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.
* In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime
In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.
84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.
Originally posted by asmeone2
The most frustrating place I encounter this is in the arena of family court. Primarily they feel that they are as a whole discriminated against because courts tend to primarily place children with the mother as the sole custodial parent.
I beleive that this is how it should be. Children are by nature emotional, and a mother will be more attuned to this. She will be better able to understand their needs when they can't express them well verbally.
Originally posted by asmeone2
I would like to begin an open discussion about something I hear bantered about, but infrequently examined: That is the bias against men in general, and specifically fathers in the divorce court.
Originally posted by asmeone2
Another thing that annoys me is fathers complaining about the support they have to pay. It is rarely set at more than 25%, which is paltry compared to the 75% or more that would have, in some way, gone directly to the child's welfare before the divorce.
Originally posted by anachryon
And let's talk without extraneous claims of domestic abuse. Those situations are completely separate from the inherent mother-bias in our court system. I'm talking about the average couple who've parted ways without any punches being thrown, as those situations are the vast majority.
For added spice, I'm not a bitter father. I'm a mother, I'm the daughter of divorced parents, and I can see the bias.
Originally posted by ScienceDada
So, let me ask: from the point of view of a man, why would one desire to marry a woman or be a father? *Especially* since there are so many younger and prettier women who will spread their legs for just about anyone?
Originally posted by anachryon
Originally posted by ScienceDada
So, let me ask: from the point of view of a man, why would one desire to marry a woman or be a father? *Especially* since there are so many younger and prettier women who will spread their legs for just about anyone?
Not from a male point of view, but...
Biological drive to reproduce combined with the ingrained societal norm to get married would be my guess. It's real hard to ignore one's biological instincts no matter how "evolved" we are. We're animals. When it all comes down to it, humans on a base level just want to eat, fight, or f....ornicate.
Originally posted by TruthTellist
The Courts are indeed biased against men.
During a Divorce, it is important to make her sound worse than you will sound after her and her lawyer get through with you.
When she accuses you of assault or even if you think she might - you must pre-empt her and file a police report followed by a restraining order.
If you do this and the woman is your wife, you have a better chance of getting a fair deal within the court system.
It is also important to visit All of the divorce lawyers in the city (all the good ones at the very least) especially if your marriage is on the rocks.
Then the wife will not be able to use any of the lawyers you have visited due to a conflict of interest.
Yes, but as mapsurfer_ points out, often the children are taken away from the father without his consent, then he is bled of income. I think that we all are very aware of the fact that "child support" is used by the mothers to support themselves a lot (if not most) of the time. So, the woman decides she is not happy for some reason or other, she takes the kids, jerks the father around, and bleeds him of his income.
This is by far the most common scenario that I have ever seen. The second most common is where the father is nowhere to be found. But in all these situations, the mother's attitude is almost invariably, "well... at least I got the kids." In that way, the system is biased overwhelmingly, and this is measurable.
If women were constantly threatened with having their children taken away at their husband's whim, do you think that wife-on-husband violence would increase? I imagine it would, exponentially.
Originally posted by asmeone2
Someone I knew naively trusted his ex and gave her a debit card to put gas in her car, because she said she needed to take the child to school. You can guess what happened. He became that typical "I can't afford a lawyer because she stole my money!" dad going through a divorce--but only because he did not have the foresight to take her off of his bank accounts. Through his naivite he handed her the "biased" judgment against her.
Originally posted by jtma508
Horse pastries. The courts are biased against men.
I do agree with one very important issue that you raised: women often can leave the state with the child and the father gets screwed. I have seen this happen a lot even with good lawyers. In these cases, the courts will still garnish the wages of the father while he is still denied visitation.
But the root problem is not even the courts. It is the problem that families are disintegrating constantly with no accountability. This hurts children. And it infuriates me that in the midst of all these problems (which are bad for society as a whole) there is this constant pushing of social agendas that promote single parent families, and even adoption by either single or so-called "married" homosexuals.