Thursday, December 11, 2014

Yet more on the sperm donation shortage in Australia

It always amazes me the levels of denial our government has in what it's doing:

Victoria clinic sperm demand prompts calls to use overseas donations

My favourite part of that article is:

"... but available donor sperm plummeted from 104 to eight over the same period (or one year)"

Meanwhile, some states (Victoria and Queensland), in an effort to overcome the shortages, have doubled the maximum number of children a single donor can 'father' from five to ten.

I'm still waiting for the "man up" campaign that's coming (pun intended), but I really do think that this whole situation is by design.  The government doesn't really want a whole heap of single mothers on benefits, but they also don't want to be seen to be discriminating against women who are incapable of maintaining a relationship long enough to have children unable to find "Mr Right" in time, so they not only give single women subsidized access IVF and sperm donation, but also put a heavy disincentive for men to donate by giving into a small minority of children born from donations access to their donor's details.

  • Single women think they've won, because they've technically got access to IVF and sperm donors.
  • Children born of donations think they've won because future children will have access to donor information.
  • The retroactive removal of anonymity has caused donor numbers to plummet, thereby meaning fewer single women will actually get access to the service.

The real losers in the above deal are the poor donors whose anonymity was retroactively removed and couples who would have been looking for donors.

One does wonder how many children born of sperm donation of intact families are looking for their sperm donor, although I highly doubt we'll ever see that little statistic.



Woman looking for father of unborn child

A woman is looking for a regular, large amount of child support to find the father of her unborn baby from a one night stand.

She claims that it's so that the boy can grow up knowing his father, but one does wonder if the fact that the father is (or claimed to be) a Fly-In-Fly-Out worker who is probably earning a lot of money has anything to do with it.

I always find it amazing how a 25 year old could know she has poly-cystic ovaries AND that it would mean she may not be able to get pregnant again.

One can only feel sorry for the child in this situation.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

State Election looming - who to not vote for...

With the state election looming and with both parties doing their best to point out the faults of the other party at the same time as making so many promises, it has occurred to me that perhaps the parties could benefit from the more simple things to offer.

Therefore, I'd give my voting preference to any candidate that actually changes the Victorian government website to recognise men as a part of their community.




Maybe my expectations are too much.

Friday, November 14, 2014

A brief timeline of the downfall of sperm donation

I've written several times about how Australia is both anti-male as well as not really wanting men as sperm donors based on their treatment of them:

1980 - First baby born in Australia using IVF
1988 - Read 2010 below.
2010 - Single women and lesbians given access to IVF (and subsidized by Medicare)
2010 - The laws in most states changed to give any child conceived using sperm donation access to their details, backdating the access to information as far back as 1988.
2011+ The number of sperm donors is dropping, even though both the population of Australia has increased (more available men) and the demand for donors has increased.

I don't have a big issue with lesbians accessing sperm donations as long as they are self sufficient.  Nothing annoys me more than a government that purposely seeks to create a welfare class by giving single women access to a subsidized way of having children.

There are several kinds of women who get to the point in their life where they're running out of time to have children, but they can be summed up as:

  1. Women who have prioritized their own person life (career, fun, travel) ahead of having a family; and
  2. Women who are incapable of maintaining long term relationships.

The first group of women may be able to switch their focus to a child, but it could be doubtful, especially since a single woman will usually need to keep working to afford to raise a child.

The second group is the group that we should be most concerned about as it is a very bad idea to help a person incapable of maintaining a relationship on a long term basis the responsibility of raising another human being who can't walk away before he or she is 18 years old.  Remember, statistically speaking, the number of prison inmates who grew up in single mother households is dis-proportionally high.

Of course it may actually be beneficial for the child of a single mother to know there's a father out there they'll be able to contact when they turn 18 years old, or maybe it won't.  Only time will tell.

The media is really trying to sell sperm donation

Well, I saw this article about a guy who donated sperm and ended up marrying the woman who carried his baby.

When we see articles like this we really do realise that the mainstream media is trying to sell us a bunch of crap about sperm donation.

It's the old bait and switch, now calling all lonely 20 - 30 year old guys, donate your sperm and maybe you've got a chance at the woman tracking you down and falling in love with you.

Either that, or you'll spend the next 18 years wondering where that woman you helped have a child went until you get a knock at the door from some child wanting to know who you are.

Do you think that we'd ever see any articles talking negatively about sperm donation?

Here's one about a woman who turned against her 'father' after she found out during an argument that she was conceived by IVF.  Two things stand out to me in this article: the woman hates the man that raised her and treated her as his own and she hates the man who donated his sperm to give her life because she's unable to track him down.

Whilst I think the authors of this article think they're trying to argue the case that the abolishing of anonymous sperm donation is a good thing, but all it had me thinking was that if I were infertile I wouldn't want to resort to sperm donation because I could be dropped as 'father' as easily as a heated argument.

What a way to be remembered: you spent 20 of the best years of your life raising that were not biologically your own, but now they know they're not biologically yours, you're out of the picture.

The picture she paints leaves me with the same feeling I get when people talk about marrying women with children.  At the end of the day you could do absolutely everything in the world for the child or children and you'll NEVER be their father and you're more than likely to never appear on their family tree except as a footnote for who their mother married.  Is it really worth it?

It makes more sense as to why men are going their own way every day.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Woman threatened before partner killed

Another case of the media preemptively jumping to the defense of a woman accused of a crime:

Woman threatened before partner killed

So, basically she was found to be trying to get someone to kill her ex-boyfriend of FOUR YEARS because he was allegedly threatening her and, when she couldn't, said "Don't worry, I will f***ing stab him myself".

The article then goes on to mention that when the victim turned up at the Marrickville home he was stabbed five times.

What is the article leaving out?  Was he lured there?  Were his abusive messages just messages?  Did he have a history of documented abuse?  Hearsay should not be admissible as 'evidence'.

Depending on the outcome of this trial (I believe she'll get a suspended sentence at best), the lesson to all women looking to kill an ex-partner is to tell all of your friends in the months leading up to the final act that the guy is being abusive.  Doesn't matter if he is or not, because as far as the media is concerned all that matters is that you SAID he is to your friends.

It takes a certain kind of person to try to hire someone to kill another person, and it's not a normal kind.

UPDATE:  The link to this article no longer works.  I wonder why yahoo removed this story.

Penis chopping woman eligible for parole this month

Jian Chen, known for chopping off her ex-partner's penis and then ONLY getting three years jail after he DIED from his wounds, will be eligible for parole this month.

I wonder if the media will cover this newsworthy article in light of the spate of articles denouncing domestic violence and partner deaths.

Oh wait, no they won't.

If I wanted to stir the pot I could suggest the reason that no one cares is because the guy who died was Asian, but the reality is most likely that it's because he was male and she was female.

I wonder if any newspaper will do any kind of tribute to Xian Peng and tell his side of the story, much like they do when a woman is the victim, but I highly doubt anyone would even know the name Xian Peng let alone have a newspaper report about a guy who died in a gruesome way or at least a story about any children who have lost their father.

I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Woman slices daughter's boyfriends penis whilst high, only gets home detention

Well isn't this a doozy of an article:

Woman who sliced teen's penis with box cutter escapes jail

What I think is amazing is how, when men are arrested for doing violent acts they are usually charged with and punished for multiple crimes for the same act.

Let's play a little game with this one and see how many charges this woman should have faced:
  • Assault with a deadly weapon
  • Deprivation of liberty
  • Occasioning grievous bodily harm
  • Reckless endangerment of life whilst under the influence of drugs
  • Attempted murder (she did threaten his life by telling him to choose between his member and his life)
Let's not forget that she was unapologetic about the whole incident because, despite saying "she only wanted to scare the teenager and didn't mean to hurt him", the article has her quoted as saying "she wanted to scar him so that he would have to look at it every time that he had sex in the future" - doesn't sound like she "didn't mean to hurt him", unless she thinks that getting scars doesn't hurt.

I guess we shouldn't expect much justice for the guy, it's not like he had a right to safety or anything.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

The Best Birth Control men can't have

I've written before about Vasalgel and how I don't think most Western governments will let it get through.  Those that do will see a big drop in the birth rate.

Here's another article that has some interesting comments at the bottom of it.

In typical feminist style, a poster named Karen Martelli proceeds to tell other posters that they are stupid and that Vasalgel hasn't been approved because:


Ignoring the possibility that married men with children may prefer this product to a vasectomy, she abuses other posters for not following her line of thinking.

I find it funny how she completely misses the point that it's another option for men.  Her alternative - the IUD - is for women.

Much like so many feminist narratives, she's sticking up for the 'men don't need more options because, between men and women, there are already so many options' narrative, either completely ignoring the fact that it still leaves women in full control of the process.

I believe that Vasalgel will be a big winner for married men who've already had enough children and for teenagers and men in their early 20s who don't want any surprises.  Can you see a male aged between 18 and 25 saying to his girlfriend "you know, I'd like you to get an IUD"?  I certainly can't.

I know several men who have talked about long-term contraceptives with their partners after they are done having children and the ONLY CHOICE presented to them was vasectomy.  Their wives did not want a hysterectomy, would not consider IUDs or any other product.

Contrary to women like Karen Martelli, there are many women who outright refuse to get things like IUDs and for men like me the choices are condoms, which are an ongoing cost, or a vasectomy for which there can be some nasty side effects.  FYI - the need to use condoms in my marriage is unnecessary from an STD point of view, so to suggest that "condoms are better because they also protect against STDs, duhh!" is meaningless.

Having looked at vasectomies and having heard some horror stories, I'm not keen to jump in with both feet.  What I am keen to see is another option for men like me and for women like Karen Martelli who absolutely nothing to gain or lose from the introduction of a product like Vasalgel to just get out of the discussion.

I suspect that the reason so many women object to something like Vasalgel is that a vasectomy is not always reversible.  So, should a woman divorce a man in his 50s, then his chances of remarriage and having children with his new wife would be significantly reduced, thus ensuring her ex-husband only focuses on HER children, not any children from a subsequent relationship.

The great thing about Vasalgel for a married man is that he can get it done and, by the time it starts wearing off, his partner will most likely be past having children and the need for contraceptives will also be removed.

I don't know of any males who suggested that IUDs would be a bad idea or question why they would be needed.  Why do women like Karen Martelli feel she deserves a say?  I don't go on breast cancer forums and put down breast cancer research by saying "there are already treatments available that are X% effective, why do you need more research done at a cost of billions".

I believe the key thing to take away from here is that, in the eyes of people like Karen, Vasalgel isn't just giving men more options, it's taking away some of the power women currently have.  Can you tell she doesn't like it?

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Will the deviousness never end?

It turns out one side-effect of the Scottish referendum is that there were people who had avoided paying a Poll tax brought in in 1989 and removed in 1994 by not registering to vote.

In order to be eligible to vote in the recent Referendum, one had to be registered.

This resulted in the government being able to identify as much as 300 million pounds in back-taxes being able to be traced.

Way to go to annoy the Scots further!

It's a bit like tricking people with excessive speeding fines into turning up by telling them they'd won a car, only to find they've been had.

The Conversation silences conversations it doesn't like about Domestic Violence

Well, I know it's not really newsworthy, but those left-wing media website purporting to be about 'conversations' publishes an article titled 'Why don't we speak up when we see signs of domestic violence' and, when the comments have people, including men, open up about their experiences of being abused and, surprise, surprise, most of the posts by men talking about their past experiences of being abused have been removed by the moderator.

Maybe it was because the posts questioned the fact that the article ignored pretty much all male victims of domestic violence.

Perhaps it was because the posts pointed out how the article implied that only women were victims of domestic violence.

A more likely cause for those post removals or, CENSORSHIP, is because they provide evidence that the site moderators don't want to acknowledge: that women aren't the only people who are victims.

I'd almost go so far as to point out that the moderator left the following comment up (which I'll paste because it may get taken down):

"Have you cringed when a friend was degraded by her partner in public? Or felt uncomfortable because your friend’s partner continually rings to check her whereabouts? Is your friend’s partner intimidating and rude to you?" Sure. In my case, both the friend, and her partner, are women.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Conversation, in an article about speaking up about domestic violence, silences posts when men post their personal experiences, but keeps up posts by women talking about their abuse, even when it's abuse in a lesbian relationship.  It's a bit like writing an article about the experiences of immigrants in Australia, but deleting posts by Asians because "we don't want them posting their stories, we only want stories from Middle Eastern or European immigrants".

One could almost conclude that this website is not only anti-male, but also anti-lesbian.  Are they allowed to go against the PC grain like that?  I mean, surely they're only allowed to be anti-male!

Monday, September 29, 2014

Thoughts on the movies Brave, Tangled and Frozen

I was at a dinner party the other day when a woman I know who has a son commented on how her best friend's daughter wouldn't let her son to her 5th birthday party because she thought boys were stupid.

Later in the conversation she mentioned that the girl's three favourite movies that she watches again and again are Brave, Tangled and Frozen.

I wonder if either of them has stopped and taken a good hard look at the underlying tones of all three of those movies where male characters are either evil or stupid and incompetent.

I challenged anyone to identify at least one positive male character in all three of those movies.

Granted I've never seen Frozen (nor do I want to), but Brave left me thinking that girls watching that must think all men are loud obnoxious buffoons and tangled left me thinking that girls watching it must this that domestic violence against men is ok, but the number of times that the main female character beats up the main male character.

I wonder what kind of reception I would receive if I were to point the above out?  Probably not a very nice one as the impression I get is that woman's friend probably wants her daughter to grow up to be a strong independent woman, and who wouldn't?  My main concern is that if they get those ideas stuck in their head early enough, they'll carry through into adulthood.

Then again, maybe she'll discover boys and the whole 'boys are icky' phase will be over.

Woman assaults another woman in apparent racist attack

I just saw this today and had a few thoughts on an article titled 'Woman bashed, thrown from train in racist attack'.  Here's some things that most people may not notice upon first reading:
  • The attacker was female.  A fact not mentioned until the 4th paragraph
  • The attack was 'racially motivated'
Whilst I completely disagree with all violence, one can't help but notice how, when the perpetrator is a woman, the details are left until the end of the report and there are rarely sketches of what she looked like.  Had the attacker been a man, the headline would have been 'Racist man throws woman from train in attack'.

The second thing I notice is how suddenly being a Muslim is being a race.  I believe that it's all part of some great plan to label anyone who doesn't agree with mass migration from Middle Eastern countries as 'racist'.  Maybe they're just too lazy to know that the correct term would be 'creedist' (if that is even a word).

Compare the above story to this story about a 'Good Samaritan brutally after NRL semi-final'.  Throughout the article the victim, a man named Paul, is referred to as a Good Samaritan or by name and the words man or men are only used to describe his attackers.

The messages to take away from both articles is that women deserve to be recognized in the titles as victims, but not as perpetrators, and with the second article, a man has risen up above the title of 'man' and will not be referred to as one, as that word is used to describe his attackers who ganged up on a 'Good Samaritan'.

I guess I know why I don't bother reading the papers...

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Masters of Sex not worth the trouble

I'm not normally one to review any movie or TV show, but I felt so strongly about this that I had to post something.

A friend of mine raved about Master of Sex as being a fantastic show, the critics love it, etc, so when it finally found its way to Australian free-to-air I checked it out.

I honestly couldn't understand what the whole fuss was about.  Once you remove the sex from the show you're left was a show that's so blatantly anti-male it stops short of having its female actors simply kicking the crap out of its male ones.

All of the male characters are either career or sex focused with very few other redeeming qualities.  All of the women are portrayed as smarter or more moral than the male doctors.

  • One MALE doctor is racist to a black man, the FEMALE nurse believes this is wrong.
  • One MALE doctor is cheating on his wife with his assistant, the FEMALE assistant is doing it to keep a roof over her head and/or for the science.
  • One MALE doctor can't get it up unless he's able to treat the women as anonymous sex objects, the FEMALES he leaves behind just want love.

And the list goes on.

I gave this show what I think is a fair run, which is I watched about four episodes before I gave up.  There's only so much anti-male portrayal that a person can watch before one realizes that it's not going to get any better.

I know it's set in ye olde day when stuff like that happened, but there were racist bigots around the time of the Korean war, but the TV series M*A*S*H didn't resort to showing its main characters as racists, sexists and bigots for it's whole series run.  If they did, it was usually so that particular character could realize the error of their ways by the end of the episode.

Masters of Sex just seems to rub our faces in these character flaws episode after episode with little or no character growth for the men, but the women are shown as compassionate, smart and improving.

I'd rather go back and watch MacGyver again.  At least that's got some positive male role models in it!

Poor Julia the victim, even when she's backstabbing people

I'm really amazed that this feminist icon trying to show a front that women can do anything a man can do, only better, would even dare to claim to be a victim when it came to stabbing her leader in the back to take his job.

In other interviews she went on to talk about how she didn't really want to do it, she was egged on by her colleagues.

What's amazing is how this most influential woman of 2013 who was held up to be a modern feminist icon, yet when something she does that benefits her also casts her in a negative light, she was pushed into it.

Australia, as not everyone knows, has compulsory voting, so there was no way she could have stayed in power had all her feminist supporters voted and all the evil sexist males had stayed home wouldn't have played out.  On threat of a fine, every registered voter must cast their vote.

What was forgotten was one of her follow up speeches referred to as her 'Men in blue ties' speech in which, to a room full of only women, referred to all men as interchangeable men in blue ties.  So, all women are wonderful individuals, but men are all the same and, therefore, expendable?

The media only focused on the fact that her own male party members also wear blue ties. not that she had, once again, painted all men with the same brush.  It was this speech that she was trying to ride the wave of international recognition, but at home just drove a nail into the coffin of her political career as both men and women were getting fed up with her.

This is a woman who will retire on an indexed pension of about $200,000 a year or, to put it another way, the equivalent of $8 million in Superannuation (or 401k for those in the US) after serving in the position for only three years and three days!  That is on top of the pay rise she gave herself and fellow politicians that saw her overtake Barack Obama in salary.

FYI - at the time, the GDP of Australia was only US$1.38 trillion vs US$14.99 trillion for the United States.

Basically, at the same time as she was running up a massive national debt, she was also looking after her friends.  If only we could all have friends like her!

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Who needs a defense lawyer when the media makes it for you

I couldn't believe that I read this:

Woman who lost son, 5, on murder charge over death of man

The reasons I'm surprised:
  • her son died six years ago
  • the man who died after being allegedly stabbed apparently had nothing to do with the death of her son
  • no other person gets this sort of defense in the media
How is the fact that she lost her son relevant in any way to her arrest???

Sunday, September 14, 2014

The dawn of a new era... maybe...

I saw this in the news the other day:

Male birth control could be available to humans by 2017

Of course, it's been 'on the horizon' and 'only a few years away' for a very long time now.  Here's to hoping that it comes sooner rather than later.

The million dollar question is: will teenage boys be allowed to get it done?  Since teenage girls have access to the pill, it only makes sense to provide teenage boys with an alternative contraception too.

I foresee that, assuming it does come out, we'll see a massive drop in 'unplanned pregnancies', a 'must have' for all teenage boys and a sharp decline in the number of staff needed for Family courts.

Longer term, I believe we'll see a significant drop in the fertility rate, since almost half of pregnancies are unplanned.  I actually believe that the government may block the introduction to the procedure in Australia citing dubious reasons, with the real reason being that we're already in a population decline that is threatening our long-term future.

I had previously discussed with my wife about getting a vasectomy after we were done having children, but given the potential side effects, I'd much rather the Vasalgel option!


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.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Long time working, losing ground

Well, it's been a while since my last post and a lot has happened.

I've actually put on 0.2 kg, so I'm not overly happy with how my weight is going, but I know that I've not been eating the best (I had two birthday parties to go to on Saturday alone) and I've also not taken the time to exercise.

On the home front, however, I've been making good progress.  I've sold a total of twelve things on eBay and have averaged about $50 per sale for my old Super Nintendo (SNES) and Nintendo 64 (N64) games.  I had listed sixteen items last week, but shouldn't be surprised that most of the Nintendo DS games didn't sell as the market is currently flooded with them (they are still current) so I think I'll store those away until their value has increased a bit.  I've pretty much sold all of the games I was planning on selling (will still keep some as it'll be handy to introduce children into computer games without having to fork out hundreds of dollars for the latest system), only a few left.

I'm now planning on using the fifty free listings per month that eBay allows and going to start listing other things as well, like books and DVDs.  Looking through my garage and book shelves, there really is such a thing as too many things.

Another positive is that we've now taken delivery of the cot and so the process of converting the study into a nursery.  We're a little early (4 months to be exact) but the way I see it is the more we do now, the less we do later.  Also, there's no point in hanging onto the study for another four months when it'll become the baby's room for the next 18 or so years, so there's really no point in delaying the inevitable.

Anyways, today is Monday 31st of March and my current weight is 112.2 kg (1.0 kg lost, 32.2 kg to go).

Looking at the fact that since starting this blog I've only actually lost 1 kg, I'm really going to have to start making some big commitments...  but that is a post for another day.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Two steps forward, one step back

It's been two weeks since my last weigh in and I was justified in being nervous: I had put on 0.3 kg in weight.

Having focused on all of the different things in my life (career progressing training, getting my house ready for baby and other things) I had neglected both my diet and my regular walks.

The up side was that I've finally completed over a week of training which has taken me away from my usual duties (my job is such that I'm still expected to complete those duties, despite being on away on business related training) which will keep my busy with catching up on the back-log, but at least I'll be back in the driver's seat.

One of the downs I had was that a friend's ashes were placed in his family plot last Friday.  He'd passed away late last year from cancer and it was very upsetting for all who knew him to lose him.  True to his character, he never told us he even had cancer because he probably didn't want to burden his friends with his problems.  He was a great person and he'll be sorely missed.

On the up side, I've rounded up most of my old video games and have started photographing and cataloging them in preparation for posting up on eBay.  I'm not sure how I'll go, or even if I'm doing it right, but time will tell.
I've decided to drip feed my games onto eBay as I don't want to overload myself with having to package and mail out fifty different packages to fifty different address in a single week.  I'm also thinking about potential buyers who may not be able to afford to buy multiple items from me in a single week.

So far I've listed five of the items and, if that all goes to plan, I'll probably post up ten per week until I have sold all the games, at which point I'll start putting up other items around the house to clear out, like books and DVDs.

With all the stuff I'd amassed (extra weight around my belly aside) in my years of living at home with my parents I'd say that, if I sell 40 items per month I should be inventory free by about November... of 2025!

Of course there are many things that I'll want to keep for sentimental value, other things that I'll keep to let my children play with, but I really do have a lot of stuff that is just taking up room that perhaps someone out there may want.

Anyway, I've made good progress in my way forward, just not in the weight department.  I must get back to watching what I eat (not easy on training when so much temptation!) and going for walks.  Hopefully we won't have too many more hot days left this year.

Today is Sunday March 9th, 2014 and my current weight is 112.0 kg (1.2 kg lost, 32.0 kg to go).

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Of opportunities and compromise...

I'm very depressed at the moment.

February has been a huge month for me both personally and professionally in that this month my workplace has received word that we'll continue to operate for another two years at least, which is far better news than those poor workers at Qantas received last week, I found out a former work colleague passed away late last year and I didn't even know about it and I've passed on the career opportunity of a lifetime for various reasons.

My work situation pretty much speaks for itself in that our organisation in general is only assured of another two years of operation, after which deep cuts may take place with myself being included.  That's what makes my third reason so hard to swallow.

I was basically offered an on-going position working in a rural area for what would be a hefty salary increase, would be a secure position for life and would give me the opportunity to move up greatly in my career.  The two catches are that it would mean my wife wouldn't be able to continue to work in her current job (five hour commute) and we'd have to move away from our respective families (about five hours drive away).

The point about her job is a bit of a sticking point for me because, due to the lower cost of living in this town, if we were to move we'd be able to easily live on my salary alone, would even be able to put money away and I've just got this feeling that once my wife's got our baby in her arms she's not going to want to go back to the stress of working, not even part time.  In our current location we could afford for her to take some time off when the baby is born, but with all of our current financial commitments (mortgage, gas, electricity, etc) we'd slowly be going backwards.

Like anything financial, once you start going backwards the momentum builds and continues to snowball until big decisions are forced to be made ie downsize house or move to a cheaper area.

I'm feeling depressed because on the one hand I want to provide for my family and give them the kind of life that they deserve and give my wife the option to be a stay at home mother, but on the other hand the easiest way for me to do all that would be to commit her to being a stay at home mother and, worse, take us away from our family support network at the same time.  This being my mother-in-law's first grandchild, I don't think I'd ever get forgiven.

The job itself is also a very interesting one with big budgets, lots of growth opportunities and, most of all, lots of autonomy and the opportunity for me to actually be the one making the decisions for a change.  In short, I'd be able to become one of only two senior people in my field in a small region.  My cousin who has a very big entrepreneurial spirit lives in a small town and thrives because, as he puts it, "I'd rather be a big fish in a small pond than a little fish in a big pond".

I put it to my wife that we could always treat this as a seven year plan (as the bulk of the interesting work would probably be coming to an end by then) and we could move back to Melbourne so she could go back to her full time job just before her seven years leave could run out.  The simple answer was that she didn't want to live in that small town, regardless of what freedoms it could provide her from having to work, even if it meant we could have several more children without having to balance when to have them with when would fit in with work.

This opportunity is a one time thing, so if she changes her mind in six months then the ship will have already sailed.  My biggest dread is that in six months time she does just that, then get annoyed that I didn't try hard enough to convince her to go in the first place.

I'm not sure if this is a common thing with wives, but my wife has a habit of running around doing things, then if it happens to cause her problems it's my fault.

An example of this is that our house has locks on every window.  She was worried that we'd get robbed by someone breaking the window and unlocking it so she locked all the windows, gathered up all the keys and put them in one place when I wasn't home.  I didn't notice she'd done this until I wanted to open a window and she grumpily went and got a key for me.  Fast forward several months and she's now forgotten where the bulk of the keys are and the only keys we have to open the windows are the few that she'd fetched shortly after hiding them.
Today, my wife wanted to open a window and promptly yelled at me with "why are all the windows locked?!?"  That was my cue to go and fetch one of the few located keys.  She believes that the obsession to lock things comes from my side because I have a compulsion to lock doors (mainly front doors) because to leave them unlocked is to ask for uninvited guests in.  She grew up in a small town (different one) and her family doesn't really worry too much about it unless they're going out or at night.

I guess I'll have to just accept that my situation in that I'll have to stay in my not-so-secure job to allow us to stay in the location my wife wants to live and hope that I'll still have a job in two years time if she changes her mind and decides she wants to stay at home longer than she's currently planning to.

I just hope that I'm not going to look back on this passed opportunity as a mistake on my part.  Only time will tell...

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Putting my past behind me

One thing that is going to change when the baby comes along is that I'm going to lose my study (really just a computer on a desk), as it's the only other 'bedroom' in the house that has an air conditioner and considering that whole week we had temperatures exceeding 40 degrees Celsius, I wouldn't want to have my child getting too hot next summer.  We do have another bedroom, but with the double bed in there for guests, there's no room to fit a desk.

On top of this, it made me realise that I'm also not going to have any time to play computer games much any more with a bouncing baby in the house.  I do know of a couple of fathers who still play computer games but, to be perfectly honest about it, I notice that their down time comes at the expense of time with their children or friends.  One guy I know even goes so far as to say to his stay at home wife that he's "had a long hard day at work and deserves some personal time".

I don't know all the background to their situation, perhaps he's helping out at home every other night of the week, but I don't ever want my wife to feel like I'm home and not available to be involved.

That was when I realised that my whole life is going to change for the next 20 to 25 years at least.  When I take stock of all of my old computer games and gaming systems I realise that, for the most part, the next time I might really be able to sit down and play any of them I'll be approaching 50!

Ignoring the distinct possibility that some or all of the equipment might cease to work without some kind of overhaul after that time, I'm not sure I want to be playing Mario Kart when I'm pushing 50.

That's why I've made a rather big decision, one that I never thought I'd ever make (especially without any sort of ultimatum from my wife), I'm going to put all of my games and gaming systems for sale on eBay.

It just occurred to me that my children aren't going to be interested in playing such old games when their friends will probably all be playing the X-Box 5 or the PlayStation 10 by then and for me to hang onto them on the off chance that I may get around to playing them again some time is just stupid.

This isn't a criticism of guys who've still got all their old games from when they were 10 years old, it's just that I see these games and honestly think that my time and attention will be better spent on getting high scores in real life, by leveling up in real life and not by being the best in a digital world where only people over 30 who happen to have played those specific games (and can remember them!) can appreciate what that meant.

There are so many things that I need to do in order to improve myself for my career and my home that I can't be sitting down and chilling out playing old games for hours on end.  The common feeling I get with playing these old games is that it's great to begin with, but then the feeling that I've already accomplished those things creeps back in and I lose interest about 90% of the way through.

I'm thinking that the money I raise from the sale of my games can go towards the baby, but having looked at the cost of most of my games online (anywhere between $5 and $100), I don't think I'll be fully paying for my child's University degree, but it may pay for his or her first bed, desk or computer.

The added bonuses of all of this is that it'll clear out some space in my house (which will make my wife happy) and I'll have less distractions around the house, not that I play the games much anyway.

It'll be a bit of a long process to catalog the games (photograph, work out condition, etc), but I believe that it's the right step forward.

My wife will be unaware of what is going on because I know that she's always maintained that I should keep personal things, but I just feel that it's time for me to let go and do so in a way which will help us financially at the same time.

I'll may follow that up by selling my comic book collection, although I'm a little less inclined to do that because my son or daughter may be interested to read them.  I know I was interested in reading all of my father's old MAD magazines, but perhaps that's just wishful thinking...

Mixed news on several front, but an opportunity for a new start

Well, I weighed in this morning and was happy and sad.  I was sad because I had actually put on 0.1kg over the last two weeks (weighed in at 111.7 kg).  I was happy because I've been extremely stressed out at work with everything going on and the uncertainty in my company and was overeating and didn't have any time to do my usual exercise, so I was actually expecting to have put on more.

Well, since this is two weeks of time I've actually lost, but I've also managed to go backwards.

Based on my original goal of getting my weight down to 80kg by the time my first child is born, I'm going to have to increase my average weekly weight loss to 1.4 kg per week (up from 1.3 kg per week).

It's not massive, but it has highlighted to me how losing only two weeks in this marathon means I'm going to have to get more focused and work harder than before.

I have to put these past two stressful weeks behind me, focus on what I need to do to achieve my goals and to keep moving forward.

Today is Sunday February 23rd, 2014 and my current weight is 111.7 kg (1.5 kg lost, 31.7 kg to go).

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

A quick update with some bad news...

I failed to weigh in last Sunday due to being interstate.  I considered weighing myself mid-week, but I'll either get my hopes up or get disappointed in the lead up to next weekend's weigh-in.  For now I'll have to assume that all the food I ate whilst away was somehow countered by all the walking I did.

Just a quick note for anyone thinking of going to Sydney, Australia.  If you can help it, DO NOT catch taxis, especially from the airport.  My flight was delayed by an hour, so I got in after 11pm and was too tired to argue with the taxi driver when he tacked on an extra $10 onto the taxi fare.  $48 to drive me 15 minutes to the centre of the CBD at 11pm on a Wednesday night with virtually no traffic around?  Yeah right!

The taxi industry lost out on one customer because all weekend I went everywhere either by bus or walking.  Even the times when I had to walk more than nine blocks to get to a bus stop!  I even caught the train from the city back out to the airport when the time came.  Even a local tourist information person told us to avoid them like the plague, and she apparently has friends who drive taxis there!

Otherwise I had a good weekend, albeit a slightly damp one with all of the rain which poured down.  Ironically, living in Melbourne which is supposedly the home of changeable weather, the first ray of sunshine I saw in four days was in Melbourne the afternoon I got back.

Anyway, work has been a very stressful time with announcements coming about the possible future of the company.  It wouldn't be quite so stressful, except the management seem to feel that too much communication is better than not enough, even if that communication has absolutely no new information.

It's been hard not to be tempted by bad food, especially since we've been having so many staff farewells for people who are clearly jumping ship because of the uncertainty.

I wonder, if/when I leave will it be before so many people have left that the company simply stops putting any kind of effort into farewells?  That happened at my last company.  When I started at my last company we'd all get taken out to lunch if someone who'd worked there longer than 12 months left.  By the time I left (after eight years!) all I got was an exit interview and I had to email around to see who wanted to join me at the pub.  Admittedly, upon realising that there weren't that many people who were going to miss me made leaving easier to take.

I've always been a person who gets stuck in my comfort zone and the thought of moving companies makes my skin crawl with the uncertainty.  I bumped into some people who were left from my old company and they told me I left at the right time.  Hopefully I know when the right time with my current company is, although I hardly want to leave my current uncertain environment for and even more uncertain one.

I guess only time will tell where my current journey will take me, although hopefully I'll be able to remain focused on my current goals and lose my extra weight in time for the birth of my first born child!

Saturday, February 8, 2014

The first weigh-in: so far, so good...

Well, the first week has come and gone and my first weigh-in has happened.  I felt like a person on the Biggest Loser heading towards the dreaded scales.

My official weight at the end of the first week: 111.6 kg, which is a first week loss of 1.6 kg!

So, after only one week, with a few minor changes to my lifestyle, I've managed to lose my target average weight.  I can't say that I didn't feel just a little disappointed because I was hoping to lose more in the first few weeks than the average given that each kilogram is harder to lose than the last one.

I can admit to myself that I slipped up more than once, made a few questionable meal and snack choices on a couple of days, which wouldn't have helped my cause, but there's always room for improvement.

For now, however, I can sit back and consider it a job well done for the first week and it's now for me to plan my weekly meals so that I'm not tempted to stray into easy (junk) food territory again.

Today is Sunday February 9th, 2014 and my current weight is 111.6 kg (1.6 kg lost, 31.6 kg to go).

Thursday, February 6, 2014

He falters, yet gets back up...

Well this week has really been a mixed bag.

For the whole week I've been going for several walks, even in the 30+ degrees we've been having, which makes me sweaty enough just standing around, let alone purposely walking in it!

I was doing so well with my plan to not eat desserts at all until this morning.  My company (who shall remain nameless) gathered everyone in the office into a central place to give everyone the not-so-good financial results of 2013.  It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't good either.

Not going into any more detail than that, I fell off the wagon and bought a piece of slice.  After I'd eaten it I felt really bad about compromising the progress I'd made all week.  Resolving to try something else the next time I'm feeling bad about my job, I chalked this up to experience and moved on.

I was so tempted, given that I'd just broken my resolve once, to just write the whole day off, but I didn't.  I made one mistake and I need to move on.  The last thing I should do to myself is 'punish' myself by giving in to more cravings and setting myself back.

It's only three more days before my first weigh in and I'm sure I've made at least a little progress.

I've purposely avoided trying on any of my shirts that don't quite fit me (picture a tight shirt on someone with the body of Zach Galifianakis) and I feel that if I try them on too soon and they're still too tight I might get disheartened.  I know I shouldn't expect big results in my first week, but in my experience in any diet or change in lifestyle, the most weight is lost in the first few weeks.  If the changes I've made don't result in much weight loss at all, then I can hardly expect for it to get better later on.

I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it and, for now, I'll have to continue to brave the hot weather we're expecting here in Melbourne over the next week with an average of 35 degree Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit for those people so inclined) to keep up my walking!


Monday, February 3, 2014

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step

Doing some simple calculations I've worked out that in order for me to achieve my desired weight loss (33.2 kg or over 29% of my current body weight) in the time frame given, I’m going to have to lose 1.3 kg per week on average.  The reality of the situation is, however, that this weight will most likely be easier to lose at the beginning and much harder the closer I get to my goal weight.  To account for this I’m aiming for at least 2 kg of weight loss per week for the first few months, which should make up for the later months when the weight loss plateaus and I have to do more to keep the weight loss going.

As a kind of a mid-way goal I've set for myself, I’m aiming to get my weight down to 95 kg by the Easter weekend (starting Friday April 18th) as I usually go somewhere with my family for a day where there’s a heated pool and, whilst I know I’d still be classified as overweight at 95 kg, I’d at least like to be able to show off my progress.  I’ll still probably be one of the biggest people there, but at least I know my weight will be tracking in the right direction.

My weigh-ins, rather than being a daily affair (which I’m told can fluctuate quite wildly, which can de-motivate), will be done on Sunday mornings, with the results being uploaded to this blog when I get a chance.

I've decided that, as far as diet goes, I’m not going to do anything drastic but rather cut out things I know I shouldn't have and cut back other foods as time progresses and if I see a plateau forming.  So far I've cut out soft drink, my morning piece of slice and my afternoon ice cream.  I don’t always have those things and I don’t drink much soft drink, but my weights been slowly creeping up and little things like these have all done their bit to make me the overweight man I am today.

I also went on three walks today, each lasting about half an hour.  Given our weather of late I don’t know if I’ll be able to keep that level of exercise consistent every day, but I’m feeling good because I’m off to a good start.  How good this start is will ultimately be reflected in my Sunday morning weigh-in weight…

Sunday, February 2, 2014

The dawn of a New Time

Let me start my first blog post by welcoming anyone who has bothered to check this out.

This blog has been started as a kind of log in my personal weight loss challenge which has been fought over the years, some years successful, other years not so successful.

My tipping points came this weekend for a number of reasons, which I'll get to as time goes on, but this first post will be about a couple of events which have caused me to realise that enough is enough.

I weighed in this morning at 113.2 kg, which is the most I have ever weighed.  On top of that, my BMI (based on my height of 182 cm) is 34.  According to the BMI calculator I used I'm classified as obese and my healthy weight range should be between 61 - 82 kg.  Now I have very wide shoulders, so I don't seriously think getting my weight down to 61 kg is safe, but at the absolute least I'm at least 31.2 kg overweight.

I've also been struggling to find clothing that fits me in my cupboard.  I've always had a system going in my cupboard of sorting clothing based on size.  As my weight goes up I gravitate towards the few shirts that still fit me and as it goes down I stop wearing the larger ones because they become too baggy.
Lately I've been finding my options more and more limited due to this being my heaviest weigh in ever and, not only don't I want to go out and buy more comfortable shirts and pants, I don't want to admit to my wife that that's why I want new clothes.
I've always hated clothing shopping, but never more so than when the reason is because I'm too big for my current clothes.

Another thing that has me fired up is that for the third time in my life I broke a bed frame.  I just sat on the bed as I usually do and the timber supporting the planks of wood just gave way.  This wasn't helped by the fact that two metal screws had to snap to make this happen.
The other two times I'd broken bed frames were within a few weeks of each other and occurred when I was travelling internationally in a country where the average weight is a lot less than Australia.  At the time I wrote it off, but I still took notice.
Upon returning to Australia I took it upon myself to lose a lot of weight (I got down to 86 kg) and was at my lowest weight just in time for my Debutantes ball.  After that I slowly put weight back on and would oscillate between 95 and 110 kg over the years, with my weight going down in time for certain milestones (being involved in others weddings) and would slowly rise if no new events for which to look good arose.

My last big effort was for my wedding day.  I undertook a very strict diet and exercise regime which saw me lose about 14 kg in about 12 weeks.  I swore this time I'd keep losing the weight, even though the unrealistic diet was not maintained, or at the very least keep my weight down.  I let myself go starting on the honeymoon which was a few months long.

My biggest reason I actually haven't yet mentioned:  fast forward several years to now and my wife and I are looking forward to the birth of our first child and I don't want to be "big fat daddy" or even "big daddy".  I want to be the best father I can be for my unborn child and to me that means being fit.  I want to be able to keep up with him or her when she gets older and starts running around.  More importantly, I still want to be around for all of the major events in their life, like when he or she turns 18, gets married and has children of their own (hopefully not necessarily doing all three in the same year!).

I don't want to keep being the guy that always thinks that there'll be time to lose weight later and going on a crazy diet to achieve results, but being unhealthy and unsustainable.  I know that the baby won't be doing much running around for the first year of his or her life, but I'm done with putting it off.  If I can't find the time to get myself into shape before the baby arrives, what chance will I have to lose it when I'm either out at work or home changing nappies!

My plan over the next 6 months is to get my weight down by 33.2 kg to 80 kg, so that I'm in the 'healthy weight range' as listed on the BMI website linked above.  I'll be posting updates on this blog of how I'm going and what I'm doing.  I don't really have a firm plan for what I want to do, but I know what I need to do and I know that I need to start now.

If you're still reading, thank you for reading all of the above, I look forward to hearing from you and I wish you all well with your own personal self improvement goals!

Today is Sunday February 2nd, 2014 and my current weight is 113.2 kg (0 kg lost, 33.2 kg to go).