations.

      When I have seen circumstances like the ones you have mentioned, there is usually one person who does not accept the break up or one or both are bitter over things that happened during the relationship. I hear people saying “family court” this and that, or being angry at feminists or something… but the problem often boils down to someone not being able to accept the others choice, or being unable to get past the bitterness of the past.

      In the end, we aren’t privy to what goes on in the courts and so on… we only really hear self-serving perspectives from the participants. I think sometimes people like Erick need to add a grain of salt or two to these stories before swallowing them.

    • Lloyd says:

      10:43am | 26/09/11

      Erick meet Brenda…:)

    • James1 says:

      10:47am | 26/09/11

      “First of all, the author uses the murder of a child by a mother to somehow blame the father.”

      Are you sure?  It seems you are seeing things that aren’t there with this article, Erick.  The author doesn’t blame him at all - she simply notes that he was absent from his daughter’s life to the extent that he didn’t notice her absence for 15 days.  That is appalling, no matter how you look at it.

      Although I could be reading it wrong.  Can you point me to where exactly does she blame the father for the child’s death, as opposed to blaming the father for not noticing her being missing for two weeks?

    • Bev says:

      10:58am | 26/09/11

      Richard M says:10:29am | 26/09/11

      Actually, it’s the mother’s new boyfriend who tends to abuse and/or kill the kids most often, if you want to be accurate.

      Sorry the stats don’t support what you say.  True stepfathers/boyfriends do commit more abuse/murder than stepmothers but biological mothers do murder their children more than biological fathers and do dish out more abuse than fathers more so single mothers.  Admittedly since there are many many more single mothers than fathers that will affect the stats.

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:16am | 26/09/11

      Brenda
      That was brilliant. Almost too brilliant. Are you sure you’re not a man? You can tell me, I’m open-minded.

      Just about every single woman I know fits that description.

    • Arthur says:

      11:45am | 26/09/11

      “How do people manage to get into such bitter combative circumstances?”

      All that’s needed is at least one entitled hostile party .

    • Arthur says:

      11:51am | 26/09/11

      “Unless something changes there’s going to be a peculiar demographic of frizzled up old thirty-forty somethings creeping around lonely and miserable while waiting for Mr Perfect, Mr Mother, Mr Gardener, Mr Builder, Mr Car Fixer, Mr Wealthy, Mr Ruggedly Handsome, Mr Time Giver, Mr Superman - and girls, he just ain’t going to land on Miss Very Ordinary’s complaining, whinging doorstep. ”

      Really well said. We’re already there Brenda.

      It’s a mans world already. We can pick and choose continuously. It’s “relationship” (sex) heaven. All I hear is “there are no good men”...Yeah, we don’t have to be too good to get our share.

      Woman want it all and in their efforts have ended up with less than nothing. Heart ache, pain and damage is left in their wake as they gobble up, chew and spit out the good men.

    • Huddo says:

      12:18pm | 26/09/11

      Have to agree.  This is probably the most offensive article I’ve ever read on this site.  Truly sickening to use such a terrible tragedy to try to bash a trusting man who worked his ass off day in day out and was deceived by a cold, calculating killer.

    • KH says:

      01:19pm | 26/09/11

      To all of you claiming this loser was ‘working hard for his family’ - 15 DAYS.  Really?  You don’t notice your kid missing for 15 days?  I know guys who work 90 hour weeks and would definitely notice.  I have a close relative that is currently putting in 90 hour week - he makes a point of going into the kids’ rooms to kiss them goodnight even if they are asleep - every night. And then there are weekends where he makes time to spend with them.  I’m astounded that anyone would think that not noticing you hadn’t heard a peep out of your kid for 15 days is somehow defensible.  You people are really unbelievable.

    • Kika says:

      01:23pm | 26/09/11

      No Erick, it’s just another example of a father who really for all intensive purposes didn’t realise his daughter was missing for 15 days.

      Explain that Erick. Explain./

    • Kika says:

      01:24pm | 26/09/11

      @Sceptic - the father may have been working. But what’s wrong with walking into her room when he gets home and asking her whether she had a nice day or not, and to actually put some effort into being a father.

    • Kika says:

      01:54pm | 26/09/11

      Erick - those stats are from 2006 and leave out 24.1% of the stats based on non parents and unknown. That’s a massive hole in the stats.  What did they base their figures on? Crime reports for ‘infanticide’... or ‘murder’.. most likely infanticide. If a man kills a child is it called ‘infanticide’? No, it’s murder. If a woman kills her child it gets a special name because mothers ARENT supposed to kill their kids.  I would be trying to get stats from police crime statistics, not child services because the whole figures aren’t presented.

    • Ben C says:

      02:01pm | 26/09/11

      @ Kika

      I refer you to fairsfair’s comment below about approaching a sleeping deaf person. That will explain why Adam Baker may not have just walked into Zahra’s room after he got home.

      Not everyone works the short hours or the physically-less-demanding jobs that you think, or have the luxury of working.

    • The righteous one says:

      02:04pm | 26/09/11

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz it’s another “lets gee up Erick” blog so that he will roll out the usual about how poor defenceless little men are duped , picked on etc etc by all you cold heartless women. “behold, and it came to pass that Erick the chosen one did answer first yet again”  built in “lets dump on women radar”

    • Erick says:

      02:06pm | 26/09/11

      @James1 - The vast majority of people who have commented on this article seem to agree that it unfairly attaches blame to the father. I think they’re seeing something that really is there.

      @Kika - You can deny all you want, but the facts are the facts.

    • Bev says:

      02:09pm | 26/09/11

      Kika says:01:54pm | 26/09/11

      I wrote to the ABS about Infancide versus murder.  The ABS includes infanticide in the murder figures so the figures (for Australia) include all child murders.  Since 2007 they publish figures (including breakdown of by who). I do not know what happens elsewhere.

    • Bev says:

      02:12pm | 26/09/11

      Kika says:01:24pm | 26/09/11

      But what’s wrong with walking into her room when he gets home and asking her whether she had a nice day or not

      The child was deaf due to cancer.

    • James1 says:

      02:47pm | 26/09/11

      That much is clear to me Erick.  However, I can find no justification for such a connection in the text of the article. 

      Sure, in the Glenn Beck sense there is a connection.  That is, the two are connected because they are mentioned in the same article.  But if one reads the actual text there is no connection.  Much like when Beck talks about Nazis and Barack Obama in the same rant, never actually connects them, and people go away thinking that Obama is connected to the Nazis in some way.

      So I repeat my question: can anyone show me where the author says that the father is reponsible for the murder of his child?  Please also explain the nature of the connection made by the author, because I can not find it in the article.

    • St. Michael says:

      03:23pm | 26/09/11

      “So I repeat my question: can anyone show me where the author says that the father is reponsible for the murder of his child?  Please also explain the nature of the connection made by the author, because I can not find it in the article.”

      She doesn’t say so outright because that would be defamation of character, for which she could be sued.

      Rather, it’s heavily implied.  Which is as bad as saying it outright.

    • TomZ says:

      03:37pm | 26/09/11

      James1, the father is not the one who murdered the child. Yet 95% of the bile for the child’s death is directed at the father. You must be in some sort of denial not to be able to acknowledge that disgusting bigotry from the author.

    • Ben C says:

      03:39pm | 26/09/11

      @ James1

      The way I’ve read it, Emma is using the fact that Adam Baker’s prolonged daily absence due to work, and the fact that he didn’t actually go up to her bed to check she was safe and sound at night, contributed to the murder - Elisa Baker has captured the trust of Adam Baker, she has worked out his patterns on checking up on Zahra, which has then made concealing her crime a much easier job.

      Without Emma using so many words, that’s the way I see her article leading, but that’s my personal viewpoint.

    • Tim says:

      03:39pm | 26/09/11

      James1,
      are you serious?
      From the text:
      “But there is one aspect of the killing that is especially shocking…”
      “I’m speaking here of absent fathers. “

      “The rest of us, meanwhile, are struggling to find words to express our incredulity at the fact that it took the former North Queensland saw miller 15 days to realise that his daughter was missing; that the lump he saw each night in her bed was just that.
      An inanimate lump. “

      “As such, they could also be fooled by child-shaped bed lumps.
      I personally know of no mums who could be similarly tricked.”

      Now, I’m not sure about you but those read exactly like the author thinks that the father is partly to blame for the child’s death. I don’t know how you could read the article and think any differently.

    • James1 says:

      03:50pm | 26/09/11

      Can you quote the article implying this Michael?  Or the part that lead you to make such an inference?  I ask this in a genuine attempt to understand why people are drawing this conclusion. 

      I read this on the weekend in The Oz, and I have probably read it 5 times today, and apart from the Glenn Beck-style connection (which in reality is no connection at all), I can not make any inference that he is responsible for his child’s death from reading the article.  As I say below it is pretty self serving and quite sexist towards the end, but never is it implied that he is responsible for the death, at least so far as I can see (but again, pleasegive me a quote that proves me wrong, and I will change my position).  He is clearly responsible for not noticing his child’s death, but this is a very different thing, and in no way implicates him in the death.

      I am really struggling with this one.  I am being too literal just reading what the author wrote?  Or am I being too trusting that she simply means exactly what she writes?

    • James1 says:

      04:15pm | 26/09/11

      Interesting thoughts, Ben.  I had read the absent live-in father thing as being a separate social phenomenon to the murdering stepmother in this article, as per the second paragraph where the author clearly signals that one (the murder) is a criminal issue, the other (absent dads) a family one.  Perhaps I need to think on this further.

      As for where the article leads, this may sound harsh but it seems to me, in light of the latter third of the article, an apologia for her own choice of single motherhood.  Something along the lines of “this is what fathers are like so who needs them anyway”.  Even if it is the just latter, I have a serious issue with her argument. 

      Some of the attacks on the author seem as unwarranted as many of the attacks on Miranda Devine when people thought (erroneously, IMHO) she linked Penny Wong’s baby with the English riots.

    • B says:

      11:19pm | 26/09/11

      @Fiona

      Why is it the mans fault?  Why not the womans?  She is the one who killed him NOT the father.  How difficult is it for you to understand that?

    • Kika says:

      01:32pm | 27/09/11

      Bev - the figures Erick presented were for some American child services agency so the ABS collection of data may be different.

    • Craig says:

      06:05am | 26/09/11

      Why should men spend more time with their kids? All the pricing signs say we shouldn’t.

      We earn more in the workplace, as you say, meaning that it is financially more prudent.

      We don’t get paternity leave in the same way as women (particularly if you kids were born more than a few years ago), sending a signal that we’re not needed at home, meaning we don’t bond in the same way, or have the time to learn the same skills as our partners.

      We get strange looks in supermarkets and even get accosted by strange older women (well past their child rearing days) who insinuate that we are not equipped to be god parents or are likely to be child molesters.

      Society keeps telling men that their role is as a remote, disengaged provider, who acts as a babysitter when mum needs a break.

      I don’t blame many men for ceasing their struggle against the stereotype and bowing to their fate of being a second-class parent.

      To change the behaviour, change the social ‘pricing’ signals.

    • thoughts says:

      08:21am | 26/09/11

      You don’t get paternity leave the way women get maternity leave because maternity leave is about recovery from birth…(look up the various Acts)

    • Blind Freddy says:

      08:45am | 26/09/11

      @thoughts

      . . . .  anything to say about the rest of Craigs points?

    • Nasser says:

      09:28am | 26/09/11

      @ Craig, you get strange looks for taking your kids out on your own???  I have 1 year old twins and I love our Saturday’s together!  We go out to cafes etc every saturday and I’ve never had anyone give me a strange look or say anything to me!  This gives my wife saturdays to her self for a break, and it’s a win, win.  I get to spend time with my kids, she gets to recover some sanity.  I’m sad to hear your story, as I’ve never had any negativity about taking them out on my own.  And I totally disagree with society saying tha tmen should be disengaged providers.  Not sure where you live, but most of my male friends around my age, are very engaged in their kids etc.  Most of them are more interested in work/life balance than just trying to make as much money as possible.

    • MadKat of Melbourne says:

      09:40am | 26/09/11

      “We get strange looks in supermarkets” - heh ??? - when you’re walking around with your kids ?? - I think you’re just paranoid - plenty of my guy friends and family members take their kids out without their wives or girlfriends being there and haven’t been hassled -

    • Tina says:

      10:09am | 26/09/11

      In fact if you are a doting single daddy in the supermarket the women might be all over you grin

    • James1 says:

      11:08am | 26/09/11

      “Why should men spend more time with their kids?”

      Easy - because you are not the centre of the universe, and the needs and feelings of others matter.  Your children love you, and love seeing you and playing with you and just spending time together.  That is why men should spend more time with their kids - for the sake of their kids.  I don’t care what society says - my daughter loves spending time with me, and as such I endeavour to make this happen as much as possible.

      To judge from the rest of your post, you haven’t even considered the children in this equation.  How odd.

    • old fart says:

      02:19pm | 26/09/11

      I think what is wrong with the responses here is that all of you including the writer, are imposing what you would call normal employment conditions, i.e. what you have in australia in the form of working hours, leave etc.  This man is working in America, they dont have anything near like what we have. Some Americans consider our conditions to be unbelievably fortunate.  American employers have it all their own way. when it comes to pay and conditions.  American workers only get 2 weeks leave p.a. So lighten up on the father, he probably was working his butt off for long days and low pay, and when he got home was probably to knackered to really check on his daughter.  Dont think for one minute he wont think about that everyday for the rest of his life.

    • St. Michael says:

      03:34pm | 26/09/11

      @ James1: I think Craig was looking at it through the economic lens, which basically says that a family as an economic unit is best served with one person devoted to one task—breadwinning—and the other devoted to childrearing.  This is Adam Smith theory, in that two people both making paperclips at the same time won’t do it as fast as two people doing parts of paperclips on an assembly line.

      From a purely economic standpoint—and only that—it did make more economic sense up until the time of the contraceptive pill for men to go and work while women stayed at home and raised the children.  The Pill and feminism changed that equation in a very real way, and we hope for the better.  In essence, women could work, therefore the need to establish families in economic units of this kind didn’t exist so much.  But it’s too big a subject to go into right now.

    • James1 says:

      04:08pm | 26/09/11

      Only an economist could think that way, Michael.  That is certainly how I took his post - as further evidence that economists should not be allowed to breed…

    • St. Michael says:

      12:20am | 27/09/11

      @ James1: in defence of economists, Tim Herford in “The Logic of Life” was at some pains to point out that most economists understand what’s economically rational is not necessarily what’s socially acceptable, and that we have to come to grips with that.  Adam Smith’s theories also do need a bit of a tweak from time to time given they’re as old (literally) as Karl Marx’s own.

      As it is, I still find economics—particularly given the survey Herford makes in that book—a pretty interesting way to fit results to a given set of behaviours.  His (or rather, the guys he interviewed) theorem on the ultimate consequences of The Pill + Feminism + Women in Higher Education makes for surprising but erudite reading.

    • James Ricketson says:

      06:32am | 26/09/11

      “Exacerbating these structural inequities are those chaps whose minimal domestic involvement is entirely of their own selfish and sexist choosing.”

      I do so wish, Emma, that you, other journalists and contributors to Punch would lay off on words like ‘sexist’, ‘chauvinistic’, ‘racist’ and other such labels that encourage thought clichés and discourage dialogue. This article seems to have been written less to open up an interesting and important debate than to start an online screaming match that will, no doubt, result in over 200 comments.

      Your passing reference to ‘structural inequities’ will, I suspect, as the day goes along, get lost here @ The Punch amidst the angry responses (from both men and women) to the notion that men are chauvinistic sexist slackers not pulling their weight at home. Would the partners of these men be happy to accept the radical drop in income these dads earn working 10 hours a day if they switched to jobs requiring only 8 hours and time off to pick up the kids from school? How many fathers would love to work less onerous hours and be more involved in the upbringing of their children if the ‘structural inequities’ were addressed? The same applies for so many women today who have little choice but to work full time jobs (even if they have a partner working full time) to keep up with the cost of living.

      Please, fellow Punchers, try and construct your responses to Emma’s piece without using either ‘sexist’ or ‘chauvinistic’ or any of the other labels guaranteed to elicit a slanging match with others Punchers on the opposing team who have their own storehouse of personal invective and epithets to bring to the battle.

    • Tim says:

      07:40am | 26/09/11

      Why should the commenters be any less aggressive in their responses than the author is in the article?

    • marley says:

      08:06am | 26/09/11

      @Tim - because we’re more rational than the author?  (well, I live in hope).

    • Tim says:

      09:15am | 26/09/11

      “because we’re more rational than the author? “

      Marley, did you get hit on your head yesterday? That kind of talk is ridiculous.
      This whole website is built on the premise of outrageously inflammatory articles followed by equally crazy comments.

    • marley says:

      10:05am | 26/09/11

      @Tim - Nope, no recent head injuries.  I think James R. is hoping our responses will be more rational than the article itself.  That’s not a very high standard to set, but I think he’s being highly optimistic, regardless - that’s all I’m trying to say.

    • acotrel says:

      06:35am | 26/09/11

      ’ Convertible Buying Mid-Life Crisis Dad (who trades in his reproductively exhausted lifewife for a younger and more gravity defiant model).  ‘

      And this has something to do with homicide?  Sometimes families split for genuine incompatibility reasons where one adult cannot bear to live with the other any longer.  Are we now to force people to live together because their kids might getr murdered by their spouse’s next partner ?
      I CALL BULLSHIT !

    • Arthur says:

      08:41am | 26/09/11

      I think you’ll find acotrel that the vast majority of relationships are terminated by woman. Men are men, we don’t change. We’re simple folk, that want to eat, sleep, be loved and love.

      Woman look at the lump mowing the lawn and think they can do better. They move on, kids or no kids, only to find themselves among male wolves that have also been burned by woman. These men no longer care and are reluctant to give woman another chance. I’ll tell you acotrel from my present experience, it is then the guys world. We can pick and choose like never before.

      Their mantra then is “there are no good men”. If it were not so tragic for the feminist movement, it would be funny.

    • acotrel says:

      09:19am | 26/09/11

      @Arthur
      I wonder if the person who invented divorce ever got the Nobel Peace Prize ?
      My new wife appreciates, and loves me, and so does my dog !  I’ve had the operations to cure my stress related illnesses.  And life is great ! The sun shines every day in Benalla, even when it’s raining !

    • Arthur says:

      10:16am | 26/09/11

      Me too acotrel. After the shock of realising you’re a bloke I’m writing…....

      After separating from the mother of my kids, I had a disastrous relationship that I terminated and have now met the woman I’ll hopefully spend the rest of my days with. She has no kids and never married. I’m in relationship heaven. I do however fear she’ll fall for the women’s curse…Thinking I’m responsible for her happiness and that all those endearing things she sees now become a pain. Like I said we’re simple folk us men, we don’t change. Women’s perception tragically almost always does.

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:07am | 26/09/11

      Oh dearie, dearie me.  I’m going to enjoy this one.

      Erick, have a good weekend, mate?

    • Erick says:

      08:08am | 26/09/11

      Morning, Mahhrat! I had a good weekend, and I’m pleased to see The Punch has been considerate enough to serve up an easy target today!

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:30am | 26/09/11

      Call out to the editors (that’s Penbo, right?)

      I’d like Erick to have a right of reply to this article.  While his views are definitely biased and I don’t agree with them all, this piece is so staggeringly sexist that it’s only fair that a “counter-punch” article be written for this afternoon or tomorrow.

      If not Erick, then perhaps one of your own team.  This tripe should not be allowed to influence the minds of anyone without providing the counter-argument.

    • marley says:

      08:39am | 26/09/11

      @Mahrat - tripe indeed,  And sadly, published in the Oz - where it won’t get even this much right of reply.  I’ve never understood why Ms. Tom or Jane or whatever gets a gig - she doesn’t write particularly well, and she obviously doesn’t think particularly well either.  She’s a real feminist’s worst enemy, I would have thought.

      And I do think there should be a rebuttal article, by someone who can actually be objective on the subject.

    • Arthur says:

      09:51am | 26/09/11

      Feminism is ridiculous. Woman rant and rave until men are forced to give them what they want and not earn. In my industry, long standing bench marks have literally been compromised and changed so woman can meet the standards. Woman just want equal rights yeah? In reality they want favoritism.

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:28am | 26/09/11

      Mahhrat

      How on earth could you write a rebuttal to this article?

      It’s so full of half-truths, misquotes, poor conclusions, inconclusions, ex post facto rationalisation, ad hominen attacks, straw-man hypotheses and irrationality that to take it seriously and debunk it would drive you insane.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      11:38am | 26/09/11

      I genuinely think people are misreading this article. The argument here is that yes, the mother and the crime were evil - plenty has been written on this. But it is staggering that a man would not see his daughter for 15 days. That is the point Emma has used to explore a societal problem, which is completely valid.

      It’s opinion, so there’s no ‘right of reply’ - we’d end up exploding from the positive feedback loops - but certainly we’d consider a submission in response to this. We did make a very rare exception for Erick to remain anonymous at one point, but I’m not sure we should do that again.

    • Jim says:

      11:47am | 26/09/11

      Tory, sometimes it can’t be helped. My first FIFO job was 21/7 s I didn’t get to see my kids for 21 days. After the GFC (and divorce) when a lot of mines closed down I had to move interstate to find work that paid enough to keep CSA happy…now I get to see them every 3 months.

      Thanks for the ‘staggering’ guilt trip!

    • RyaN says:

      11:50am | 26/09/11

      @Tory Shepherd: what is evil is someone seriously trying to drag this man into somehow being responsible for this horror. The man has suffered something horrific, and to have this article penned about him is nothing but a very, very low blow.

    • Tim says:

      11:50am | 26/09/11

      Tory,
      “But it is staggering that a man would not see his daughter for 15 days”

      Why?
      I know plenty of men that don’t see their kids for weeks at a time. It’s not because they’re bad fathers, it’s because they are working their butts off to provide for their children and their families. I know it may be hard for some people to understand, but money doesn’t grow on trees.

      For this article to partly blame this father for his child’s death, and there can be no doubt that it does, is disgraceful.

    • Arthur says:

      11:59am | 26/09/11

      What sane man would take on the feminist industry without anonymity Tory?

    • Markus says:

      12:04pm | 26/09/11

      I don’t think anyone is misreading the article, Tory.
      Emma may have had a point to make, but it had little if anything to do with this horrible case, and was in very poor taste to try and claim it does.

      You guys got it horribly wrong this time. Just face it and move on.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:04pm | 26/09/11

      “But it is staggering that a man would not see his daughter for 15 days. That is the point Emma has used to explore a societal problem, which is completely valid.”

      I Call Bullshit, Tory.  Taking the murder of a child by the mother and implying the father could have prevented it but didn’t because he was an absent father is not a valid way to illustrate the point.  It leaves the implication that women are entitled to murder their children because some men are absent fathers.

      If you really wanted to explore the absent father angle, how come you didn’t invite someone like Steve Biddulph to write about the concept? He’s a crusader for men’s rights, he’s outspoken about absent fathers and wants men to be back with their kids—and he’s nowhere near as vituperative about it than, say, fathers4justice might be.

      But I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts he wouldn’t have used a mother killing kids to illustrate the point.

      No, instead you got a half-qualified bloggist to rip an article out capitalising on a child’s murder to basically smear the father’s reputation to make the weak point that absent fathers are inviting their wives to kill their children.  Well done indeed.  What’s next, using the Holocaust to suggest that if you don’t keep Jews out of the banking industry horrible things can happen?

    • Mahhrat says:

      12:12pm | 26/09/11

      @Tory, yes it is staggering, and yes there is a prevalent problem with parents who don’t see their children.

      Sure, this case was about a father who didn’t see his kid for 2 weeks.  That is tragic, and this whole affair is horrendous, but it has nothing to do with his gender.

      Were the opinion of the article be that no parent should spend that much time away from their child, it would have merit as a valid opinion piece.

      But if you’re going to post out-and-out sexism and pass it off as acceptable social comment, then Erick and Sad Sad Reality now have true open slather to have their full points of view published, should they so choose to be named.

      Of course, neither of them may wish to respond, but that’s up to them.

    • James1 says:

      12:29pm | 26/09/11

      To all,

      I see the sexism here, but I certainly do not see the author linking this man’s absence from his child’s life to his child’s death.  Can anyone point out where this is done in the article?

    • Anne71 says:

      01:06pm | 26/09/11

      Tory, we didn’t misread anything. Emma Jane has basically tried to twist Zahra’s murder to somehow be her father’s fault as well as the stepmother’s - and implied that men who work long hours and go several days, weeks even, without seeing their kids are automatically Bad Fathers.  Well, that makes pretty much any bloke with children in the Defence Force “bad fathers”, doesn’t it? Or FIFO miners?
      Sorry, Tory - this article was pure, unadulterated and extremely insulting garbage from start to finish.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      01:06pm | 26/09/11

      @Tory

      Given the still existing structural inequalities that result in men still being required to do the bulk of the work that requires being away from home the most (e.g. mining, defence forces, transport and so on), how is your questioning of men being away from home for prolonged periods any different to the argument that women shouldn’t leave their babies in child care while they go to work?

      If a father killed a child while the mother believed that the child was in child care, while she was at work, should her choice to work be questioned or worse used as an alibi for responsibility?

    • KH says:

      01:23pm | 26/09/11

      Jim - if you weren’t physically there, you could hardly check on your kids.  This guy went home every night, and didn’t notice for more than 2 weeks his kid wasn’t even in the house.  Don’t compare apples with oranges.

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:32pm | 26/09/11

      Tory, the point of the article is obfuscated by the example given and then tied back solely to men as being the problem. What about absent *parents* instead of just absent dads.

      Moreover, it makes the erroneous link in the fourth para that it’s men who are solely to blame for being absent. What about the idiot women who go out with Bucket Bong Boy: take a hint, ladies, if he hasn’t got his life together by his late teens then give him a wide berth. Or the guy that trades up: another pro-tip, watch out when you land that 25yo stockbroker or lawyer. He might be a good catch now but when he’s making squillions in 15-20 years and your nipples can touch your belly-button he might be looking elsehwere. Again, that’s a probable outcome of your choices.

      The article also seems to suggest that the man had a choice. No, he didn’t. He has to be the provider. No money means no food, clothing or shelter. There is no real choice regardless of what Gloria Steinem wants us to prove. Men know that most women don’t respect a man who doesn’t bring home the bacon and be the provider. Moreover, the nature of the workforce means massive cimmitments at work have to be dealt with. There is no escaping these facts.

      It then tries to make some points about sexism and chauvinism that were so poorly thought out as to be immediately dismissible. It even said their routines are “blissfully unchanged”. Funny, I’ll go and tell that to some of the new dads I work with and see how quickly it is laughed off.

      Or maybe the article isn’t suggesting that but is so poorly written that conclusions have to be read into it because the author neglected to do this.

      As I was taught in law school, when writing an argument the first sentence of the para is the proposition you are going to prove. The second sentence is your evidence from case law or (published) research. The final sentence is the conclusion linking the above two in order to make a point.

      The author seems to have missed all 3.

    • Luke says:

      01:33pm | 26/09/11

      @st michael, great response and agree whole heartedly.  I have read some of Steve’s work, and listened to him on the radio, and he would be a great person to write an article about this. But then you wouldn’t get as much traffic to your website if someone wrote a balanced opinion piece…
      And can an opinion piece be balanced?

    • Budz says:

      01:53pm | 26/09/11

      @Tory: Fair enough. How many articles do you post on here blaming women specifically?

    • Erick says:

      02:43pm | 26/09/11

      @KH - So you’re saying it’s a father’s duty to check that his children are still alive every day, in case the mother murdered them?

      That speaks of a rather poor opinion of women. I guess you must be a misogynist.

    • Dan says:

      03:47pm | 26/09/11

      And BAM - there it is Budz!

      This article is trying to share the blame for a horrific crime committed by a mother. Has anyone seen anything similar on the Westgate Bridge incident? This is the most disgusting example of feminism I have ever seen (and being 30 I’ve seen it all my life). You’re just a hate mongerer Emma.

      Any reply Tory? or Punch? (There are a few men out here who are getting a bit sick of this garbage)

    • adam says:

      07:39am | 26/09/11

      Last Emma Jane post I shall bother to read

    • Rossco says:

      07:41am | 26/09/11

      Wow, so the death of this little girl by the mother is being blamed on the father, who didnt even commit the murder, but isnt a flash dad but maybe he worked too hard because he loved and supported his kids?

      This article is an absolute disgrace.

    • Richard M says:

      07:42am | 26/09/11

      Only Emma Jane could somehow use the horrific murder of a child by a woman to write an article condemning the father and then men in general.  On this occasion, I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Erick, which is a very rare occurrence.  But this is a sick and twisted viewpoint from someone who has always been blinded by misandry and feminist myths.
      Go away, Emma.

    • Kika says:

      01:34pm | 26/09/11

      Hello? If he was a good father how could he mistake his daughter for a lump of pillows?? For 15 days?

    • PTom says:

      02:21pm | 26/09/11

      Kika,
      I what about her mother, grandparents, neighbours or schools no one noticed for 15 days nope it is all down to dad who was working hard and thought he could trust his wife.

      His mistake was in thinking he could trust his wife not his bad parenting.

    • Syl says:

      03:37pm | 26/09/11

      Kika

      What about the woman who killed a defenceless child, then hacked her body into pieces?

      It is frankly disgusting to lay ANY blame onto a father who worked long hours to support his family.  His mistake was trusting a psychotic child killer, not having a demanding job. This woman is 100% to blame, to suggest otherwise is sickening.

      I have a daughter, and I spend every minute I can with her, but I am not so pigheaded to believe that everyone leads my, quite frankly, priveledged life.  One partner should not have to constantly check whether their child has been brutally murdered by the other.

    • Anne71 says:

      05:08pm | 26/09/11

      Kika,  I don’t know what privileged little bubble you live in but in some industries it is not uncommon for people to work two weeks on, two weeks off.  And if this poor particular sod left the house before his daughter’s usual getting-up time and did not get back until after she was in bed and asleep, then it’s entirely possible that his only sight of her would be from the bedroom door.  What did you want him to do, go and wake her up so that he could do the “quality time” thing, even if it was nine or ten at night?
      All the poor man did was entrust his daughter to the care of the woman he loved. He would never have suspected for a second that she would do something so horrific. Do you think he’s not already suffering because of that? Get off your self-righteous high horse, Kika, and stop kicking the man when he’s down.

    • Fiona says:

      07:48pm | 26/09/11

      It wasn’t her mother. This was a woman he met on the net. Her mother was back home in Australia. I believe that she had mental health issues and dad took custody. It’s still horrific, but somewhat more comparable to stepfathers abusing/killing their partners kids.

    • Alicia says:

      10:15pm | 26/09/11

      I do agree that it’s strange that the father didn’t notice her missing for 15 days but would him noticing sooner have changed the outcome of a dead child? Probably not. This article is just…wrong.

    • Kika says:

      01:34pm | 27/09/11

      Syl - you ask any child who’s Dad works too much whether they think their Dad is doing a good job!

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      04:55pm | 27/09/11

      Kika.  I too am shaking my head at the 15 days. But there’s more to this story than Emma leads her readers to believe.

      What Emma conveniently fails to note in her efforts to exemplifiy this extreme and hence “terrible example” with a broader issue is this:  Elisa Baker had killed his daughter, chopped her little body up and then created a lump in the bed. In what reality does Emma think that Baker would have said to hard working Adam when he got home late at night - why don’t you go on into the room and give your daughter a gentle kiss while she’s sleeping. Bizzaroworld? We think she’d be doing everything possible to stop the bloke going in there? Don’t we peeps?

      And then of course there is the inconvenient truth that the longer the time between your crime and the start of any investigation, the harder it is to get caught. Big motivation right there to string Adam along for as long as possible.

      I fear that Emma’s agenda is less to do with a plea for men to pick up their game.  That’s possibly a decoy to cover the bad taste of Emma using this example for her true agenda.  Because by emphasising lax Dads selecting murderous substitute mothers then the obvious conclusion that a knee jerk society with an overloaded court system will come to is that the safest place for a child is with the natural mother.  And that makes Emma’s choice of being (and status as) a single mother look positively virtuous.  Check mate. Make you feel better about your choices Emma? Yay - a win for single mothers - go team go.

      But Emma’s kick straight to the opposition is labeling “blamed her absence on adolescence” as laughable.  Um, isn’t the lack of understanding that the average man has for the complex array of feelings and actions of girls during their adolescence one of the reasons courts are less inclined for adolescent girls to live with the father?  So how is that line of argument now laughable.

      What really was Adam’s “chuckle” like. Was it a nervous or anxious laugh?

    • Syl says:

      12:48am | 28/09/11

      Kika

      Growing up there were periods where I didnt see my father for weeks at a time because of work, he also suffered from horrendous migraines which meant that when he was home it was often hard to have contact with him.  However when he could he made damn sure to spend time with us, we went fishing, shooting, camping and all manner of things.

      I would never consider that my father didnt do a good job by working his ass off for me and my family.  He worked when he had to and we had quality time when we could.  And i CERTAINLY wont have some cocky know it all calling him a bad father.

      Dont make massive assumptions about what other people may think of their upbringings, you are sure to be wrong.

      I also notice you didnt even bother to counter a single point I originally made, yet still manage to have a go at fathers who work hard to support their families.

      I am still, quite frankly, disgusted.

    • un-PC says:

      07:46am | 26/09/11

      I was going to say something witty, but the author doesn’t deserve anything more from me other than to say:

      “WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSH*T!!”

    • ibast says:

      07:49am | 26/09/11

      NO it isn’t the absence of fathers that is a problem.  It’s the societal expectation that both parents need to partake in the hour by hour care of our children.  In earlier times fathers were expected to work long hours to support their families.  They were expected to go away for work.  Some times they went away for months or even years at a time.  It was seen as noble.

      These days men are expected to provide for their family, cook dinner, clean the house, maintain the yard, do their own ironing and be there for every moment of their children’s lives.

      And you want more?

      Now I’m not saying men should go to work and women should stay home and look after the kids alla-1955.  All I’m saying is society need to get some reality about the situation.  Men are going to miss the odd school play.  Little Johnny is going to sometimes bump his knee and only have his mum to help him.  Sometimes Mum is going to have to hold the fort whilst dad is busting his arse to support everyone.

      Just like Dad is going to have to do the same for Mum.

      Creating the expectation that Dad (or Mum) should be there all the time is not healthy for our society or our children

    • acotrel says:

      08:27am | 26/09/11

      @ibast
      ’ In earlier times fathers were expected to work long hours to support their families. ‘
      When we were living in the Amazon Jungle we didn’t have to do that !  All we had to do was make a few spears and poisoned darts to keep the headhunters away.  Ask Sophie Mirabella, she knows all about pygmies !

    • Aitch B says:

      10:09am | 26/09/11

      @acotrel

      This article is totally non-politcal, Alan, but you just can’t help yourself, can you? Why drag your hatred for Sophie Mirabella and anything non-Labor into this?

      Please get a life and leave your political claptrap for articles that are at least politically oriented!!

    • JS says:

      12:02pm | 26/09/11

      @ibast - I agree. back in the day, people would also have bigger families and all live under one roof as they couldn’t afford seperate houses, so there was always grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins or older siblings to help out.

      For some strange reason these days parents barricade themselves inside their McMansions, cut off all ties with the outside world, refuse help as they are wary of strangers, don’t make their kids help out around the house as that is tantamount to child abuse, and then complain about how hard it is to do it all yourself? who said you had to?

      we need to get back to community, cause as much as Dad didn’t see Zahra for 15days, neither did her friends, extended family or the school.

    • Syl says:

      03:40pm | 26/09/11

      Acotrel

      Is it possible for you to comment on one article, especially a non-political motivated one, without acting like a mouth foaming, Labor fanboy dickhead?

      Stick to the topic at hand PLEASE

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      07:56am | 26/09/11

      I didn’t follow this case and did not know that the father had not noticed for two weeks that his daughter was missing. I am a little confused about his, so he had no days off.  It seems inconceivable that he would not interact at all for those 15 days? As the biological parent he would have been very important to his daughters well being I would have imagined.  I think this highlights the isolation that can and does occur in our community. One adult working too hard and not noticing a major disaster in the family home. I would imagine there would have been a lead up to this outcome.  The other adult looking after a disabled teenager alone without support.  This story is tragic all round.

    • Tina says:

      08:42am | 26/09/11

      I had a father just as described by the author and whether or not I agree with what she says, thats how it was for me. He worked a lot (more by choice though) and I never saw him. He never once took care of my brother and me or changed a diaper. When he was home I was not allowed to “bother” him because he was tired. He didnt know our hobbies or anything about us. When we were about 18, my fathers business got bankrupt and he has now retired and realised that he missed seeing his children grow up. He now loves to play granddad to my brothers kids. Whereas I love it that they have an active granddad now, it doesnt get me any closer to him as he sees it as lost case to try and form a connection now.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      09:27am | 26/09/11

      Tina -  Its sad for you that you have missed out on a meaningful relationship with your dad.  He did do what was expected of men in his time and he obviously provided for his family.  I also believe its never too late.I have read your posts and love your attitude if anyone can overcome this it would be you.  I ended up having a great relationship with my dad as an adult. Families can and have survived this and its all good if the mother is strong and supported by other adults.  When one adult is doing it alone and it goes bad and no one notices, it gets really bad for the kids.  This is the major reason I believe we need to support work/family balance, maternal/paternal leave, equal pay and shared care as a presumption in marriage breakdown. This way both parents share the work in and out of the home and are aware of what is going on in family life and can look out for each other and the kids. This way children get to have a meaningful relationship with both of their parents and are kept safe.

    • Tina says:

      09:59am | 26/09/11

      Thanks Liz, you are sweet. Its not like I had a bad childhood. My mom was a stay at home mother and is the most wonderful person, keeping the family together, my parents are still married and I now have wonderful nieces and nephews. I just wanted to focus a little more on the absent parent thing which unfortunately got lost in the article because of all the other inappropriate aspects of the article.

      But I think it is very common that even when have a mother and a father in theory, they might still be left alone. Why do we nowadays expect schools to raise our children with anti-bullying programmes, sexual diversity education and nutritional programmes? Is that all stuff our parents should teach us? I think families should sometimes get back to basics. Doesnt have to be ten sports programmes, high tech and club memberships. How about parenting and guidance instead?

    • TChong says:

      10:17am | 26/09/11

      Tina
      Now yur an Ozzy sheila you need to start spellin the OZ way,  ie mum.

    • Tina says:

      10:44am | 26/09/11

      @ TChong

      should I let you in on a secret? I lived in Oz for two years but am actually a kiwi resident now, live in Wellington. But I am still a nice girl!!

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      11:08am | 26/09/11

      I agree Tina. I have always pictured a family as somewhere where people support and protect each other. I have always been vigilant and I try to take notice of things.  Its not rocket science, just not letting myself become self absorbed.  As far as schools are concerned children are in schools care for 6 hours per day.  That’s a big slice of time.  I believe they should deal with bullying behaviour that is happening at school. As far as nutrition, its not a bad thing for kids to learn about their bodies and how to take care of them. I agree we get carried away with the organised routine   I have found that kids love spending time doing the small stuff. Cooking is something all the kids in my family love.  To me its always about relationships, noticing each other, spending time, laughing and paying attention to each other. .

    • TChong says:

      11:26am | 26/09/11

      Tina you’re a choice chick eh?
      I wouldnt have suggested, or thought otherwise,
                                wink

    • Fiddler says:

      07:56am | 26/09/11

      are you trolling Emma? Seriously this article is crap. Society expects men to work a lot harder to support their family and they miss out, it is called duty. I know a lot of fathers who do fifo in the mines to support the family while their wives spend their days drinking coffee with friends in cafes treating the kids as fashion accessories

    • iansand says:

      08:21am | 26/09/11

      Perhaps it is the expectation that is the problem.

    • acotrel says:

      09:56am | 26/09/11

      @Fiddler
      ‘family while their wives spend their days drinking coffee with friends in cafes ‘

      Be fair, they still do some of the hard stuff like driving the recreational vehicle to the school to drop the kids off, and pick them up later !

    • progressivesunite says:

      02:54pm | 26/09/11

      For god’s sake - if women go to work and earn a living and have children, they get attacked for not being ‘real women’ and for neglecting their children. If they stay home as stay home mothers, they’re lazy bitches who are a financial drain on their husband.

      Who’d be a straight woman - they can’t ever win with men like you, can they.

    • Syl says:

      03:44pm | 26/09/11

      Fiddler

      You could have made your point about the expectations of Fathers (perfectly valid) without the “wives spend their days drinking coffee with friends in cafes treating the kids as fashion accessories” bullshit.

      Taking care of a child (especially a young one) is extremely demanding and my wife works f******* hard at it.  Don’t rebut a clearly sexist argument with another one.  It just makes you look childish and ridiculous.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      05:39pm | 26/09/11

      Bev - Does fatherless families lie at the heart of feminism? I would have thought that early feminism was not favouring motherhood at all.  I grew up in the 60’s and being able to earn money without the impact of mothering was what I took from the feminist messages. I don’t ever remember any messages about being a sole parent being a good option to further my career choices. Education and being able to access my own money were what I heard loud and clear. Economic self determination.  When I was 25,working full time and on pretty good money I was knocked back on a loan for a lousy $5000 because I could get pregnant. Imagine if I had had a child, no childcare, no job and definitely no money for the next decade from the bank.  Teenage parents are heavily linked with intergenerational poverty.

    • Fiona says:

      07:59pm | 26/09/11

      How do these FIFO workers know what their wives are doing when they’re not there fiddler?

    • OchreBunyip says:

      08:04am | 26/09/11

      In my view Adam Baker made the following errors of judgement

      1) He worked long hours to provide money for his family
      2) He looked in on his child but did not want to disturb her sleep
      3) He was confused when his daughter seemingly ran away
      4) He trusted the women he married

      What he did not do was murder his child, his new wife, Elisa Baker, did that. Not only did Eliza Baker murder the child in her care, beforehand according to statements by neighbours, she emotionally and physically abused Zahra. Further, to conceal her crime,  Elisa Baker scattered the body parts of the murdered child. Elisa Baker then lied about the circumstances of her child’s location and wellbeing of Zahra to her husband, the media and Police investigators.

      None of the actions of Elisa Baker are due to Adam Baker not looking under the bedclothes to ensure his daughter was actually sleeping in her bed when he had every reasonable belief that this was the case.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:28am | 26/09/11

      It’s bloody painful to have to read what you wrote here Ochre, exactly because you should not even have to say what you’ve said.

      It’s a sad indictment on the author of this drivel that you even have to make those excellent points.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      09:53am | 26/09/11

      @OchreBunyip

      I think that the author is making the point that you should never trust a woman - especially a wife - as she may be a murderer.

      Always have your food tested by the dog or cat before eating. Check the knife-block is full each night. Don’t leave her alone with the kids. Check her bank accounts for strange transactions . . . whatever you do, don’t take her word on anything.

    • thatmosis says:

      08:13am | 26/09/11

      From what I gleaned from this article it started out blaming men and then turned around to expound the benefits of a single mum??????What a load of unmitigated clap trap from a self serving woman trying to justify her own circumstances and lifestyle.

    • Sam says:

      11:39am | 26/09/11

      +1.

    • RickY says:

      05:26pm | 26/09/11

      Thatmosis. NAIL.HEAD.Well said.

    • marley says:

      08:17am | 26/09/11

      You know, Emma, my own father could have been classified as an absent father.  He had a job that required him to work away from home two weeks out of four.  One summer, the job took him away for the better part of three months - we didn’t have so much as a phone call (not many phone booths up in the Arctic). 

      He missed out on a lot of things in his kids’ lives - our successes, our failures, our school plays, our teenage heartbreaks - and I don’t believe he ever tucked us into bed at night or nursed us through a fever.  But he was there in all the ways that mattered - he loved us, he worried about us, he provided for us, he took us camping and swimming when he could, he taught us to ride bikes and drive cars, and most of all he showed us his values - honesty, integrity, humility and decency. 

      What I’m saying is that you cannot judge the adequacy or otherwise of a father by how much time he has to spend with his kids.  My part-time father was a wonderful dad.  Full stop.

    • fairsfair says:

      10:03am | 26/09/11

      Well said Marley - I too am from a home where dad was away for the vast majority of my childhood. He thought he was doing the right thing for all of us (and truth be told he was) he supported us, we lived in a lovely house on a lovely block and never went without anything. He loved his job, he loved us and then he had a massive stroke driving home one trip. I had just finished school, I was on my way out of the house, it was finally a time for he and mum to spend their hard earned dollars on holidays and things for themselves. It wasn’t to be. He is the victim in our circumstance.

      He is still a wonderful father and I look forward to helping him in his old age as he did us in our childhood. It would have been fantastic to have him around all the time, but you know what - I know of so many hang around dad’s that would be way better off away from their kids.

      This article is harshly judgemental. It makes me sad to read it.

    • Bev says:

      12:50pm | 26/09/11

      @Elizabeth1 and yourself seem to be singing from a similar songsheet which I certainly don’t disagree with. What is interesting is to track the history of parent child relationship studies and understanding.  At the time when family law was changed along lines which favoured feminist teachings there were a spate of studies (mostly feminist inspired) arguing that fathers were not really nessesary and that women could do just as good as couples in raising children.  This it would seem to justify the wholesale removal of fathers from their childrens life. This line was very strongly defended and anyone opposed to it was crucified.
      Later studies largely debunked the earlier studies and it was accepted that fathers were necessary for children to grow into balanced adults although nobody really understood in a defined way why.  The line morphed into what we see today.  Fathers were not paying enough attention to their children and not giving similar nurture to their children as mothers so they were bad/ineffectual parents.  Studies are now showing fathers approach child rearing diferently to mothers and that difference is important.  There was a study (I don’t have it) reported to a conference (New Zealand I believe)  about fathers “rough house” play with their children.  It had been dismissed as unimportant however the study showed that important lessons were being imparted to children. Fathers were encouraging children to express themselves physically but it was noted that fathers set limits as to how far they could go, teaching children about what they could and could not do in their physical interactions with others. There is some thought that these lesson cross over into mental limits as well. Your statement “ride bikes and drive cars, and most of all he showed us his values - honesty, integrity, humility and decency” would seem to bear that out. There was a fascinating segment on the ABC Catalyst some time back showing children playing with there mother and fathers.  They tracked the childrens engagement, interest and excitement and it showed fathers generated far higher measured levels than mothers.  This does not distract from mothers input it just demonstrates that fathers bring a different set of parenting skills to the table.  This is perhaps is one of the causes of the recent London riots where 4 out of 5 children involved had no father in their lives.  Perhaps also it has some bearing on the no limits behaviour of young adults at pubs and clubs we witness every day.

    • Kate says:

      03:04pm | 26/09/11

      Good point, Marley.

      I think most kids would be better off with a father like yours than, say, a father who is always there but who never really shows any affection and is constantly criticising and belittling his kids.
      My dad grew up in a family like that and while he certainly spent a lot of time with his step-father, none of it was good.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      03:18pm | 26/09/11

      @ Bev - I have seen a couple of good papers on involved fathers impact on their developing children, I had a look to put a link in but couldn’t find them. I know there is a lot more in process so the next few years should be very interesting and informative.  I don’t think anyone who truly cared about children would think it was a good idea to remove either parent unless absolutely necessary.  As far as the London riots - I haven’t seen any demographic data yet but my view is that complex issues were at play that are not explained by fatherless households. Poverty has been implicated though with “41 percent of suspects live in one of the top 10 percent of most deprived places in the country. The preliminary data also show that 66 percent of neighborhoods where the accused live got poorer between 2007 and 2010”.

    • Bev says:

      04:24pm | 26/09/11

      Elizabeth1 says:03:18pm | 26/09/11
      Yes I agree that as more studies are done the results will be informative.  Trouble is for years no one questioned the status quo
      (children did not need fathers).
      As to my other comment.  I do not believe it is the only reason however you do cite poverty as one reason.  There is a strong link between poverty and never married mothers.  Intact stable family units do not figure in the poverty stakes as much.  I do detect however feminists and the usual suspects attempting to dismiss absent fathers as a contributing factor because if it is true it strikes at one of the tenants of feminism.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      07:43pm | 26/09/11

      Bev - just noticed I put my reply in the wrong spot. Cant be bothered repeating. Scroll up to Fiddler if you are interested. If you want to reply do it here.

    • Michael says:

      08:21am | 26/09/11

      You wrote this for the Schadenfreude didn’t you Emma?

    • Sassafras says:

      08:26am | 26/09/11

      Sorry, but the opening paragraph of this article is a waste of cyberspace. Did you really need to point out that “Homicides are rarely known for their rainbows, fluffy puppies and happy endings.”? Really? I don’t think that really needed clarification.

    • Arthur says:

      08:27am | 26/09/11

      I can’t read your article because I fear it would ruin my week. If you want to know about absent fathers refer to the courts. Check out some bloody sad stories on Mens line. Come to my place and I’ll talk you through the events that led to no less than 12 mates suicides, and probably another 30 odd that considered it.. In Australia shared care, the law, requires that the mother agrees with it. Otherwise it’s all her way.

      The mother gets the kids and the majority of the accumulated wealth. It is disgusting.

    • thoughts says:

      08:28am | 26/09/11

      Funny how whenever a man kills or abuses his girlfriend/de facto’s kids she gets pilloried for being a bad mother, not protecting the kids, picking the wrong boyfriend etc etc - but judging by the comments above, a man who picks the wrong woman and loses his child as a result is utterly blameless.

    • Tim says:

      09:28am | 26/09/11

      It’s funny how you see exactly what you want to see isn’t it?

    • Markus says:

      09:54am | 26/09/11

      Name one single incidence where anyone has ever blamed a mother for the father murdering their children. Just one.

      You are one sick puppy if you think there is anything funny about this.

    • Kika says:

      01:44pm | 27/09/11

      Markus - it always happens. Everyone always infers “where was she when he was doing this?” or “Why didn’t she see this coming and leave him”?  It’s always the case.

    • Arthur says:

      08:29am | 26/09/11

      Most boys have now been brought up with the mother only. Expect much, much more of the same social decay.

    • Tina says:

      10:19am | 26/09/11

      Now I understand that this article got you upset, but that comment isnt very kind either. She was wrong with her men bashing, but I am sure most single mothers (and fathers) do a hell of a job.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      01:14pm | 26/09/11

      Tina, it’s not bashing. The stats are pretty clear. Single mother families produce about 70% of violent crims.

    • Joanne Bennett says:

      08:30am | 26/09/11

      Guess this is what happens when men agree to have children they don’t really want because the woman might leave them if they don’t.  If only people would discuss the fac they want children up front when they meet, so if they don’t want the same thing, they can move on and find someone who does.  Most of the Dad’s I’ve met didn’t really want kids, but just did it to keep the woman happy.  I’ve also met women who have had kids thinking that would keep the bloke happy and it doesn’t work either.  Children need both their parents to want them 100% before bringing them into the world.  This is why I thought long and hard about my decision to remain childless.  No matter how much you try to be a dutiful parent, if you didn’t really want kids, you will end up being neglectful to some degree or other.

      But there’s still this idea that having children is just what you do…

    • TChong says:

      09:11am | 26/09/11

      The father said he didnt really want the child ?
      Is that an actual quote, or your projection on the father ?
      Most of the dads you meet didnt want their kids ?
      I dont know any dad or mum who doesnt want their children.
      Might be the company you keep.
      You might need to meet more people, and get a better cross section of aquaintances. seriosly.

    • JS says:

      02:57pm | 26/09/11

      if women waited around for men to be “ready” to have kids, there wouldnt BE any children and the human race would die out.

      Sorry, but survival of the species depends on women taking charge.

    • Arthur says:

      08:31am | 26/09/11

      “As feminist icon Gloria Steinem put it recently, women have spent decades showing they can do what men can do”

      Yeah actually woman make really, really bad fathers.

    • Anna C says:

      08:36am | 26/09/11

      How come no one has brought up the fact that it was Zahra Baker’s real mother who abandoned her shortly after birth and it was her father who valiantly tried to raise her as a single dad as best he could until he had the misfortune to cross paths with Elisa Baker?

      I agree that Adam Baker was a fool and showed an unbelievable lack of judgement by entrusting the care of his daughter to Elisa Baker, but I also have contempt for Zahra’s real mum for abandoning her at birth. In my eyes all three parents have failed poor Zahra.

    • NicoleG says:

      12:47pm | 26/09/11

      That is extremely unfair. You do realise that Zahar’s birth mother suffered PND don’t you? She obviously acknowledged she could not cope with a new born child. It’s not abandonment.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      01:13pm | 26/09/11

      Yes- there’s ALWAYS a biological “explanation” for XX neglect.

    • Anna C says:

      01:41pm | 26/09/11

      NicoleG, did you see Zahra’s real mother in court last week or following the discovery of Zahra’s remains? She was carrying on and making a big show of her emotions, which I think is a bit rich considering she has had no contact with Zahra since she abandoned her following her birth.

      Newsflash, there are treatments available for mothers suffering from PTSD. That is no excuse for abandoning your child. What’s her excuse for breaking off all contact with Zahra’s her following her birth? That Zahra would be better off without her? Clearly that was not the case in this situation.

      As far as I’m concerned if you have a child then it is your responsibility to look after that child and put their wellbeing above all else come hell or high water. A tad old fashioned I know.

    • Bev says:

      02:02pm | 26/09/11

      Anna C says:01:41pm | 26/09/11

      Well said!  Society is so quick to allow women to get away with bad behavior and make excuses.

    • Markus says:

      03:13pm | 26/09/11

      @NicoleG, at the time perhaps, but what about the next 10 years of her life?

    • NicoleG says:

      03:56pm | 26/09/11

      I don’t know Marcus, but I’m not going to pass judgement on this woman because I don’t know the full circumstances. Personally, I would never leave my children, but that’s me.

    • Fiona says:

      08:15pm | 26/09/11

      Interesting article Nicole G. I initially wasn’t sympathetic to Zahra’s biological mother, but maybe it was better for all at the time. Bit sad that Adam baker admitted to preferring to smoke dope to being with his family in thhe last few months of Zahra’s life.

    • Ray says:

      08:49am | 26/09/11

      Above all Emma, you have dishonoured the demise of the poor girl you blatently use to intro your article . Women know no bounds. Sleep tight

    • Gratuitous Adviser says:

      08:59am | 26/09/11

      I find it offensive that you take advantage of an absolute tragedy perpetrated by a crazed murderous woman on a young child to tack it to the elitist feminist campaign argument for equal pay.  You could just as well make the argument that the man (or woman) should have been able to earn as much of the pie as needed to be able to support a young family without working excessive hours.  This luxury has been steadily reducing since the introduction of globalisation and the subsequent “race for the bottom” salary for the great unwashed.

    • Dan says:

      09:02am | 26/09/11

      “The death of motherhood” <  is the REAL headline for today.

    • The English Patient says:

      09:13am | 26/09/11

      Actually Dan, I think it had been inteded as ‘The stupidity and selfishness of most modern Austrailian women’, but that didnt fit.

    • TChong says:

      10:02am | 26/09/11

      or
      “I m a self obsessed single mother with a huge chip on my shoulder”
      After all, this article is really about Ms Toms.
      She seems to be seeking praise to go with the cloak of martyrdom.

    • Elizabeth says:

      09:08am | 26/09/11

      ALL the parents in that poor little girls life failed her. Her Mother, Father and Step Mother.  Of course her Step Mother is to blame for her death but I believe her father failed her terribly.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:21pm | 26/09/11

      Why? Because he worked?

    • Erick says:

      02:19pm | 26/09/11

      Because whenever a woman does something bad, it’s always a man’s fault.

    • James1 says:

      02:38pm | 26/09/11

      The article does not say he is responsible for the murder or the actions of the step mother.  He is responsible for his choices though, and the fact of the matter is for 15 days he came home from work (after he had stopped working) and never once thought to even just physically see his child, which would have only required that he take a few more steps.  To most fathers (I imagine) this is a truly shocking state of affairs.  Thus, he is not responsible for her death, but he is responsible for what he did.  The article quite clearly blames the step mother for the killing, and the father for basically being absent from his child’s life, despite living with her.  I see how the article is quite openly sexist, but I do not see how it blames him for the girl’s death.

      In any case, I am sure that his actions will haunt him for the rest of his life.  Poor guy.

    • A Burden says:

      09:10am | 26/09/11

      “Convertible Buying Mid-Life Crisis Dad (who trades in his reproductively exhausted lifewife for a younger and more gravity defiant model). “

      My ex wife. But then I suspect you have your own experience and anger you need to vent Em?

    • Ray says:

      09:21am | 26/09/11

      Emma do you not have the courage to print my input. Shane on you

    • Julia says:

      09:35am | 26/09/11

      Im a mother of a fatherless boy and girl. I left because he was abusive to us. While I know he has since changed, I like having my boy and dont want to share him. There is nothing I cant give him that having his father involved would. I dont need a man. The last man I had was a compulsive liar and gambler. On my own is best for all. Deal with that MOFO’s.

    • Tina says:

      10:31am | 26/09/11

      Good job raising your children alone after an abusive relationship. I hope the kids were not too aware of what happened and have taken no harm.

      I am sure you are doing a wonderful job. I do hope though that you are not passing on the “I dont need a man” attitude to your kids. Your sentiments are very fair and very real and I feel for you but your children should not grow up disliking men in general.

    • BJA says:

      10:51am | 26/09/11

      I feel sorry for your young fella Julia. You are deluded if you think that a father has nothing to offer especially to a son. My parents divorced when i was three. My mother raised me with the most minimal contact with my father. I have turned out perfectly fine however there have been many times in my life when I needed my Dad. I see the relationships my mates have with their fathers and it makes me sad to realise what i missed out on.

    • Dan says:

      11:07am | 26/09/11

      My mum left my dad when I was about 3. I spent my life wondering who my father was, why was I different to the other kids, why did Dad only ring once or twice a year. The emotional roller coaster I was on was constant. I used to think that one day everything will alright and they will get back together and we will be a normal family. Mum used to tell me I was better off pretending that my Father was dead !!.  I look back at my childhood and just think “why”.
      Your kids will think the same…deal with that…..

    • JRosieRebecca76 says:

      11:35am | 26/09/11

      @Juila, If you are certain that your ex has changed, and he wants to be part of his children’s lives then you should consider allowing this. I too left an abusive relationship with a child. I have contacted my sons father over the years. He has never been interested - always comes up with one excuse or another. I don’t know if he has changed, but if he is still not interested in knowing his own son then I can only assume he is still the selfish, manipulative bully I fled from 16 years ago. I do believe people can change though. Keep your heart open too Julia, there are truly are some wonderfully sincere and honest men out there! smile

    • Tim says:

      11:52am | 26/09/11

      Perhaps you should look at the type of men you’re choosing?

    • St. Michael says:

      12:13pm | 26/09/11

      “While I know he has since changed, I like having my boy and dont want to share him. There is nothing I cant give him that having his father involved would.”

      Don’t count on it.  Boys are not girls.  They don’t have the same genitals as you.  They don’t think like you do.  And for their proper mental and emotional formation they need good male role models.

      I only hope that one of the things you give him is trustable, upstanding male role models.  I don’t suggest you have to get married again.  But for Christ’s sake don’t cut him off from other men.

    • Erick says:

      12:33pm | 26/09/11

      @Julia - In my opinion, denying a boy the presence of his father out of spite is a form of child abuse. Unfortunately, it is a form of abuse that is actively promoted by our sexist legal system.

    • RyaN says:

      12:49pm | 26/09/11

      @Julia: did you once take into account what your children might actually want? Since your selfishness is quite evident perhaps someone might tell you to actually realise your kids aren’t your possessions, they are people who have feelings too.
      By all means, be on your own but one thing is certain, it isn’t best for all and when your children grow up enough to realise how selfish and self centered you have been, on your own is where you will be.

    • Jackie says:

      01:07pm | 26/09/11

      Erick, what is so sexist about the legal system, custody is almost always 50/50 these days, unless 1 parent does not want involvement or in abuse cases. All my divorced friends have to live with 50% access to their children while their ex-husbands new girlfriends get to spend “quality time”, aka childcare with the kids.

    • James Abela says:

      01:14pm | 26/09/11

      @Julia
      Selfish. Any wonder why men are so broken today?
      @Tim. Exactly right.
      @JRosie. Maybe its YOU he doesnt want to know and you are the reason he doesnt bother
      @Erick. DOCS doesnt consider this abuse. I’ve tried to make the argument.

    • Bev says:

      01:55pm | 26/09/11

      Jackie says:01:07pm | 26/09/11

      Erick, what is so sexist about the legal system, custody is almost always 50/50 these days

      Without checking the figures I say you are wrong 50/50 share is a minority not even 50%.  I suspect you are confusing 50/50 responsibility (which the act sets as the norm) with 50/50 care (which the act does not).  Nothing in the act forces 50/50 care it only suggests it as a possible goal.

    • Erick says:

      02:36pm | 26/09/11

      @Jackie - Custody was almost 50/50 for a few brief years, since the 2006 amendments to family law that made joint custody the default. Too bad for all those fathers who were victims before 2006.

      And this year, the sexist Labor government has changed the law again, to take away from fathers what small chance of equality they had.

      Blaming fathers for being absent, when they are forced to be absent against their will, is disgusting.

    • JRosieRebecca76 says:

      03:36pm | 26/09/11

      @ James, I have no doubt that my ex doesn’t want to ‘know’ me. Likewise, the thought of having any dealings with my ex turns my stomach. If his feelings of bitterness and resentment toward me overrides any desire he might have to be a part of his child’s life, that just proves my point.

    • un-PC says:

      11:29am | 27/09/11

      “Im a mother of a fatherless boy and girl.” - Julia

      Immaculae conception, was it?

    • Jackie says:

      09:46am | 26/09/11

      #1 not suprised to see the lovely Erick has got in with the first post.
      #2 why is The Punch rehashing ordinary opinion pieces from The Weekend Australian?
      Ordinary.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:10pm | 26/09/11

      For once I’m glad Erick got in first.  Somebody had to rebut this pile of ordure, and at least he did it first up.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:52am | 26/09/11

      Put yourself in his shoes for a minute. He is working longer than daylight to dusk, seven days a week and has left his child in the care of his wife of four years. Someone who he appeared to love and trust prior to this event. He arrives home at night to a woman who regails him with made up daily activities of the day that has gone by, tells him that Zahra must be hitting puberty “cause she is hitting that brooding stage, so [I] only see her when she comes out when she wants something. And that’s about it”. She is early into bed and was probably told not to disturb her.

      Plus, knowing someone with a hearing impairment - you don’t just roll into their room while they are asleep and wake them by putting your hand on them. You can’t do that to people who don’t have the same senses as us that don’t begin to wake at the sound of a car in the drive, voices in the kitchen, a hand on the door knob and footsteps into a room. They have a bloody heart attack, and what father would want to do that to their child just to say hello. He, like every single one of us would have though “I’ll catch her tomorrow, she might be awake”. You never think that their will be no tomorrow.

      This man was played by a woman who also happened to brutally murder his daughter. He too is a victim of a monster who then came up with a rediculous web of lies to cover her crime. Thankfully, they ultimately brought her undone.

      I feel sorry for the author to have made this connection. It is horrible, and I hope that Mr Baker does not read this steaming pile. This murderer has taken enough away from him. Now you want to take away his ability to cope and drive home the point that it is just as much his fault? You don’t think he would feel bad enough about it as it is?

      Someone should revoke your biro license.

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      10:39am | 26/09/11

      Onya   Fairs,  grin

      I second the motion,  revoke the biro license

      You do not really appreciate what you have until you lose it.

      Fathers who work like this are the salt of the earth,
      it’s a damn shame they have to work like that but they do what has to be done. 

      God bless them.

    • Jackie says:

      01:10pm | 26/09/11

      YES, crayons only, on a soft matt.

    • Ghost says:

      09:55am | 26/09/11

      So the kid who thrown off the bridge in Melbourne by her father…was ‘obviously’ the mother’s failure?  I knew it!

    • Ben C says:

      10:25am | 26/09/11

      @ Ghost

      Knowing Emma’s leanings, it would still be the father’s fault.

    • fairsfair says:

      10:59am | 26/09/11

      And what about the Brisbane axe murder? Is the father responsible there given that he was aware of his wife’s psychiatric issues yet still left his kids in her care?

      Seriously, I am still struggling with this article. Unbelievable.

    • Ghost says:

      10:20am | 26/09/11

      Clearest argument yet, that men shouldn’t involve themselves with Australian females.

    • Dave says:

      10:50am | 26/09/11

      Here here. I gave up on Aussie chicks a long time ago and am now married to a beautiful, Asian woman. I now see heeps of Aussie guys walking down the streets hand-in-hand with Asian women.

    • Kim says:

      11:49am | 26/09/11

      Hey don’t lump all in the one basket thanks, some of us regardless of having divorced still maintain a good relationship with the ex for the sake of the kids.  My policy has always been that he is welcome to see our child any time and that our child is our number one priority, what happened between us is not our childs fault.

      the article is a poorly written piece of garbage that tries to divide the sexes.

    • Kate says:

      03:10pm | 26/09/11

      The psycho who murdered Zahra Baker is American, does this mean American women are off limits too?

    • David says:

      03:29pm | 26/09/11

      Pretty much anyone with Irish in them. Based on my experience.

    • Bitten says:

      10:25am | 26/09/11

      Two things. Firstly, you can spin the angle ‘killer spouse/partner not the only one to blame, where was the non-killer spouse/partner and wtf were they doing with a f*ing child-killer???!!!’ in any case of child homicide, irrespective of the gender of the killer in the case.  And I don’t entirely disagree with the question: exactly wtf is ANY parent doing with some f*ing child-killer?  The irony of this angle being used in this article however being that more often than not, it is a non-killer mother who stays with some abusive f*ing douche male while he proceeds to shake, bash and torture her babies (all the while not necessarily being the dad of those kids though…we know how much we Aussie women love to multi-defacto up…)

      Secondly, does anyone else find the use of ‘spiraling’ to describe an increasing rate of something disconcerting? When I think spiraling, I think going down…

    • Markus says:

      11:00am | 26/09/11

      She wasn’t a child killer when he married her, genius…

    • Tina says:

      11:01am | 26/09/11

      Yes I noticed that. The number of single mums with three babies from six different men here is astonishing. I dont want to sound super conservative but cant they keep their legs closed for a few days or use contraception?

    • Bitten says:

      11:37am | 26/09/11

      Yeah markus, because people who kill children are all great examples of the human genome in action right up to the moment they take the life of a child…your willingness to insist on closing your eyes and blocking your ears to the real and genuine signs of an abusive and foul character in another human being is really worrying.

    • Ben C says:

      11:47am | 26/09/11

      @ Markus

      My sentiments indeed.

    • Bitten says:

      11:47am | 26/09/11

      Tina: apparently not.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      12:42pm | 26/09/11

      “The number of single mums with three babies from six different men here is astonishing.”

      That would be astonishing. Front page news in fact.

    • Tina says:

      01:09pm | 26/09/11

      @ SSR

      I thought I exaggerate a little to make my point grin

    • Markus says:

      01:34pm | 26/09/11

      Bitten, if not being “great examples of the human genome in action” was reason enough to lock people up and throw away the key, I’d be very concerned if I were you.

    • jg says:

      10:55am | 26/09/11

      I’m at a complete loss to understand how this article ever got published.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      12:37pm | 26/09/11

      The year is 2011, and everywhere a vile scourge has descended upon the populous, causing half of them to blame shift and baste in clueless narcissism, while the other half search pointlessly for common ground. It is the age of the wild eyed feminist, the penultimate epoch before the apocalypse wipes the slate clear and civil patriarchy is returned.

    • Tina says:

      01:15pm | 26/09/11

      Civil patriarchy? Puh-lease

      I am not fan of feminists but men and women equally suck when in charge.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      01:48pm | 26/09/11

      Women in charge = social decay.
      Men in charge = renaissance.

    • James1 says:

      02:53pm | 26/09/11

      How is that working for Islamic countries, SSR?  I guess its all downhill for Saudi Arabia now that they have decided to let women vote…

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      03:42pm | 26/09/11

      Sad -  Men actually live longer in societies with the highest levels of equality.  Patriarchy was not civil. Any argument on affording ultimate power based on genitals is absurd.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      03:51pm | 26/09/11

      SSR - Show me one country, even a region or a town where women are or ever have been in solely in charge.  Really in charge - all leadership positions - as you would have and we have had under patriarchy. Where men can’t earn money, own land, publish, get educated etc etc. It has never happened and will never happen. And neither will patriarchy ever come about again.

    • Direct says:

      04:29pm | 26/09/11

      Elizabeth, you are confusing corelation with causality. Men live longer where the average standard of living is higher, which has nothing to do with equality. Irrespective of that, women live longer than men in these societies as well.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      04:37pm | 26/09/11

      Not genitals Elizabeth. I argue power in a civilisation should rest with the creators of that civilisation. I don’t know if you skipped every class at school, but it’s pretty clear that power rests with men.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      07:17pm | 26/09/11

      SR - Thanks for your concern over my history knowledge.  My understanding of early civilisation and in fact most of the history since early settlement is slaves, armies and violence were the major contributors to the building.  Poverty and unequal allocation of power between rich and poor maintained it.  Civilisations have been built and destroyed over and over.  You can hardly claim that men are owed a special position due to their being in the public life when we all know this is a default position because women were excluded. I would also add that civilisation represents less than 10% in the timeline of human existence. Hunter gatherer societies have common behavioural tendencies of sharing power. The history of civilisation has been the history of war. Civilisation is not necessarily done better by men who are to have power over more than 50% of the population.  Far better to share power and all work towards making the world better than it has been.

    • marley says:

      07:33pm | 26/09/11

      @SSR - well, if power rests with men, why are you whinging? You’re in control, right?

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      07:39pm | 26/09/11

      @Direct -  I will refine my argument for you. The difference between the sexes is decreasing. From 2009 to 2010, life expectancy at birth increased by 0.1 years for women and 0.3 years for men, to 83.2 years for women and 78.9 for men. Over the past 20 years life expectancy has improved by 5.8 years for males and 4.3 years for females in Australia.
      During the last 25 years, the life expectancy in Norway has increased by nearly 6 years for men and almost 3 years for women. Researchers looking at the effect of equality show that economic improvements result in a substantial gain up to about $40,000 after that the gain in life expectancy and a whole lot of measures such as mental health, crime etc levels out.  This same research showed that “when people in the same social class, at the same level of income or education, are compared across countries, those in more equal societies do better”.
      http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level

    • RyaN says:

      11:03am | 26/09/11

      I am sorry but this article made me feel physically sick! I knew there was a lot of misandry amongst some women of today but this article has to have hit an all time low.

      To try and blame the murder of this poor girl on the father with a straight face is contemptible, for shame Emma Jane.

    • Dave says:

      11:40am | 26/09/11

      I’m sure Emma Jane is reading these comments to see what kind of reaction she has caused, an I’m sure she will be learning that the vast majority of Punch readers find her attitude towards men disgraceful.

    • Markus says:

      01:19pm | 26/09/11

      Don’t bet on it, Dave.
      Even if she does read the comments, odds are she will somehow use the responses as ‘proof’ of the ongoing societal manipulation by the oppressive patriarchy.

    • onlooker says:

      11:11am | 26/09/11

      Parenting is a 2 way street in many ways I can understand why this man is regarded as negligent. Firstly his daughter had immense physical trauma in her very young life, then he took her to another country where she had no support from family members, yes he worked and he should have able to trust his wife, but sadly that was not the case. His judgement in choosing a spouse was very poor, I doubt he could chose worse if he tried!!  In my opinion, he should have checked on her more, what about on the weekend? It just does not seem natural to me he would not even have stuck his head in her bedroom door to say hello. Sadly this little girl has paid the price with her life. Not all men are like that, the majority adore their kids and love to get out like big kids themselves kicking the footy in the backyard.

    • RyaN says:

      11:46am | 26/09/11

      You think men prefer to be out working hard to provide rather than spending time having fun with their kids “kicking the footy in the backyard”?

      Sickening, this whole attitude is disgusting!

    • Tina says:

      12:06pm | 26/09/11

      @ Ryan

      Actually, my father did just that. He didnt have to work, certainly not as much. When he was left with us kids on the rare occasion he wasnt sure what to do with us.

    • RyaN says:

      12:21pm | 26/09/11

      @Tina: my father also, however my father had to provide having to start again at 40 having had everything my family worked for their entire lives stolen from them by Mugabe.
      I am 100% sure my father would have loved to have spent more time with us going fishing or playing footy, he also found it hard to relate to us at times and to blame that on him would be exceedingly cynical and to claim that it was his own fault is quite pathetic really.
      He did us proud and will always be our hero!

    • onlooker says:

      03:06pm | 26/09/11

      Most certainly not RyaN Either I typed that badly or you misread it.. Most men are good parents, they make the most what little time they can to have with their kids, if they don’t have the time to kick a ball, most men find the time for a quick hug, Sadly this man could not spare even that time. It is very sad

    • RyaN says:

      04:37pm | 26/09/11

      @onlooker: fair enough, please accept my apologies then, my comment was out of line!
      I wholeheartedly agree with you on the situation this man found himself in, not being able to spend the time with his daughter is very sad, what happened to her is just an outright tragedy and horror.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      12:05pm | 26/09/11

      “As feminist icon Gloria Steinem put it recently, women have spent decades showing they can do what men can do. Isn’t it about time men proved the reverse?”

      I thought you’d never ask.

      Every problem in the world at the moment is the result of mindless female self interest.

      There you go.

    • marley says:

      12:44pm | 26/09/11

      Yep, the GFC, the Japanese nuclear disaster, the Queensland floods and the rise of Islamic extremism are all due to “mindless female self interest.”  I don’t know why I didn’t see that before.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      01:05pm | 26/09/11

      You forgot peak oil. Women love their SUVs.

    • mike j says:

      01:38pm | 26/09/11

      It’s because you’re female, marley. You can’t see anything unless a man spells it out for you.

      SSR is ‘proving that men can do what women do’ by blaming women for everything.

      Obviously a bit too subtle, SSR. Make it a Sex in the City metaphor next time.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      02:34pm | 26/09/11

      And here I was thinking women had superior language comprehension skills. We need another empty cliche to balance out male intellectual, creative, physical, psychological, political, social, fiscal, philosophical, gastronomic, artistic and yes linguistic supremacy girls, get on it.

    • James1 says:

      04:42pm | 26/09/11

      Thus spake Herr Wisse.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:08pm | 26/09/11

      Two morals to the story in any event:

      (1) Single men, pick your marital partner very, very carefully.  It is quite literally a life-altering decision, including reduction of your lifespan in some instances.

      (2) Married men and fathers, EDUCATE YOUR SONS ABOUT HOW TO PROPERLY CHOOSE A MARITAL PARTNER.  The lack of commentary on this is so absent it beggars belief.  On the other hand, it probably belies an absence of commentary between fathers and sons on this.  Part of it is because we men don’t talk about relationships very easily or very deeply.  If only from a purely rational economic standpoint, that has to change.  (By which I mean you talk *about* it because it’s going to have a massive effect on your child, not that they should look for a rich woman to marry.)

      Let me suggest, in summary form, a suitable curriculum, if you will.  Class does not amount to one quick chat and handing over a condom.  It hopefully is over a long sit at the beach with fishing rods, or watching a footy game between two sides you don’t actually follow.  It hopefully is in long chats with your son as he just about cries in high school when the girl he wants rejects his advances.

      (1) Rapport.  If you don’t have it with your partner, no amount of letters in her cup size is going to make up for it.  Eventually, a lack of it will catch up with you.

      (2) They think differently to the way we do.  Not inferior, just different.  This is the simple biological truth.  They are primed for emotional thinking and verbal communication; men, at least to start with because of our evolutionary development, are not.  (In some instances, this is a good thing: witness the detached but entirely efficient way in which men can administer first aid at a crash site while the women shudder or break down crying.)  They are primed towards reaching solutions intuitively or examining their feelings; men are usually object and goal-oriented.  Understand it comes from a difference in thinking.  This is particularly so roughly once per month, and you have to make allowances for that.

      (3) Each and every one of them is as fallible and human as we are.  It’s true.  They are not the domestic goddesses or superthinking beings as Hollywood and the ads suggest.  They make mistakes.  Some are as mad as cut snakes.  They all have good days and bad days, and they all miss the wood for the trees from time to time, just like we do.  Again, because it’s in different ways, and because they’re driven emotionally, it’ll be hard to spot, but it’s there.

      (4) Before you marry, meet the mother and meet her friends.  I shit you not.  Her mother’s the biggest influence on her life, just as your father is on yours.  If she has a poisonous relationship with her mother, don’t say I didn’t warn you.  (And if not, make sure you get on with the mother, because like it or not she’s going to be in your life a lot.)  Her friends, like ours, will usually be a group of like-minded guys with similar interests to hers.  If they strike a bad chord with you, you might ask why, and what makes her so different from her friends that you’d put up with her for a lifetime and not her mates.  Another red light: if she *has* no female friends.  There are usually reasons why women don’t want to hang around with their fellow females, none of which have pleasant implications for the men that choose that fellow female.

      (5) Have sex before you’re married (using a condom.  Don’t rely on her pills.  Your dick, your life, your responsibility.)  If you ain’t got a rapport in bed, it *will* affect your later relationship.  The Christians out there will howl me down for saying that, but stuff the lot of you.  It’s true.

      (6) Kids.  Better sort out how she feels about them before you get into a marriage-headed relationship.  I don’t care what she reckons in the first six months, the subject *will* come up again.  Also, find out *when* she wants to have them.

      (7) Marriage.  Do not jump into it quickly.  Whirlwind romances are—absent very lucky breaks—just that: whirlwinds.  As it, they pick you up, dump you, and leave a lot of shit lying around to be cleaned up after they’re over and done.

      There’s a lot more, but that’s the executive summary.  Off you go.

    • Tina says:

      12:33pm | 26/09/11

      Ok, some I agree with, some I dont. I think women are very capable of reacting in emergency situations. My sister-in-law is an ambulance driver. And I think a lot of mother have been in situation where quick reaction is needed.

      And the “once a month” thing - come on. Every girl on the pill nowadays skips her period completely anyway. There is no “once a month” anymore.

    • Ben C says:

      12:46pm | 26/09/11

      @ St Michael

      Any thoughts on turning this into an entire thesis?

    • St. Michael says:

      01:16pm | 26/09/11

      @ Tina: your sister-in-law is an ambulance driver.  That is, she’s trained to react in emergencies or she’s been conditioned by seeing so many she doesn’t react that way anymore.  She’s not necessarily a representation of the general population.  Mothers have been in dangerous situations before.  I was merely illustrating the point that men and women think differently.  Which they do.  Especially once per month, for which all I can say is: thank god for the Pill.  Which she won’t be on when she wants to have a child, or for a period of time *after* she has children.

      @ Ben C: Not really, but if you wanted a thesis about empowering sons and male children to become other than emotional cripples, Steve Biddulph has done a lot of important work in this area already.  Thoroughly recommend his books.  He’s not ultra-men’s rights, and he freely admits he doesn’t have all the answers, but his stuff is almost required reading for men today in the way Germaine Greer was essential reading for women back when feminism first got started up (though he’s nowhere near as crusty or dumb.)

    • Kika says:

      01:42pm | 26/09/11

      1 & 2 I agree with - because it should be done visa versa.
      3 - Agree - same thing goes for men. A lot of them are mad too.
      4 - Agree and do the same for the man and his father, mother and mates. If he has dodgy mates run a mile. They indicate the company he chooses to keep and are very influential on his life. Check the relationship with his mother too. Too close - run, too absent - be careful. Won’t understand you or any females ever.
      5 - Agree… you need to be compatible. And I ABSOLUTELY agree with the pill thing. Don’t ever rely on it. You are responsible for yourself and unless you want kids, wear a condom!!!! REGARDLESS!! My husband and I still do because you can never be certain. All you need to do is vomit or bottom vomit once and it’s all over red rover.
      6 - Agreed.
      7 - Don’t agree. I have an absolutely great relationship with my husband and we married rather quickly. We got engaged quick but then had a slow engagement… but we were friends for a long time first. This is the key! FRIENDSHIP!

      Just tell your sons to make sure the one you love is your best friend too. When you are old and ugly you need this otherwise what do you have? Nothing. Marriages are always going to be hard… living with one other person for all those years… But if you are real friends and like each other for who you both are you will always make it through your little arguments. Always. Once you hate each other you should call it quits!

    • St. Michael says:

      03:15pm | 26/09/11

      @ Kika: in case it wasn’t obvious, I’m not in any way trying to coach women how to select a husband.  That subject is covered endlessly by mothers, Dolly, Woman’s Day, Womens’ Weekly, Vogue, Cosmo, blog columns, and girlfriends.  Far be it from me to surpass that library of information.

      The subject of looking objectively or even methodically at men’s selection criteria for wives, however, is not covered in any of the august publications which are traditionally marketed to men in the field of relationships (FHM, Playboy, Penthouse, Busen, Razzle, or even Men’s Health) and we sure don’t talk about how to pick a wife with our sons unless we’ve been divorced at least once already.  My father didn’t impart any of the above advice except for #2, and that was in a state of sheer exasperation after he’d had an argument with my mother.

      Men need to talk about this, because it’s part of talking about relationships, it’s about protecting our sons, and it’s about saving ours (men’s) lives.  Men in marriages outlive single men.  But we’re also more likely to wind up topping ourselves after a divorce.  The best way to prevent that outcome is for men to pick the right wife to start with, and then treat her the way he would expect to be treated by someone who loves him unconditionally, and understand women are, after all, only fallible human beings like men.

      It would be nice if women could understand this, too.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      04:05pm | 26/09/11

      I think that is a very good list St Michael. Must show it to my son

    • marley says:

      06:24pm | 26/09/11

      Good list, St, Mike - one minor cavil.  Teach your son that there is a continuum of how people think - more women might be on the verbal and emotional end of the continuum, and more men on the non-verbal and logical end of the continuum, but there are many many people of both genders that are somewhere towards the midpoint, or right over into the other end of the scale.  Teach your son that there’s a whole lot of variation out there, and he needs to be prepared for logical women and emotional men.

    • amy says:

      09:51pm | 26/09/11

      “There are usually reasons why women don’t want to hang around with their fellow females, none of which have pleasant implications for the men that choose that fellow female.” I dont get this one, what are those implications?

      also I mnot sure marrage is the emost important thing ever

    • St. Michael says:

      12:04am | 27/09/11

      “There are usually reasons why women don’t want to hang around with their fellow females, none of which have pleasant implications for the men that choose that fellow female.” I dont get this one, what are those implications?

      also I mnot sure marrage is the emost important thing ever “

      For this part of the discussion, let’s ignore the somewhat juvenile posturing that passes for society at high school, which is already a hothouse environment filled with kids who as a group really, really don’t know what the hell they’re doing - principally due to the washes of hormones roaring through their systems at this time.

      (1) If a woman cannot hold a meaningful platonic relationship with other members of her own gender it is not highly likely her competence at heterosexual relationships is much better.  Spout individual examples all you like, but they don’t count because they don’t displace the majority experience.

      (2) Women, unlike most men (and it’s something we need to change) tend to rely on friendship groups a lot for support, conversation, and relationships outside the home—as a group they’re introduced to do this from a young age.  If they don’t get this training, something well outside the norm for a woman’s social development has taken place—and it’s your duty as a man to figure out what.  For your own safety and peace of mind.  Men steer clear of nutcase friends of theirs.  Women do the same.

      (3) If a woman doesn’t have a group of friends to spread her support needs amongst, she will be coming to you for all of that instead.  A broad support base means not all the pressure for support is left on the bloke.  This is a natural and healthy way to run the emotional supports in your life; the more supports, the less you collapse if one doesn’t come up to scratch.  Again, this is something men don’t quite get as yet, and we need to for our own mental health.

      (4) Women generally avoid—or at least keep their husbands and partners away from—adultresses.  Women who steal husbands don’t tend to have a lot of close or passing female friends with husbands, mainly because they’re not stupid.  This is a red flag for blokes as well, because if they’ll cheat on their friends, it’s a small step to cheat on you as well.

      I also dispute your rather juvenile dismissal that marriage is not the most important thing ever.  For most men, if you look at the long term consequences, and take into account the consequences of a failed marriage, it actually is the most important decision a bloke can ever make.  Married men live longer.  Divorced men suicide more than married men do.  Married units acquire more property - two can live as cheap as one and still bring in two incomes.  Recovering from a failed marriage is a bit easier for blokes financially, but the Family Law Act places tremendous financial (and, as some blokes have mentioned, emotional and legal consequences) on men for whatever part of their lives comes after a failed marriage, and it impacts on their future marriages as well; second wife syndrome is a common thing.

      Most men—and a pretty decent chunk of women—take more time objectively thinking about their decision to buy a car than the decision to get married to someone.  That in itself demands that men pay a hell of a lot more attention to it than they do.  I’m dead serious about it.  For men, marriage is a life-altering, sometimes life-ending, commitment to enter into.  You should not be doing it unless you know what the hell you’re doing and unless you know exactly who the hell you’re marrying.

    • Ben says:

      12:15pm | 26/09/11

      Interesting that Emma doesn’t choose to write about the many good fathers who are isolated from their children because of a vindictive ex-wife. But that would spoil her little misandry free-for-all

    • jade (the other one) says:

      12:30pm | 26/09/11

      I feel very sorry for most commenters here. Were it a mother who, regardless of her circumstances, had failed to notice her daughter’s absence for 15 days, the wolves would have circled and she would have been villified.

      But of course, this father was a decent, loving father, who was “working his butt off to provide for his daughter.” The fact that he was so remote from his daughter that he didn’t even notice that she was not in the house for 15 days is disgusting.

      I know many men who work 15+ hour days in business and trades. I know many men who work on FIFO schedules in the mines. I know not one caring father among them (including those who are separated from their spouses and don’t have custody of their children) who would not notice that their child was not in the house for 15 days, no matter how the mother attempted to hide it.

      I am sick of the sexism directed at women here, in defence of men who are clearly terrible, terrible examples of fatherhood. I am sick of being told that because I want to have a career and be a mother, that I am responsible for the breakdown of society. I am sick of the blame being heaped on me for expecting that I have the same rights as men do. To have both a career and a family, and to expect that my future partner will support me in this ambition as much as I support him.

      I am also sick of the misandry heaped on those men who do seek to support their spouses. Who somehow believe it is acceptable and the right and natural thing to do to participate equally in the raising of their child. Who view it as a reasonable thing that they should not only work, but also help with feeding, nappy changing, and spending real, quality time with their children. Who view this as a beautiful, enjoyable opportunity, rather than a chore and a nuisance, thrust upon them by evil, cruel women.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:19pm | 26/09/11

      “Were it a mother who, regardless of her circumstances, had failed to notice her daughter’s absence for 15 days, the wolves would have circled and she would have been villified.”

      If the mother was at home looking after the child, I’d say that vilification would be justified.  This is the most basic economic division of labour known to man—wife stays at home, husband goes out to work—and it’s one of the reasons family units exist.

      If, however, the situations were reversed and Mum was working 15+ hours per day, the situation would be different.  Indeed Mum would be seen as the victim and no criticism would probably be made at all.

      Bonus points that you at least called out the misandry in the article, which was nice.

    • Kika says:

      01:30pm | 26/09/11

      I couldn’t have said it better Jade. If the mother didn’t realise her child was gone for 15 days what would Erick & Co have said? It just goes to show that their arguments have no basis at all other than just sheer bigotry and hate. If you had a real argument you could acknowledge the fact that some fathers are lousy instead of pretending ALL fathers are angels.

      I know my father wasn’t! As I’ve shared before my father was an alcoholic and unable to cope with being a father for many years and paid little to no attention to either me or my sister while we were young. Even know it’s a struggle to get his attention and rarely does he bother talking to us about anything other than football.

    • Bev says:

      01:39pm | 26/09/11

      I will address onlyone point.

      Who view it as a reasonable thing that they should not only work, but also help with feeding, nappy changing, and spending real, quality time with their children

      Nobody is saying it is unreasonable.  For many that is an unobtainable goal.  Plus many women seem to think that if fathers don’t do all the things you list they are not good fathers. As I have commented elsewhere fathers input to their children is different and while they certainly can and should do some of the things you mention they are not mothers and attempts to force them into the “mother” mold are wrong and not helpful either to the children or themselves.  Sending them on guilt trips because they don’t “mother” like mothers helps nobody and may quite possibly result in withdrawal rather than engagement.

    • Coop says:

      05:14pm | 26/09/11

      Can I just point out that the “article” refers to the man being negligent and the comments generally refer to the idocy of the author.

      You turn the article on its head and claim the commenters are sexist

      Your hypothetical misplaced and your conclusions are irrelevant to the context.

    • Fiona says:

      08:36pm | 26/09/11

      Well said jade.
      St Michael, families existed long before the industrial revolution and the division of labour in such a manner.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:06am | 27/09/11

      @ Fiona: Gosh, no kidding? I’m so happy to hear that.  Sadly, we have to live in the world after the industrial revolution.  Unless, of course, you’d rather the pre-industrial revolution where a pregnant or childbearing woman was more or less entirely reliant on a man’s protection and food for basic survival.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      12:35pm | 26/09/11

      I honestly don’t know how to respond to this, it is wrong on so many levels. Without being there you have absolutely no idea what was happening in that household.

      What if she was killed Emma because the father was planning on taking some time-off to repair the rift that he thought had developed between him and his daughter? It would be reasonable to assume if she had become sullen that she may be leaving her room to eat etc, only when he was out of the house.

      I find it horrifying that you can cheapen a girl’s death by blaming her father who had made another attempt at finding love. You have resorted to the days of old where men were blamed for all the ills of the world, it was the men’s fault that women were alcoholics, etc. If you want equal rights then stand up and take equal responsibility for your actions, murder is murder, I don’t care if your partner (male/female) abused you (male/female) for 20 years, murder is still a crime and there is no excuse.

      Oh and I make sacrifices to ensure that my children have a roof over their heads, food on the table and are able to enjoy various activities. I only have one vice I spend money on which I feel I deserve and even that would go if needed so that my wife and kids could get what they want/need. By the way that vice is coffee.

    • Kika says:

      01:26pm | 26/09/11

      15 days… he didn’t even notice she wasn’t there for 15 days!

    • RickY says:

      06:18pm | 26/09/11

      He was probably assuming his WIFE wouldnt murder her while he was working Kika.How did that work out for him again Kika…...

    • Tanya says:

      06:50pm | 26/09/11

      @ Kika: He didn’t even notice a dangerous breakdown in the relationship in FOUR YEARS…

    • tc says:

      11:22pm | 26/09/11

      Kika yes you are right.  But lets not forget she butched a little girl.  See if you can tell the difference.  If we are to judge, one of them will be going to a lower level of hell than the other and it won’t be him

    • Sandra says:

      12:47pm | 26/09/11

      most Punch arguments devolve into stereo-typing and quoting of statistics. You should never judge any one unless you know every single particular involved. I know great fathers and bad fathers just as I know great mothers and shitty mothers. People are people.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      02:56pm | 26/09/11

      I just came from Tory Shephard’s Punch piece about Dr Nietzsche: “double agents within a lobby group, party or organisation who undermine the very thing they purport to be working for”

      Umm - after reading this article that sounds a bit like Emma Jane. Yours is a bit of a spray isn’t it EJ. Lots of your ponderings from your limited sample interspersed with accepted truths and some extreme examples but light on robust causal links.

      Or are you EJ deliberately trying to stir up to flush out sexists so they can be engaged in debate rather than hide and spread their toxic ways.

      Be very careful with the latter tactic. You want to make sure you hit the mark.  I refer you EJ to Sophie Read Hamilton’s Punch piece of 10-12-2010.  Particularly to that author’s thought provoking “Every single act of violence that is based on gender violates the rights, dignity and well-being of women.”.

      Do you understand EJ?

      Just like poorly administered medicine can leave the patient worse off.  Poorly administered feminism can leave egalitariansim worse off.

      I’ve still got a lot to learn.

    • Warriors 20 Storm 12 says:

      12:55pm | 26/09/11

      Maybe gay parents are more balanced than heterosexual couples after all.
      What happens if there are absent mothers and absent mothers?
      What happens if there are murderous dads and ansent mums?

    • Warriors 20 Storm 12 says:

      12:58pm | 26/09/11

      Are absent dads really manly? Are murderous mums really warriors ?
      Or are absent dads only pie eaters? Are murderous mums just cat lovers?

    • Ben C says:

      01:55pm | 26/09/11

      Haha, love this! Although as a proud Storm supporter, not enjoying your name quite as much! smile

    • richard.perin@gmail.com says:

      01:01pm | 26/09/11

      EJ. I have nothing to prove. Let my children be my witness to all that I am and all that was before me.

      As Satyananda Saraswati once wrote…

      I am an invisible child of a thousand faces of love,
      That floats over the swirling sea of life,
      Surrounded by the meadows of the winged shepherds,
      Where divine love and beauty,
      The stillness of midnight summer’s warmth pervades.

      Life often cuts at my body and mind
      And though blood may be seen passing,
      And a cry might be heard,
      Do not be deceived that sorrow could dwell within my being
      Or suffering within my soul.
      There will never be a storm
      That can wash the path from my feet,
      The direction from my heart,
      The light from my eyes,
      Or the purpose from this life.

      I know that I am untouchable to the forces
      As long as I have a direction, an aim, a goal:
      To serve, to love, and to give.
      Strength lies in the magnification of the secret qualities
      Of my own personality, my own character
      And though I am only a messenger,
      I am me.

      Let me decorate many hearts
      And paint a thousand faces with colours of inspiration
      And soft, silent sounds of value.
      Let me be like a child,
      Run barefoot through the forest
      Of laughing and crying people,
      Giving flowers of imagination and wonder,
      That God gives free.
      Shall I fall on bended knees,
      And wait for someone to bless me
      With happiness and a life of golden dreams?

      No, I shall run into the desert of life with my arms open,
      Sometimes falling, sometimes stumbling,
      But always picking myself up,
      A thousand times if necessary,
      Sometimes happy.
      Often life will burn me,
      Often life will caress me tenderly
      And many of my days will be haunted
      With complications and obstacles,
      And there will be moments so beautiful
      That my soul will weep in ecstasy.

      I shall be a witness,
      But never shall I run
      Or turn from life, from me.

      Never shall I forsake myself
      Or the timeless lessons I have taught myself,
      Nor shall I let the value
      Of divine inspiration and being be lost.
      My rainbow-covered bubble will carry me
      Further than beyond the horizon’s settings,
      Forever to serve, to love, and to live
      As a sannyasin.

    • Jim Baldrick says:

      03:21pm | 26/09/11

      A ray of sunshine in an otherwise dark place.

      The article stinks.

    • JRR says:

      03:50pm | 26/09/11

      @Richard, I am done.

    • Tony B says:

      09:57pm | 26/09/11

      JRR? As in Hobbitt?

    • Gomez12 says:

      01:30pm | 26/09/11

      Oh I totally agree Emma Jane, Selfish bastard, “The work routines of the new dads, on the other hand, often remained blissfully unchanged” - How dare he “Blissfully” continue to work himself ragged felling trees (It’s SUCH easy work after all, probably why Emma Jane does it in her spare time) to provide for his family when he should have also been at home to ensure his new wife didn’t kill his daughter.

      Makes me realise what a total prick my own dad was for working 12-14 hour days when I was young simply because he had a wife and three kids to support at home.

      Oh wait, my dad’s a great guy and his biggest regret in life is that he didn’t have sufficient qualifications to work 9-5 and get to spend more time with the kids he loves. But he worked real hard in the later years when he could be home to re-build that relationship.

      No wonder there’s a growing cohort of blokes out there that want nothing to do with the misandrist women that seem to be all that’s out there these days (Well, nothing outside of some no-strings fun, we know how rope-like those strings get). No real surprise that Emma’s a single parent either.

      And for the love of all that’s holy - the wage-gap myth? Again? Evidence, put-up or shut-up. Name the employers paying women less than men for the SAME work. It’s illegal and we all know it. Men trade physical and job safety and longer hours for higher wages, Women don’t (Check the ABS Stats). Apparently that’s something we can blame on the blokes too.

      Feel good over there in victim-land?

    • Tina says:

      01:41pm | 26/09/11

      Maybe I should try and write a piece on family where there is no feminist talk, no single mother bashing or absent fathers or “what about gays”? It is really sad to read the posts sometimes as obviously they are based on peoples life experiences.

    • progressivesunite says:

      03:08pm | 26/09/11

      gays have families too….

    • Shane says:

      01:42pm | 26/09/11

      Most of the comments on here are beyond idiotic and, by the sound of it, are some of the key reasons some men can’t see their kids. They’re self aborbed prats.

      The point of the article for those actually interested, is that this man didn’t see his kid for 15 days then laughingly called the cops. The step mother is the one that killed her and is referenced as the murderer. But that was not the main point of the article.

      Finally, these ‘hard working’ claim is a bit much. Adam Baker has made several appearences in court for financial fraud. Hard worker he aint which is a real bummer for the professional apologists for idiot men like Baker.

    • marley says:

      02:43pm | 26/09/11

      @Shane - look, if Ms. Jane had restricted herself to asking what kind of guy the father was, and how he couldn’t have noticed his daughter was missing for two weeks, that would’ve been fine.  But she went from there to a vast generalization about “absent fathers” and then on to a rhapsody of self-congratulation about her own parenting skills.  There was a valid issue here, about Baker’s behaviour - but Jane didn’t address it.

    • cherie gibbs says:

      01:43pm | 26/09/11

      The fact is, that poor little girl had no one, why just once couldn’t the father
      tip toe into her bedroom, and give her a kiss.
      Children rarely wake up, they just stir a little and go straight back to sleep.
      Dozens of times my kids dad ,(after being away overseas for weeks would
      do that).
      I find it astounding that the little girl was not missed , poor girl, after surviving
      cancer, remember she was partially deaf,and losing a leg, she would have been used to a lot of activity after stints in hospital.
      At least she is at peace.

    • mike j says:

      01:45pm | 26/09/11

      “The explanations for the sexist asymmetry associated with child raising are complex.”

      True. Pity you are incapable of understanding any of them.

      “The gap between male and female full-time earnings is as wide as it has been in more than two decades.”

      So, in two decades, women haven’t increased their net contribution to the workforce? Shame on you.

      “The work routines of the new dads, on the other hand, often remained blissfully unchanged.”

      That’s right. They kept actually DOING their work, instead of just turning up for a pay cheque and spending half of their working hours on the phone to the child care centre.

      We get it: you’re a single mum. You made bad life choices so everyone else has to be subjected to your misandrist histrionics. That’s fine, just so long as I’m allowed to think [**Obviously, I’m not allowed to think this. The Punch: please tell me what I’m allowed to think. This guessing is becoming tiresome**].

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      08:59pm | 27/09/11

      Mike J - Do you mind if I use a quote from you that you posted on punch a few weeks ago.  It may end up on posters- just local.

    • progressivesunite says:

      02:18pm | 26/09/11

      The Punch is really too predictable - articles that portray women in a negative light attract the Ericks, SSRs, RyaNs etc to heap scorn on women and glorify all that is male, articles that portray men in a negative light…bring out the Ericks, SSRs, RyaNs etc to heap scorn on women and glorify all that is male. The site has been totally hijacked by woman-haters.

      Do you all sit together in a “men’s rights group” and help each other with your posts, by any chance??

    • Markus says:

      02:43pm | 26/09/11

      A fatal flaw in your accusation: there has never been an article on The Punch that portrays women in a negative light.

    • Erick says:

      02:46pm | 26/09/11

      @progressivesunite - And you, predictably, come out to heap scorn on men and glorify all that is female.

      By the way, when have I ever heaped scorn on women? Please provide examples with links.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      02:54pm | 26/09/11

      I sit alone in a glass orb atop a mountain in Bavaria.  The locals refer to me as Heir Wisser (the knower), for I know many things, especially that when they invented the phrase “completely insufferable bleeding heart mangina” they had someone like you in mind.

    • Bev says:

      03:00pm | 26/09/11

      If you care to look elsewhere you will find the level of comments by “woman-haters” (actualy anti feminists not women) is increasing.  Men (and women) who see what extreme feminism has and is doing not just to men but to society are increasingly finding voice.  Sure many comments were vindictive and shrill but increasingly articles are appearing not just on the internet but in mainstream media which question the tenants of feminism without shouting.  Get used to it cause it’s not going away.  The days where feminist pronouncements held sway and were accepted without question are coming to an end. I suggest you hone you debating skills.

    • progressivesunite says:

      03:21pm | 26/09/11

      @ Erick - I didn’t heap scorn on men, just on men like you - you’re a tiny minority, you know - most men get on just fine with most women….the paranoia from men like you is actually quite funny.

      @ SSR - my understanding of MRA “thought” is that “manginas” are men? Can’t see how I’d be an example then….

      @ Bev - I haven’t said women are always right and men wrong - I just don’t appreciate the constant attempts by posters on this site to turn every freaking issue into a woman-bashing exercise. It’s actually quite aggressive….another favourite MRA tactic.

      MRA is what they call “men’s rights activist” by the way - although my favourite is when they go on about MGTOW (“men going their own way” - aka men who can’t get girlfriends but pretend it’s a political decision - chicken/egg etc).

      I am not anti-male - I am anti men’s rights activists, because of their inherent misogyny.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      03:39pm | 26/09/11

      @ progressivesunite: perhaps that’s the whole point. If you don’t flush out the “Ericks, SSRs, RyaNs” then you can’t engage them in debate.  I.e. the Punch articles are bait.  Afterall, the site is called “The Punch”. But then again, this could be a more insidious publication - hate mongering for profit.

      BTW I fully supported my brother’s position against the mother of my niece. Right up until the day I saw him for the insufferable manipulative jerk he is. I wouldn’t have got to this point of view if I didn’t engage with him. I now see that they were right for each other. They could snivel and whinge about the world together. Until they reached an impass whereat they turned their venom on each other.

      @ Erick.  This is a New Ltd site.  So what if Punch allows itself to be conduit for one side. I understand the News Ltd (or Corp or whatever) prides itself on making itself available to the position that is contrary to the popular view. If so they’re being consistent then aren’t they. Don’t be bitter that Punch avails itself to women lobbying.  Take it as a compliment.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      03:41pm | 26/09/11

      Are you questioning Heir Wisser?

    • Tim says:

      03:50pm | 26/09/11

      “….the paranoia from men like you is actually quite funny. “

      Ironic comment is ironic.

    • Dan says:

      04:00pm | 26/09/11

      @progressivesunite - good, because most men aren’t anti-female, we love them. We’re just anti-idiot-feminist psychos who think its OK to demonise all men every time any of them makes a mistake but never accept that women are not perfect despite the horror of some women’s selfishness. Who are they kidding anyway? noone is perfect, we all know that. If women were perfect, they’d freak me out.

      This article is the most sexist piece of hate literature I’ve ever read. Well done Emma, well done the Punch.

    • RyaN says:

      04:32pm | 26/09/11

      @progressivesunite: do you feel better now? Do you need a hug?

      Oh and I don’t hate women, I dislike foolish people that attempt to lay blame where it doesn’t belong due to their own misandry. Using such a horrible case such as this one to further her own misandry (for whatever poor choices the author made in her own life yet refuses to take the blame for any) comes with special contempt.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      04:39pm | 26/09/11

      @ progressivesunite.  I’m pretty sure articles like this are bait.  They can’t not be.  Right? See my response of 2.56pm to Sandra

    • Bev says:

      05:06pm | 26/09/11

      @ Bev - I haven’t said women are always right and men wrong - I just don’t appreciate the constant attempts by posters on this site to turn every freaking issue into a woman-bashing exercise. It’s actually quite aggressive….another favourite MRA tactic.

      One learnt from feminists who have used it to make some quite vile comments about men over the years, far worse than comments here.  I did say increasingly those tactics are giving way to non shouting articles deconstructing feminist “truths” and many invite feminists to mount reasoned arguments refuting what they are saying but feminists prefer to attack the messenger, have a hissy fit or just disappear rather than offer counter argument. Perhaps you should look.

      MRA is what they call “men’s rights activist” by the way - although my favourite is when they go on about MGTOW (“men going their own way” - aka men who can’t get girlfriends but pretend it’s a political decision - chicken/egg etc).
      Err I knew that.  As for MGTOW for some perhaps, for others they have been burnt badly and just want to stop banging their heads against the wall and then find that yes they can survive without women.  That does not mean the forgo interactivity with women they just avoid entanglements.


      I am not anti-male - I am anti men’s rights activists, because of their inherent misogyny.

      That word again.  Perhaps we should coin a word for anti feminist (because thats what they are against mostly, not women)  Anti feminists don’t hate women they are against feminism (there are male feminists and apologists too) so the use of that word is doubly wrong.

      Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

    • Gomez12 says:

      03:16pm | 27/09/11

      @ProgressivesUnite
      “MRA is what they call “men’s rights activist” by the way - although my favourite is when they go on about MGTOW (“men going their own way” - aka men who can’t get girlfriends but pretend it’s a political decision - chicken/egg etc).”

      That’s a little condescending and slightly erroneous.

      I’m not involved with any MRA’s, although I see the point many are trying to make. I would however fit the category of MGTOW.

      It’s a personal decision for me, it’s not a political stance in any way, shape or form. I know many people happy in a committed relationship and wouldn’t think many of the men involved would be better off single or anything of the sort.

      As Bev pointed out, mine is a case of being burned pretty badly in two long-term relationships to date and being very wary of entering into another. I enjoy women, their companionship and of course sex, I just cannot for the life of me fathom what benefit I would personally get from a relationship that would convince me to take the risk on one again.

      From my perspective - I have a great family, I have a great group of friends, both male and female, even some with benefits wink. I have a six-figure income and live a very comfortable life. I go where i like and do what I like within reason and thoroughly enjoy it!

      Maybe I can’t get a girlfriend, I don’t know - I haven’t tried in years! I do “pick up” (stupid term) fairly routinely, enough to say that my sex-life is at least as frequent (yet far more varied) than it was in either of my long-term relationships.

      What criteria would a partner (wife/defacto/gf whichever) fill in my life?
      Companionship? Have plenty.
      Sex? Have that (not enough of course, but for some of us there never is!)
      Family? Have it. (Lovely neice and nephew and of course brothers/sisters/parents etc.)
      Financial? Hardly, given my expensive experience of breaking up from 2 defacto relationships (Seems to be on average $12-15K per year of the relationship - and I paid both times) and I’m on a pretty decent income by myself!
      Kids - (And here I probably echo Erick et al) I’d actually like to have kids, but given my relationship history - I’d have lost them, children “belong” to the mother in relationship breakdown, all we get is the vilification and responsibility.

      And even on the “1950’s” view, I cook better than any female I’ve shared a house with (used to be a professional cook) and can manage the washing/ironing pretty easily. For the rest I hire a cleaner to come in once a week, and even then it’s a male cleaner (not by preference, just who answered the phone when I called the number).

      I’m sure I’m not alone in this view either. I in fact have some female friends of the same view - One going so far as to divide her male company into Friend or F@ck (her words) because she doesn’t want an emotional involvement or relationship.

      Maybe you “need” a man in your life, maybe you don’t too. But please don’t assume that those of us who are happily single and thoroughly enjoying life are somehow unable to “get” a girlfriend. Maybe we just don’t actually want one!

      And, since you’ve got me thinking about it - sweet lord, where would I fit one in!!! I’ve got plenty to do with my time as it is! Heavens, it might eat into my Punch time!

    • Shane says:

      02:21pm | 26/09/11

      Fair dinkum, that is among the most bigotted, ill-founded, and downright sexist pieces I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading.  Would not have got past the sub-editing stage if the sexes had been reversed.  Or did I miss the piece about how all women are child-killers because one woman once killed her child?

      Poor parents come in both sexes, Emma.  Women do not have exclusivity when it comes to loving and caring for their children. 

      If this article genuinely reflects your experience over the past few years observing your group of friends and acquaintances, I suggest you find new friends and acquantiances.

      Pick up your game, Punch.  This is rubbish

    • Trevor says:

      02:44pm | 26/09/11

      So the soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and other warzones should be treated with such scorn and ridicule for being absent fathers?

      Not female soldiers of course, they are dutifully and honorably forgoing their relationship with their children and leaving them at home with potential murderers/neglectful fathers!

      This article is a cruel sick joke. The author should be ashamed. And sacked. She is no doubt a proud member of the same sisterhood as the woman who wrote the headlines the day after a mother hacker her own child to pieces with an axe here in Brisbane: “She’s no demon”!

      And people wonder why men don’t take women seriously these days. It’s all about the self-abrogation of any and all responsibility for anything, from taking out the rubbish to the convenient killing off of the children.

    • Semi Concerned Citizen says:

      03:45pm | 26/09/11

      The vast majority of mammal species 9x% , the father has little to no parenting role. Perhaps we place unfair expectations on men in this regard.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      04:52pm | 26/09/11

      They also kill and eat their young on occasion. Maybe we should repeal a few unfair laws.

    • Denise Chapman says:

      03:51pm | 26/09/11

      I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, kids are a choice. We are in an age where we know how to prevent them. No sympathy. Collect your baby bonus and come back part-time and fiddle around the office ‘till home-time, while the rest of us slog it out with long-term work-place responsibilities and no possible break from the workforce. You might be surprised, no matter your gender, that others do not care what’s in your kids nappy.

    • James1 says:

      04:44pm | 26/09/11

      If you want a break and extra cash so badly, you could choose to have kids…

      Otherwise, it is difficult to have any sympathy for your plight.  After all, you made your choice.

    • Tanya says:

      04:35pm | 26/09/11

      Absent father syndrome and long working hours aside, Adam Baker selected that violent and unbalanced woman as his partner and ultimately, carer for Zahra. How many terrible tragedies have occurred even here in Australia where step parents have abused and murdered their spouse’s children? Is single parenting such a lonely place that it demands procuring a partner – forcing helpless children into contrived and loveless familial situations where hostility, jealousy and ultimately violence foster because loving the child of another is not a natural instinct.

      Whilst not even Adam Baker could have foreseen that diabolical outcome, it is difficult to believe that in the period they were a family unit, there were no warning signs.  His daughter could not have been happy. Surely that in itself should have been enough reason to dissolve the partnership. His continuation in that marriage was an act of supreme selfishness that degraded and ultimately cost that little girl her life.

    • Kika says:

      01:47pm | 27/09/11

      I completely agree. If he was a good father and attentive to his daughters feelings and needs surely he could have realised that the relationship his wife had with her was difficult. Your children always come before sx - always - regardless of gender.

    • Rick says:

      04:40pm | 26/09/11

      Absent fathers? my old man worked 35 years afternoon shift to give us kids a life, I remember crying one day watching him leave for work, but the fathers primary roll is to support the family finances or it was back then.

    • Kika says:

      02:41pm | 27/09/11

      Bet your mother was at home though.

      Is the father still required not to involve themselves in their childrens lives if BOTH parents work fulltime?

    • Utopia Boy says:

      05:51pm | 26/09/11

      The article is simplistic in it’s approach and offers no solution to any of the problems faced by working parents (male or female) who NEED to work long hours, NEED to attend work related social functions and NEED to stop being made to feel any more guilty than they themselves already do.
      During the “recession we had to have” my father worked many, many over time shifts and also had a part time job. Yes, he wasn’t there every time I fell off my bike or wouldn’t behave myself. It didn’t make him a bad role model - it made him a good one. When children become adults and begin to realise the sacrifices both parents made for them, they (me at least) are very, very grateful. I know two parents who will NOT be going into an aged care facility.
      Thanks Mum and Dad.

    • Caz says:

      05:59pm | 26/09/11

      I don’t care how hard this guy worked, I think it’s appalling that he moves his daughter to a new country, away from her friends, family and support network -  leaves her in the care of this woman, and doesn’t actually clap eyes on her for 15 days.  Nobody is saying he is responsible for her murder, it is the total lack of interest/ care and bond with his daughter that is really sad.  I agree with the author that this was total neglect of his parental role, Zahra deserved so much better.  What a self-absorbed lazy person.  How can you justify working hard with this??!! I don’t get it.  Does working hard mean you just stop being a parent…...

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      08:12am | 27/09/11

      The alternative Caz is this guy is really naiive and gullible.

      I agree.  I don’t get it.  Choosing to not simply walk into her room every night? Assuming of course this woman didn’t prevent him from doing so. She’s put a dummy in the bed.  She’s the sort of person who could kill a child. Don’t we think that in such circumstances she’d kinda put a fair bit of pressure on him to not go into her room to a disturb her. But for 15 days?

      But lets put it in perspective. 

      “leaves her in the care of this woman, and doesn’t actually clap eyes on her for 15 days”

      Aren’t there ample examples of this in our society.  Our own royal family for example. They are very busy people who employ nannies to look after their children.  I can imagine they regularly don’t see their beloved kids for a fortnight.

      Then there’s our defence personel and diplomatic corps. Engineers. Merchant navy. Oil rig workers. Any mine worker really. Even a job such as a welder will take some dads out into the field regularly for long periods of time.

      Then lets look at the other end of the spectrum. Courts deny dads access to their children all the time.  The courts use threats to force a dad to ‘neglect of his parental role’. And isn’t it, to at least some degree, their ‘interest/ care and bond’ that causes so much resulting anguish and desperation? (Interesting isn’t it that Brett Cowen is being charged with ‘child stealing’. Not particularly helpful language to help parents understand their kids (i.e. Daniel Morcombe) aren’t a possession.)

      Having said all this the fact remains Zara’s father wasn’t separated from his child by distance or a court. I’d ignore anyone’s wishes after a few days.  Even a natural mother.

    • Beccy says:

      06:07pm | 26/09/11

      The comments are illuminating!  If a MOTHER had failed to notice the absence of her child for 15 days after the father had hacked it to pieces she would be utterly VILIFIED.  The very idea that a mother could fail to notice the absence of her young child for more than a few minutes (it’s always mum’s fault when a kid gets snatched) is abhorrent.  Yet this guy can cast a mealy eye over a lump in a bed and be crowned hard-working-guy-and-father-of-the-year?  Come on!?  If this was his “contribution” to caring for his child after her death, can we guess how much input he had for the weeks, months, years running up to her tragic and untimely death?

    • Utopia Boy says:

      08:58pm | 26/09/11

      Unfortunately we don’t know the circumstances, so it’d be inappropriate to comment, don’t you think?
      My own comments regarding work commitments were from the point of view that both parents gave a shit.

    • RyaN says:

      11:30am | 27/09/11

      @Beccy: 100% pure speculation, 100% complete and utter bullshit and you know it. Had the roles been reversed this article would never ever have appeared in the first place.
      Oh and he wasn’t crowned father of the year, he was a hard working guy who stupidly trusted this woman. What do you suggest, men don’t trust any women anymore, disturb your kids just to make sure she hasn’t murdered them.
      Perhaps if the lazy assed murderous dropkick woman had bothered to get off her ass and get a job he would have been able to spend more time with his daughter, perhaps if that lazy assed murderous dropkick woman had bothered to get a job she wouldn’t have had time to murder the child and cut her up into little pieces to be spread around.

      Fact is Beccy, that any attempt to pin this on the father is abhorrent and you know it!

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      09:07am | 28/09/11

      Beccy.  The woman killed Zahra, chopped her up, drove? around hiding bits in different places and then, I assume, created a decoy hump in the bed.  Don’t you think after Baker did all that she wouldn’t have pulled out every trick in the book, and then some, to stop Zahra’s father from getting anywhere close to making contact with Zahra?

      Yes, he is far from father of the year. But we don’t know all the facts.

      As for ‘she would be utterly VILIFIED’.  Probably.  Are you suggesting this vilification would be predominantly by men?

      “Every single act of violence that is based on gender violates the rights, dignity and well-being of women.” Sophie Read Hamilton. The Punch 10-12-2010

    • onlooker says:

      08:37am | 27/09/11

      Very interesting posts, the whole situation is very sad. This person, the father ,is only one male parent in a country of millions, I doubt anyone is suggesting this indifference of lack of concern for his child’s whereabouts applies to all males. A little Australian girl is dead, and that should be our main concern. It heart breaking, that poor little girl had such trauma in her very short life..

    • The Free Libertarian says:

      06:03pm | 27/09/11

      This is mind blowing.  A woman murders her child and we are talking about fathers?

      You can’t blame slutwalkers for rape, but dads are somehow to blame for murderous mothers?

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      08:46am | 28/09/11

      The woman wasn’t the natural mother.

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      12:16am | 28/09/11

      Hi Emma,

      Total lack of responsibility & accountability if you ask for my personal opinion!!  Sadly, we find in most relationship & family break downs, fathers tend to walk away from their obligations!!  Mothers are supposed to pick up the pieces, lets all face it to bring up a family is one of the toughest jobs in the world.  It is not a conspiracy against women just like some may claim to be , but it is a very sad every day reality!!

      When we talk about issues concerning mothers & children, most men will say something like “You asked for equal rights & now you have it, but you are all still complaining”!! Fathers should not be blamed for murderous mothers, like some of your replies have suggested!! However, how about some emotional support & action before something terrible like that happens to innocent children??

      We have to search our souls & ask ourselves, what if women as mothers walked out of on relationships this more often??  What would be the likely out come of this particular scenario? Who would suffer the most & who would care for the innocent children??  Best regards to your editors.

    • Eloise says:

      07:30pm | 28/09/11

      Your comment: What a lot of tripe!! As a woman who works in law enforcement I am deeply offended at the blogger Emma Jane’s assumptions. Maybe Emma you should sit in on a few interviews with abused children. This rampant “mummy is a martyr” mentality that many (not all) women have these days makes me ashamed. The bitter, chip on the shoulder, all-men-are-to-blame-for-the-world’s-ills is nothing but petty, juvenille and an embarrassment to those of us who on a daily basis see just how much damage absent MOTHERS cause. Too often the media portrays women as the poorly-done-by-and-it’s-all-his-fault victim, where the collective ice-cream licking public observers nod along in pseudo-knowing. The number of crimes against children which go unreported to police and unreported in the media is astounding. The reason? It makes middle Australia uncomfortable when mothers are reported as abusers. For example - a 40 year old male teacher is busted having sex with his student….he’s a pedophile who should be locked away forever. 40 year old female teacher and 16 year old male student…..awww, their cute story of “true love” may be sold and lapped up by the lowest common denominator mags (New Idea et al)...and how he “will wait for her”, or she vows to join him when she gets out of jail (if she is jailed). For 20 years I’ve seen the courts screw over men due to nasty, spiteful, vindictive ‘mothers’ who use Protection Orders, Domestic Violence and ‘Sectioning’ to get their way. I’ve seen the affects of absent mothers and the hard slog of dedicated fathers. (And to the majority of Australia’s dads and men in general. Keep your chin up gentlemen, not all of us treat you as walking wallets / sperm donors). Their needs to be truth in reporting in Australia’s media. But hey, I’ve only worked in Child Abuse Units, Sex Offence Squads and the Court system for 17 years, so what would I know.

    • Sue says:

      04:04pm | 29/09/11

      The commenting is hilariously one sided. I’d like to contrast this article and the comments here justifying hard working absent fathers as hard done by and not so absent with the universal acknowledgement in many articles that women do not make particularly good workers (Which is why we don’t have as many female bosses y’know. Ditch the bitch and so on.).

      Think this one over. If a mother hadn’t noticed her child had been dead for 15 days because their hubby had killed her, because, mum was,simply busy and tired form working how would we respond? Is this easily done? Or not?

    • Peter(BD) says:

      11:21am | 30/09/11

      Hmmm it seems to me most of the female types abusing the father haven’t worked 16 or twenty hour days day after day as some of us have to support the family the best possible way we know.
      Yep we do lose touch but if the kid doesn’t have the things considered soooo essential to life such as the latest item of clothing with a jazzy name that costs an arm and a leg for the logo then we are lazy good for nothings not willing to have a go.
      Another thing what man is game to enter his adolescent daughters bedroom late at night and appproach her bed thats interpreted as child sexual abuse… hey what the hell do some of you women want any way as much as you want EVERYTHING you cant have simply because it just aint possible.
      I have never met this guy so how the hell can I decide what he is like from a newspaper report ... just pull your heads in ....I am one guy that wont play your silly little games any more…. Thank god there are real people type women out there…...Yes I do have a female type partner and we are both happy ......but by crikey it took a long long time to find each other

    • Dirtman says:

      12:42pm | 03/10/11

      Dear Emma,

      Thanks for the new epithet with which to hate myself.

      I’m an ab-dad, and I’m guilty of being complicit in Zahara Baker’s murder because of my patriarchal ways. Or my penis. Same thing I guess.

      Seriously. You say you can’t name a woman you actually know who would fail to physically verify her child’s wellbeing every day. Do you actually know these men who would so fail, or do you just have some unsubstantiated belief that this Baker is statistically representative of us in some way? I know a lot of different types of men, and none of the men I know (not one) could go more than a day without wanting to smell their child’s hair or hear them breathing.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

Awesome headline on http://t.co/IsV33Y2o. "CLUSTER-ZUCK". http://t.co/hPCNEkAi

Anthony Sharwood

@MickNeven the game is called rugby league not rugby. Just like it's cricket not croquet! Sorry I can't catch ya show.

ToryShepherd

@KevCorduroy @ceda_news Cheers, couldn't get on to them but Redmond's office helped out in the end!

ToryShepherd

Does half the population really want to close the borders?? http://t.co/cNmpV2qH

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Schapelle has done her time

Schapelle has done her time

Schapelle Corby has served more than seven years in Kerobokan prison for attempting to import 4.2 kilos…

Do women need to know when to walk away?

Do women need to know when to walk away?

Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond has sparked controversy over her advice that young women should sometimes…

Who murdered the Arts degree?

Who murdered the Arts degree?

Have we murdered the liberal arts education? That was the final question on Monday night’s Q&A…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter