It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Father's Rights - A Neglected Movement

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   
the anti dad # starts right away too.

lets use this scenario.

child is 3.
parents are splitting up and parting ways. dad takes the kid and leaves the house. mom calls cops.
we have a manhunt on our hands and dad is in deep.

or

mom takes the kid. dad calls the cops. dad is told those are the breaks. get a lawyer

this stuff happens

the mother is the custodial parent by default




posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

Im a guy, not a father, but if you go by society and its ideals, yes you have a right as a father, by nature you are just a sperm donor. In Sweden you have almost zero chance as a father, but we arent much for ideals, but you all kinda know that by now. =)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Fathers
In principle I agree with the op, but the math is off. I am a father and a grand father. My wife and I started young (19) and raised our son together. He married at 24 had two wonderful daughters and that's where the marriage went off the rails.

This is where I became acquainted with the court system. In our home town the father has a less than 1 chance in 20 of obtaining custody. In an epic five year battle my son finally won full custody. This fight wasn't about money, but the safety and wellbeing of the girls. Paternal custody still wouldn't have happened if the mom wasn't continually it trouble with the law over drug charges.

I thank a man is at a complete disadvantage in family court, and there is no such a thing as equal rights for men there.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

you only have the rights you can afford to defend.
family court should be called "mom will get the kids and the money" court. because that is where the family court starts. the father has to prove his case to have time with his children. the father has to provide tax returns (going back three years), current pay stubs, banking statements to prove what he can afford to pay. the debt the father has at the time of divorce is not really taken into consideration.

the father also has to fight for tax rights. just because the father provides a monthly check, medical insurance, dental insurance, & prescription drug insurance is not enough to get some tax benefit. that too has to be fought for in the family court. and the whole ordeal is expensive. if you can't afford a quality attorney then you will lose everything.

as a man, you only have the rights you can afford to defend.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
why is it that a women who has no children enjoys a wage more on par to the men doing the same job, but if the women has children, then she has less earning power? does this happen to men? I don't believe it does because ingrained in our psyche is the idea that the women will be the primary caretaker of the kids and therefore once children come into the picture she will be more likely to have a conflict concerning loyalties much more than the father will. more time will be taken off work, more sick days, ect.
so well, the judge is sitting there and he has a choice in most cases, whoever he gives custody of the child will more than likely end up with less earning power since well, the simple fact is that the single dad will have to take time off work for the sick child, have to leave at unexpected times to pick the child up from school, take the child to doctor's appts ect.
seems to me that some are just looking at one part of a big picture. ya, you work all day and end up giving up some of your earning for the kid, the mom on the other hand is spending a major part of the day with the care of that child being her first priority and therefore has lost earning power. and the judge fails to see the logic of shifting the roles now and causing the earning power of the father to be reduced by adding the childcare portion onto his plate!

time will change this is it is given a chance. as men take more of a part in the child's care and women take more of a part in earning the money, things should equal out. but well, untill then, why wasn't the ERA passed again???



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3




Paternal custody still wouldn't have happened if the mom wasn't continually it trouble with the law over drug charges.


Do you think that their marriage failure, and subsequent divorce, was due to those factors? Would your son have fought so hard for parental custody, as opposed to joint custody, if those factors weren't considered?



edit on 24-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mugly
the anti dad # starts right away too.

lets use this scenario.

child is 3.
parents are splitting up and parting ways. dad takes the kid and leaves the house. mom calls cops.
we have a manhunt on our hands and dad is in deep.

or

mom takes the kid. dad calls the cops. dad is told those are the breaks. get a lawyer

this stuff happens

the mother is the custodial parent by default



Nailed that one. The system is so biased, it pisses me off everytime I think about the equality rights between men and women when it comes to custody. My kids mother has barely worked and she's 30 years old. She just sits back, lives off child support, welfare, and foodstamps while I bust my ass trying to make ends meet. I fought for custody, but as you can see in my story it did no good. The worst part is she cheated on me while married, so I have to pay alimony because I don't have any hard evidence to prove infidelity. Bunch of bull# if you ask me. Yet I see thread after thread of how women are opressed. Get over yourselves already.

ETA: That came off harsh out of pure anger. There are good mothers out there. They're just hard to come by these days. So if you're one of those good mothers...keep up the good work
edit on 24-7-2015 by amicktd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Huh I didn't know they had any.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
The system is rigged against the father. I can give two reasons for my opinion.
Reason 1:
In 2000 a friend of mine received full custody of his two daughters and had his child support dropped. He couldn't find his Ex to get his girls. He stopped paying his child support to the Department of Public Welfare. About a month after he stopped paying DPW started garnishing his pay. When he questioned this DPW asked if he had physical custody of his daughters. When he told them no, they said that he could only stop paying support when he had physical custody. He asked DPW for his Ex's address, they told him that it was against their policy because his Ex had checked the box on the form indicating that he may be a physical threat to her and her daughters. Six months later his lawyer found out where his Ex was living. He asked me if I would go along when he went to pick up his daughters, I used to work as an armed guard and did some protection work and had the proper licensing for it. When we got to where his Ex lived, his daughters were there with their Mother's "boyfriend", she hadn't been there for three days. My friend took his girls up stairs to pack while I watched the "boyfriend" with my hand on my pistol. When they finished, we left and went straight to the airport and put his daughters on a plane to Las Vegas where his Sister would meet them. My friend gave notice at work and lined up a job in Las Vegas and left. The Mother reported the girls as kidnapped, but my friend's lawyer took care of that. However as of last year the girls pictures were on The Center for Missing and Exploited Children's website.

About a year after this I went to my friend's wedding, he married his lawyer.

Reason 2:

Another friend of mine got married after getting discharged from the Navy. He got a job working around hazardous chemicals, so him and his wife thought that it would be best for him to have his sperm frozen in case something would happen they could still have kids. About four years of marriage, they divorced, without having any children. His Ex didn't like the settlement and came up with an idea a few years later. She had herself artificially inseminated and had a baby boy. She then sued for child support. My friend demanded a paternity test that came back listing him as the father. She received a generous award, including him having to pay the costs for the insemination. The Court stated that child support was the right of the child and as the Father, he had to pay. The Court didn't care how the child was conceived just that it was conceived. My friend's new wife got pissed about this, so she talked him into petitioning for custody and they won.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499




The system is rigged against the father. I can give two reasons for my opinion.


In both of your instances, the father won custody. The fact that the losing spouse, in your first case, defied a court order, doesn't make the system rigged.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
. . . why wasn't the ERA passed again???


Because the majority of politicians are men.

And they have decided its unnecessary because woman already have equality.

Women know that is not true. Women are still fighting for equality.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

In both of your instances, the father won custody. The fact that the losing spouse, in your first case, defied a court order, doesn't make the system rigged.



The fact that the DPW garnished my friend's salary, would not give his lawyer his Ex's address and that we had to go and take the girls because the Police wanted no part of doing it, tells me that the system is rigged.

The fact that my other friend's Ex was able to obtain support plus expenses, while committing fraud. Tells me that the system is rigged.

The fact that both of them were able come out on top doesn't mean that the system is NOT rigged. They shouldn't have had to go through what they did in the first place.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
and so, instead of giving the women that equality- which would have made her equally responsible, they instead threw her a bone in the form of social welfare programs, and a court system that also works with the assumed weaknesses women are supposedly inherited with in the gender. men may be at a disadvantage when it comes to child custody battles but women are still pretty much at a disadvantage when it comes to employment and earnings.
those who don't like the fact that this is how it is should know that they are still trying to get that ERA passed and it might just give them equality in custody hearing along with women more equality in the workforce.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

women are not at a disadvantage in the work place.

where i work women make as much as i do. i can think of six in my area alone that make more than me. the same job title and responsibilities and the same or less time with the company.

the myth of women making less than men in the work place has been thrown around so much that a lot of people think its truth.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: subfab
I graduated from college with an associates degree during the reagan administration. I would have went further in my education but well I had gotten that far on gov't grants and such and wanted to switch over to part time and work my way through it. I applied for jobs, even had a few interviews. but well, wasn't hired... this went on for a long time and I applied to just about every company in the area before a couple of people cued me in as to what was going on. there was a recession, we were in texas, and well as far as all those employers were concerned the men who applied for those jobs had families to support, I was a women, and well they assumed that I had a man taking care of me or I danged well should have. Although I spent two years in college, learning to programs computers and all, and got good grades, well, they would have hired any man that applied for that job, trained them to do the job that I had learned to do in school, because well, he needed that job, I didn't...

so well, I was right back where I was before I went to college, stuck in the fast food, bullcrap jobs that I wasn't willing to go back to. I left the workforce and well, let the man take care of me... had a few kids since well, guess that was what society expected of me, and forgot about college since I really didn't see any reason in going back as long as the employers were so biased. The kids grew up and entered school, and the economy kept deteriorated and well, what can I say, the man's paycheck didn't cover the cost of living anymore. I tried to enter the workforce, and after a few attempts found a home in the printing industry. I learned all I could about the company I was working for, could run many of the machines in the place and at least assist on many others. I could follow the product from prepress to shipping and contribute in each area. And then I blew a stack when they brought in a new guy, with absolutely no experience in the industry and well, paid him two dollars an hour more than me. He was eventually found by child support, slipped on the ice outside of the shop and ended up on drawing disability off the company's workman's comp for his hurt back, while working to an auto shop in another city...yep!!! he really deserved a two more dollars an hour than me!! I eventually got hurt but couldn't really afford the doctor bills so it wasn't documented and well, I was left out in the cold.

took me awhile to get back into the labor force after I left this company but well it was pretty much the same story....
for the past few years, I've been content with letting my husband take care of me...after all, I didn't need a job, I had a man to take care of me right?

so while your experience tells you one thing, mine tells me another. some of the difference might be explained by changing attitudes but I do believe that studies still find that working women WHO HAVE CHILDREN still earn less than their male, or even single female counterparts.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

your story is a familiar one. it is one that is suffered by both men and women. when the economy is bad, the job market is rough for every one. the new person being hired at a higher pay is a common practice in many companies. i see it all the time. it isn't because of the new hire's gender, it is more likely just the policy in place in response to the current economy.

i'm not saying what happened to you has no value. in fact the struggles you shared are experienced by many people. men and women. it is a symptom of a greater problem of a bad economy, living wage jobs being shipped overseas, and a dwindling job market at home.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

That's complete and utterly bulls&@$!

Having a high IQ with a college education I can tell you from my experience and not from a book.....

...that I am in the high percentile of your so-called facts, and my father went from living in the military with nothing and working his butt off to be one of the best fathers anyone can have and I have such respect for him yet somehow I feel that I can relate to everything you said.

People will be people and I will always be who I am and outside of my environment people might have an influence on me but I will always be me

. My father has bailed me out time after time because all he wants is my happiness and he's there for me 99.9% of the time confuses me when I read your so called facts that I am the poster child yet I had a father in my home all my life


edit on 26-7-2015 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2015 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2015 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2015 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: subfab

nope don't buy it,
fathers are seen a higher valued assets to a company whereas mothers aren't...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

probably because society expects the mother to have to take energy out of her career and invest it into the child's care whereas fathers are expected by society to invest more of their energy in their career so they can invest more of their earnings into the child's needs.

the father benefits by this societal perception with higher wages, but it puts him in a disadvantage when it comes to child custody, whereas the mother is at a disadvantage when it comes to career and earning potential but well is at an advantage when it comes to child custody....
and of course, women have a man to take care of them, men have families to take care so they need the higher paying jobs!
sorry, that's just the way it is, it's the way it's always been, and well, I've been spent my whole lifetime trying to find a break in it and well, never found it. I'm a widow now, have my husband's camping gear all packed up ready to go pitch a tent in the forest and live on nuts and berries along with a fish here and there. the economy's crap but even if it was good, I am pretty sure I wouldn't find a job that would support myself, never could when I was young and healthy I'd be insane to think I can now. When I run out of things to sell and the money I make from them, well, you'll find me, alive or dead, somewhere deep in the forests of virginia. by what I understand, I'm not a man, and I don't have a family anymore to take care of, and I'll be damned if I am gonna let my kids struggle to take care of me along with them while they work their asses off on wages that barely supports them. but oh, ya, the crazy lady who lives next door? ya know the one that comes to my house at least four times a week trying to bum # off of me...well, she get's a nice disability check although she can walk farther than I can, if much younger than I am, and well seems perfectly able to do something!!!
Me?? I'm just screwed.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

the huffington post article only takes source from a biased National Women's Law Center.

bottom line is if an employee misses a lot of time from work for any issue their pay will reflect it. again, it has nothing to do with gender.

i wish you luck.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: subfab

well, maybe you will take Harvard and Time more seriously then...

time.com...

lol...that first job that I mentioned, the one where they brought in the guy and started out a few dollars more an hour, they had a tendency of placing a notice up when they got socked saying that there would be no time off given for so many weeks, and well, often wanted a doctor's note when you called in sick. I couldn't afford a doctor's note so I would come in, and well, I had a bad foot, I was occassionally falling down because I couldn't walk too well!!

so well, why do you reckon that the amount of time off would be more for a mother than it would a father??
could it be, maybe, possibly....that well...they father is making more money so well it is more economically feasible for the mother to take off whenever the kid is sick, or needs to go to the doctor, or the school wants to meet with one of the parents???

so, let's say the father, who's been earning the bulk of the income while the couple was living together is given custody of the child. is he gonna still be expecting mom to take over so he can work when the kid is sick, or has to go to the doctor, or the school wants to have a chat with a parent? won't that affect his earnings in much the same manner?


edit on 26-7-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join