Sunday, May 18, 2014

I'll bet he ends up paying child support

I was reading this article about a US woman who got custody of her embryos which had been frozen with a man's sperm when she went through medical treatment which would destroy her fertility.

The man, who did not want to become a father, was told by a judge that his privacy concerns were moot.

Apparently a one time discussion four years earlier can be held up as legally binding, even AFTER the man has since changed his mind (they are, after all, no longer a couple), yet somehow this doesn't compare at all to how men are forever being told that a woman can withdraw consent to a single sexual encounter at any point during said encounter.

Is it any wonder that men are dropping out!

The article ends with a throwaway line that "she is not seeking any support, financial or otherwise", but I doubt any judge would hold her to THOSE words.  She'll have 18 years to change her mind as to whether or not she want child support from him, which of course no one will hold HER to any verbal agreement she'd made prior...

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Another misleading article headline, this time about life expectancy

I saw this article titled Aussie men better than women in life chart.

So, from the title one would expect the up to date life expectancy for men in Australia would be higher than women.  This article couldn't be further from the truth as Australian men are expected to live to 80.5 years old with women at 84.6 years old.

The article draws it title from the comparison with other countries in the world in which our men have the third highest life expectancy and women are "lagging in sixth place".

Wow, just wow.  So rather than focusing on the real numbers and pointing out that men STILL live 4.1 years shorter lives than women, the article frames it as though more needs to be done to get our women higher on the global ranking.

Rather than perhaps focusing on some way that we as a nation could help bring the average life expectancy of men up towards that of women like looking at dealing with the male suicide problem we need to think about the fact that the male life expectancy compared with other countries is better than the female life expectancy compared with other countries.

I guess that might draw the attention away from the problems that women have, so I guess I'm asking too much.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Article headline should read "men should just ignore concerns about false accusations"

In a continuation from my previous post about the declining number of male teachers in schools, I came across this article which basically stated the same thing.

South Australian Education Minister Jennifer Rankine says "she wants to reassure young men that teaching remains a good choice for them" and that "this is a tiny number of people who have undertaken these dreadful acts".

Here's what she's NOT doing:

1.  Implementing stricter controls on how allegations are handled.  Short of there being rape attempts, should teachers really be stood down until further notice?  Wouldn't the system be better served by putting a second teacher in the classroom who can monitor the teacher's behaviour until the accusations can be properly assessed?

2.  Offering compensation for teachers who are found 'not guilty' of the accusation.  Currently, by the time the accusation is proven false, the teacher in question will have been out of work for months, may be under enormous stress both financially and personally and may have ongoing issues as a result of the situation with little or no support from the government, the school OR their teacher's union.

3.  Offering male teachers more money to teach.  I remember asking why it was that the managers in my company got paid what they did and being told that the pay level was relative to the risk.  There is absolutely no doubt that the risk to male teachers is far above the risk to female teachers and so it follows that the pay should also.  If my 45+ year career path could be cut short AT ANY TIME and I could find myself unemployable (because what school would want to employ a teacher accused of abuse) then I'd expect that the payment for said job would compensate me for that risk.

4.  Treating teachers accused of crimes as innocent until proven guilty.  I'm all for the safety of the child, but it's a basic human right and my suggestion in point 1 provides a way to protect the 'alleged victim' without punishing the accused teacher.

5.  Admitting that there is clearly both a major issue affecting the system and there are major concerns that young men have about putting their lives, careers and future in the hands of potentially emotionally erratic children.  Teaching does not "remain a good choice for men" as long as they'll be treated as guilty until proven innocent.  Of course I guess it's asking too much to expect a female Minister to understand a mainly male concern.

What was left out of the article is how more than 50% of the accusations are proven false.  It appears that Jennifer Rankine does not know what the real situation on the ground is.  I'll give her more credit once she's personally met with at least five male teachers who have been falsely accused of abuse, although good luck finding that many who are still teaching!

Notice the last line of the article:  "between 2008 and 2012 there was a 25 per cent rise in the number of young men under 25 enrolling in teaching courses".

So if there were only four men enrolled in 2008 and there were five enrolled in 2012, then there was a 25 percent rise in enrollments.  Or, perhaps 400 young men enrolled in 2008 and 500 young men enrolled in 2012 - within 12 months most had dropped out as they became aware of the potential risks and decided against finishing.  There is a very big difference between the number of people who start a course and number who finish, of course the government would rather use statistics positively twisted to show things are looking up, rather than admit there's a real problem.

Monday, May 12, 2014

How to get more Australian men to donate sperm?

As I wrote in a previous post about the shortage of sperm donors in Australia, it had me thinking about what the government could do (or stop doing) to get the sperm donor numbers back up.

So without further ado, the following is the list of changes the government could make (but probably won't) which would increase sperm donation levels in Australia:

1.  Bring back optional anonymity

Governments don't really seem to understand cause and effect.  If I were to mandate that every dollar you gave as charity would put you on a public list where everyone could see not only who you are, but also how much you gave.  This would put most people off giving because people do not want to become targets for other charities.
Optional anonymity gave donors (mostly men) the choice as to whether or not they wanted to be contacted.  If you were having a hard time dealing with a marriage crisis 18 years after you donated sperm, would the appearance of a son or daughter out of the blue make your life better, or more complicated?
I guess the only concern about this one is that, given the government has already retro-actively removed anonymity for previous male donors, there's really not guarantee they won't back-track again, so technically this ship may have actually sailed for the current generation and the trust of anonymity may not come back for several decades to come.

2.  Bring in something - anything! - to protect donors

Let's face it, the current system consists of: if the child now over 18 years old, he or she can have access to information about the donor.  There may be a step in that process which consists of advising the donor that the conceived child has been given the details of the donor and may be in contact, but I can't find any information on that being part of the process.  I also can't find anywhere where it says that the donor will be given the child's name in return, meaning you could potentially have a schizophrenic person who knows you're their biological father, knows your name and where you live and you've got no idea they're coming or that they have 'issues' that could be life threatening to you or your family.
The children conceived by sperm donation should go through an examination of sorts to determine if they're mentally fit to just hand the details of their biological donor.  They might be a pedophile who'd love to get their hands on your children.  They might have severe mental issues and giving them personal details of their biological parent might not be in the best interests of the donor or his/her family.  The current system doesn't seem to consider the safety, health and well being of them, so much as it concerns itself with the 'right to an identity' of the 'child'.

3.  Treat sperm donation like a business transaction by allowing donors to get paid

This may open up a can of worms by providing incentives to donor to lie so that their sperm is used, but at the same time we have to acknowledge that it is a supply and demand industry.  The IVF clinics and their respective employees all make money through the course of the process, the women accepting the donations pay for the treatment, why shouldn't the sperm donor simply be treated like a 'supplier' and paid accordingly?
I'm all for un-paid blood donations: you roll up your sleeve, get a needle jab, give blood and it saves a life (or two).  Sperm donation just doesn't line up with that philosophy.  Firstly, you have to give far more personal information before you're allowed to donate, you're required to go into a tiny room with a bunch of magazines and movies and expected to give the performance of your life.
Then you'll be tested and told whether or not they even want your product and, if they're not interested, you're sent on your way with a "sorry, but you're just not up to scratch" message.
Forget that!  What man wants to risk rejection all for the opportunity to have some child he may not want looking him up in 18 years time?!

4.  Hold IVF Clinics accountable

The sperm donation industry is really an interesting one where a donor does have some control over who can access his sperm, but what's stopping little 'accidents' from happening.  Accidents such as: man donates but stipulates his sperm is ONLY to go to couples (ie not single mothers) because he has a fundamental objection to single parents due to his own personal beliefs or upbringing.  The IVF companies 'accept' this (notice on the Insight video linked in my first post how one manager of an IVF clinic was fine with donor's veto on women, but the other felt that bigots shouldn't continue) but impregnates people who do not meet with your requirements anyway.
To put it simply, it's the man's body, it should be the man's choice as to where his sperm should go.
Any person found going against the express conditions that a donor has put on his sperm should be legally liable to the tune of $1 million.  IVF clinics make a lot of money, so only high penalties will dissuade them from lying to you in order to make a sale.
We don't accept that behavior from salespeople, why should we accept it from quasi-medical salespeople?  How annoyed would you be if you were adamant that your sperm were to go to couples and not to single mothers only to find out that four out of five of your donations went to conceiving babies with single women?  Currently the system offers nothing in the way of compensation for you (the donor) because it was "an honest mistake".

5.  Financial protection of donors

There needs to be explicit statement that donors will not be liable, either in their own life OR in death, for the children produced by their donation.  I've often heard this one mentioned as a brush-off remark of "of course donors aren't liable".  Where is that written?  What about if a person turns up at your funeral claiming to be an illegitimate child deserving of a slice of your inheritance, are there any penalties for that fraud?  They'd have the necessary DNA to back up their claims, although the donor's family would have a pretty hard time proving the unexpected claim actually came from a sperm donation if they're not given full access to sperm donation records, especially if the family weren't aware that sperm donations had been made.  Last time I checked, knowing if a man has ever donated sperm does not appear on any pre-marriage documentation.

In summary, I think I've come up with some pretty key suggestions that, if implemented, would go a long way towards allaying the fears or concerns of many men who would otherwise love to help other couples conceive children.
The common responses I get when I raise the above points with people is "that wouldn't happen" or "have you ever heard of that happening?"  The flaws in these arguments are:
a)  IVF hasn't been around long enough to truly provide enough test cases to create laws surrounding them
b)  Perhaps cases have presented themselves, only the media ignores the sperm donor aspect
c)  The media can't be trusted to present information in an unbiased way, what makes you think they'd report openly and honestly about negative cases like the ones hypothesized above?
d)  To state matter-of-factly that something "wouldn't happen" is not the same as saying it couldn't happen.  Much like the people who donate sperm online thinking they're safe from child support payments ("they wouldn't come after me, they're such a nice lesbian couple that doesn't need money") not realising that the difference between wouldn't and couldn't is 18 years of child support payments.

So, any suggestions to add to my list?  I highly doubt anyone in power will ever read any of my suggestions, let alone consider implementing.  I personally believe that the government is happy with the shortage because the last thing the government really wants is too many single mothers to have to subsidize, of course that's just my personal opinion.

Men not wanting to get into teaching

I was reading this article about how young men are put off from becoming teachers for fear of false accusations of abuse.

I can't help but notice that there's no real plan in place to tackle this issue, there's nothing the government is going to do to protect men in those cases, they'd just like young men considering becoming teachers that 'this is a tiny number of people who have undertaken these dreadful acts".

Wow, just wow.

Isn't it funny how, when there are "a tiny number of people" doing dreadful acts to women, then laws get put in place to protect them.  If, however, the dreadful acts are affecting men, men just need to be aware that it's not ALL children, just a "tiny number" of them.

Does Ms Rankine (a woman) not realise that it only takes a single accusation to ruin a man's career and life?  Would you trust your family's financial well being on a career that could be ended by one false accusation made by a single child with a grudge?

I believe that the number of male teachers will continue to drop and is only as high as it is because it's riding on the backs of men who have been teachers for many years as this other article shows.

The simple truth is that attempting to convince men to just ignore the potential for personal and economic devastation is just one step shy of shaming men for not doing so.  They can pretend all they like that it's not that big a deal, but clearly it is.

If the first step in resolving a problem is admitting that we have a problem, I think we've got a long way to go on this problem...

Friday, May 9, 2014

Sperm shortage in Australia

I found this relatively recent website online about the sperm shortage in Australia.

So, only 20% of Australian males are aware of the shortage?  Is that really the issue?  This other site talking about how IVF centres in Adelaide are being forced to look overseas for donors along with this article talking about how 80% of sperm used in Australian IVF is imported.

None of these articles, NOT ONE OF THESE ARTICLES, looks at why Australian men are so uninterested in donating.  Perhaps if they can bring themselves to ask the question why not, can they begin to address the causes for the why not.

But no, that would either take too much effort, or would lead to the realisation that it is their own laws and system surrounding the donation system which puts men off.  Even this SBS show Insight which did an episode on Sperm Donation in Australia only touched on it, and even then it was only mentioned by one of the men who'd donated outside of the usual legally sanctioned channels.  Be forewarned, the SBS network is a very far left-wing channel and of course no left-wing station is going to care about any of the possible negatives on something they've already decided is a good thing.

If they'd bothered to ask ANY man why he wouldn't want to donate, here are my reasons why:

1.  Thinking about the future

Men actually think about the future, even men who are only 20 years old.  The IVF clinics say that a man's sperm may be used up to five times to create five children.  Potentially that's five different children with five different mothers, some who may have serious issues (the mother, the child or both).  Who in their right mind would be happy about committing to giving the "gift of life" only to see that gift come knocking on your door five years later and potentially upsetting your current relationship / family life?
How many people would donate to charity if it meant that 18 years later you'd have someone knocking on your door wanting to get to know you and possibly be a part of your family?

2.  The government can't be trusted

Did you know that the government decided that, based on the wording of the documentation donors signed after about 1990, 'anonymous' donors would not be legally able to stay anonymous?  All donors today are basically told that their information will be made available to their "offspring" at their request upon their turning 18.
What's to stop our oh-so-consistent government from changing the laws again to make it that any child conceived through IVF, if facing hard financial times, shall be given money from their donor parent for support.  This would be more likely if the IVF recipient were a single woman (yes, our government subsidizes that!), but the argument which led to the identities of donors being handed to children was that it was "in the interest of the children".  Will the government really not use that argument if the mother of the child falls on hard times?  If we can't trust them with our privacy, what makes you think we can trust them with our money?!
Not only can't our government keep promises made in single terms, they certainly can't be trusted to consider the situation of men, especially not when parts of our government don't even consider men a part of the community.  Don't worry though men, you will rate a mention once you're a Senior.  Until then you're on your own and not putting more of yourself out there than you need to is a good way to look out for your interests.

3.  The lack of full disclosure

So many people talk about boys and men as being reckless, yet most eligible donors who choose not to donate are actually anything but.  Sure, there are all of those positive stories about the guy who got to meet his biological daughter and how happy it made him, but where is even one story about the family that was torn apart by the person that turned up on their doorstep?  Is there really not a single story or, much like the Insight program, are the stories presented purposely cherry picked to make them sound all roses?
There's virtually no information available to the donors themselves about the children.  Are the men advised when the child turns 18?  Are the men given their names, so they're aware of someone who turns up in their life is biologically related?  What if the child turns up claiming to be yours from a previous relationship?  Imagine the sort of strain that would put on a relationship.

4.  Last Will and Testament

So you've lived a full life and you pass away.  Imagine after you're gone and you leave all your possessions to your spouse and (own) children.  Suddenly someone turns up and claims to be a child from a previous relationship and can back up their claim with DNA.  Will the sperm donation organisation open up their records so that your family can exclude them from your Will, or will your family have to pay through the nose to keep your assets in your family's hands?  Will there be any money left after the legal battles that would ensue?
The Australian legal system isn't set up for these kinds of cases because the focus on full disclosure of identity only applies to the children, not the donor or his family.

The reasons I list above are, in a large way, interlinked as I believe the legal system has yet to fully catch up with the reality that the whole IVF / sperm donor system really is a legal minefield which has yet to fully be tested.  How does a widow go about seeing if an alleged illegitimate 'heir' was actually a child conceived by sperm donation?  Are donors advised or warned that their biological children are aware of them and, if so, is there anything in place to possibly protect them if said child has major issues (personality or mental health)?

There is clearly no simple solution, but I honestly don't see ANY consideration given to the donor, what their personal situation may be at the time when the child will be granted access to their identity or even if child should be given the donor's personal details.  Perhaps someone should do an assessment on the 'child' to establish that the child would not pose a threat to the donor or donor's family, either physically or emotionally.

Until such time that the concerns of potential donors are even put to print in a serious manner, I foresee there to be many more years to come where the majority of sperm donors are from outside Australia.  Which is how it should be, since the government certainly isn't going to look after the interests of men and their respective futures.  The government is too busy trying to win elections with promises to make the place better "for the children" with no regard or consideration given to the donors.

Well, they'll make it better for the children... the few that are actually born anyway.

UPDATE:  In the time since I wrote this article I've seen some of the above points stated with the usual response being to dismiss those concerns as "trolling".  Interestingly enough, not one of the forums has actually addressed any of the concerned, only responded in the usual "don't be stupid", "stop trolling" and, my personal favourite "it's not going to happen".  Notice the comment is "it's not going to happen" and not "it CAN'T happen", which is because they all know that it COULD happen, regardless of how small the probability of it happening.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

DNA Testing in Australia - Seeking to follow France?

I remember travelling around Europe in my summer holidays off from University meeting a French man who was very much against what the USA was doing in Iraq.  I didn't really have much of an opinion about the war (because it was a very one-sided conversation), but what one thing he said has stuck with me in the decade that has followed: "the US is too young as a Republic to be acting like the authority on freedom".
I wasn't sure if he was implying that France knew better, that France could have done better or that the US should just go away and look after themselves, but I still took it on board.

Fast forward 10 years and I came across a bit of information that I thought can't be true, but it is: France has outlawed paternal DNA testing, which it did some time ago.

Now, given that in France if a man were curious to see if his child is biologically his and decided to get a DNA test done, he would face up to a year in jail and a 15,000 euro fine.

Think about that for a minute and let it sink in.  Theoretically a man could find out when he turns 70 that his child isn't his, with no opportunity to have any other children (there aren't many 18-40 year old women keen to start families with men over 60 unless the men are rich!) and he can legally do nothing between now and then to check.

I did a bit of checking and it appears that Australia isn't that far behind following in a similar policy position.  Apparently, even the Australian Medical Association thinks so too!

Of course the reasons behind France banning it and Australia following suit is to maintain family harmony.  My question to the proposed ban is this: if there is a very real threat on men who threaten family harmony by choosing to not remain in the dark, what punishment awaits a woman who threatens family harmony by revealing true paternity later in life?  Nothing, that's what.

Hopefully Australia never goes down the same path as France, but looking back on my conversation with that French man all of those years ago I wish I knew that France had outlawed DNA testing by fathers, so I could ask him if France were really such a good example of a well-run free country since it deems that the ignorance of its men is worth threatening liberty over.  That doesn't sound like a country founded on liberty.

If France were being fair about their laws then any woman who reveals that her husband is not the biological father of her children would also face a similar penalty.  But that would be mean to women, so I wouldn't count on any kind of reciprocal law any time soon.  Liberty, equality?  Not if you're a man in France.

Why is the decline of men celebrated?

I saw these this article and this article and couldn't help but wonder if perhaps the thing to take away from them both is that boys are failing at schools and that it appears that no one cares.

Now is the time to look at what is causing this decline, not in 20 years time when only 20% of graduates or less are males and the male youth of today are minimum wage workers without an education.

Gotta love how the first article basically leads itself to the conclusion that educated women may have to get together with other women because, generally speaking, men have a preference towards less educated women, when I've personally seen the opposite to be true.

I have several well educated female friends who are single and I can actually correct that assumption that it's the men choosing to marry down, it's the women choosing not to marry up.  Several of the women I know have turned down well-paid decent guys who were tradespeople because "I couldn't marry someone who'd never gone to University".

How many educated women earning more than $100k a year do you know would be happy marrying a guy who worked as a janitor?  My guess is not many.

So, men are losing out in the education stakes, are losing out in careers as a result and not being "marriageable", but are still blamed for refusing to 'marry up'.  Clearly all the single men are to blame because there are "no good men left".  Single men should just be better.  Got it.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Sad story, but lucky no one was blamed

I was reading this article and just thought about how lucky it was that someone wasn't singled out and blamed before the truth was discovered.

I'm sure the police had suspects at the time, but this really does highlight why innocent until proven guilty must be followed, because sometimes, like this, there aren't any guilty people, just sad and unfortunate circumstances.

I may be corrected on this, but it's also lucky that the names of any suspects weren't released, because there's no innocent until proven guilty when mob mentality kicks in.

Anything for a quiet life

I saw this article and thought about how bad his home life must be that he'd rather spend another two months in jail than to be stuck there.

So a man would rather cut his tracking device resulting in him being sent back to prison for 2 months than to stay with his girlfriend.

I'm not familiar with France's legal system, but I strongly suspect that the conditions of his parole might be that he has a curfew and must be at his registered home (with his girlfriend).

We might laugh at this situation, but it kind of makes you wonder about domestic violence against men, which is all too often the subject of humour in movies and TV.

Just so busy

Well, it's been far too long between posts and not a whole lot of joy in the weight management department.

Am working longer hours at work because we're entering a critical phase in the Project and the first part of this phase needs to go well lest the rest of it be negatively affected.

In other news, the baby's room is now pretty much ready, my wife's baby bump is coming along really well (although being a woman with a small frame, she's STILL smaller than me!) and she's counting down to when she finishes up at work.  All very exciting!

My main focus on eating well and losing weight is now tied up between getting the rest of the house ready (cleaned up and cleared out) and making sure things go well at work (still a bit of uncertainty there, which having things go poorly for me will NOT increase my chances of being kept if things change).

I don't have a weight measurement to report as such, just that I haven't forgotten about this blog.