Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Re-thinking the "Conspiracy against Men and Fathers"

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
My biggest beef is with the "Father's Rights" groups which advocate the courts giving the father at least 50% custody, by default. They make no attempt to investigate the abuse charges levied against the men that they assist, and advocate kidnapping charges for mothers who would leave with the children, even in cases where this was done to escape abuse. ...


Statistically-wise, do you know who the most dangerous person to a child is? The child's SINGLE MOTHER. Followed closely by boyfriends of the SINGLE MOTHER, then STEP FATHERS of the mother. Know who ranks last on the list of people dangerous to a child? THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER.

It's no coincidence that over 90% of people sitting in prison were raised in single mother households.

Of course, one of the big things now is for women to claim "abuse" and "abuse of the child" to get custody and an undeserved restraining order. (Anyone remember the lady who got a restraining order against David Letterman because he was "beaming psychic thoughts to her through her television set"?)

How about this: Joint custody is assumed (or even better for society, automatically place the child with the father), with no child support (which, these days, is more akin to "alimony".)

Let the parent that can best provide for the child financially and emotionally have the child. But then, that would yank the rug right out from feminists who, while they "need a man like a fish needs a bicycle", certainly seem to need the wallet of the man.

Let's remove the incentive for women to financially rape men in court, and you will find that divorce rates go down.




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   



Statistically-wise, do you know who the most dangerous person to a child is? The child's SINGLE MOTHER. Followed closely by boyfriends of the SINGLE MOTHER, then STEP FATHERS of the mother. Know who ranks last on the list of people dangerous to a child? THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER.


That is a chicken-or-the-egg argument.

The biological father might be the least dangerous person on the list because he isn't, or simply because he isn't involved as much.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2


These statistics clearly show that woman are more frequently victimized by domestic abuse, yet many argue that the statistics are unreliable because men are equally victimized, but do not report their abuse.

Actually the statistics do clearly show something. Mainly that Men and WOmen are victimised by their partners at nearly equal rates. The difference is that me, bien gon average stronger, cause more damage. Women however are far more likely to use a weapon when assaulting her partner.
www.batteredmen.com...



Then there are those men who are convicted of domestic abuse and when questioned will say something along the lines of, "She hit me for years but when I got fed up with it and hit her in order to stop her from hitting me, the vindictive woman called the police!" Please. First of all, that man is doing a disservice to himself by staying in the relationship, and second of all, her physical abuse does not lessen the fact that he chose to go down to her level and also engange in such behaviors.

And yet, a woman who kills her husband and uses the exact same justification is far less likely to be convicted of her crime.




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.

We are.


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.

You are aware, I hope, that women are much more likely than men to abuse children?
www.acf.hhs.gov...



Of course there are bad apples in the spectrum of woman, who may be unfit to have custody, or even any contact at all, with the children. However--if this is the case, the burden of proof lays upon the father.

Thats sexist.



I have known a few men who felt that the courts should have given them sole custody because the mother drank/drugged/whatever, but went in with nothing to substantiate this. Therefore they were not taken seriously, and did not have the outcome they desired. My observation has been that it isn't so much that the courts are biased when taking information regargind abuse comes into play, but that the woman are much, much, more proactive in gathering the evidence and presenting it.

Actually most courts simply igmore evidence that doesnt fit thier prejudices. Furthermore while allegations of abuse leveled at mothers is likely to be ignroed, allegations of abuse leveled at fathers is alwys taken seriously.



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. While I do think that it shoudl be adjusted and be in some way proportional to how much the noncustodial parent sees the child, I would say that it only sends a message to the child that they are unworthy of fiancial support, let alone love, if the father complains.

Or perhaps we dont like the fact that 35% of our income is going into the hands of a woman who has prevented us from seeing ourchild more than 5% of the time. Add child Support, to alimoney, and 50% or more of a mans income can easily be taken, despite the fact that in many cases if the woman then wants to move to another city, thereby depriving him of any chance to see his child, she can.




I have heard too often men use the excuse of "I'm not a deadbeat, but she wouldn't let me know where to send the check!" That is no excuse. In most places the state forwards the check to the mother.

Wow. thats just tryly sexist and misadrist. I mean wow, I havent seen such naked hate in long time. So in your twisted mind its OK for a woman to refuse to let the father know where his son or daughter lives?



And, beleive it or not, mothers are often just as guilty, and convicted, of deadbeatism.

Just as guilty, not convicted just as often, or even ordered to pay just as often. Read your own links.




My biggest beef is with the "Father's Rights" groups which advocate the courts giving the father at least 50% custody, by default. They make no attempt to investigate the abuse charges levied against the men that they assist, and advocate kidnapping charges for mothers who would leave with the children, even in cases where this was done to escape abuse. While this may seem noble at first glance, in practice it would be insideous: In many cases The courts would, in order to promote "equality," force contact between an abuse parent and the children. They would escape only to find that in the process of legalizign that "escape," they were required to continue the relationship. I beleive that these groups are attempting to undermine the efforts of woman who truly wish to be good mothers.

WHat a one sided and sexist view. No mention of the fact that women abuse children more often than men, or that women who abuse thier children get custody fot hose children more often than men who dont abuse. And Yes fathers, should have 50% custody by default, however they dont even ge that. Thats why the athers rights movement started, because of misadrists like you and those in the famil courts who continuously treat fathers as disposable ATM's at best and inherant abusers at worst.



Family court is never going to be a smooth, well oiled machine, and someone is always going to come out of it feeling shmucked, but I am so tired of hearing about this bias against fathers.

We're tired of feeling it. And really tired of hearing sexists like you trying to apologise for it.

[edit on 8/21/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I would love to reply with my story of a my personal experiences in regards to the Family Court system, and believe me it is an opinion from personal experiences, but before I spill my guts can the OP tell us there personal experinces and how they arrived at current way of thinking, instead of some friend or a statistic they patsted for all to read, if you haven t lived through this nightmare your not qualified to have an opinon.

IMO.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScienceDada


As a general rule, the men get more money out of a divorce and the women get the children. This is a measurable phenomenon.

It is and has been measured. Women tend to get far more of the couples asests. Women nearly always get the couples house if they own one, which is usually a substansial percentage of the familys total assets. In fact, divorce settlements have represented the single larest wealth transfer to women in the last hundred years.
samvak.tripod.com...




Are males more often perpetrators of violence?

Not by much. Its about a 60/40 split.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by QuadroClip
 


Amen brother. Amen.

It looks so clear cut on paper until you're standing there.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
The legalities of this are tricky.

If she leaves before the divorce is filed, then it is not illegal. She can take the kids where she wants, as she is the parent.

The flip side of that, is that the father can take the kids away from her if he wants--they just rarely do.


What are you serious? Neither parent can move the child out-of-state without the expressed permission of the other --- either before or after divorce --- it's called abduction. What planet are you from? Sheesh!



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
When a couple decides to divorce, one of them usually leaves their domicile. This is mistake number one. The children are most often given into the custody of the parent who actually has physical custody at the time. Letting your wife take care of the kids until the divorce is over is mistake number two.

Once upon a time, there was a practice called ‘dating.’ This practice gave a couple the opportunities to get to know each other. Too often, people meet, hook up and stay together until they find out that they truly don’t like each other. Usually, by this time, there is either a pregnancy or child in the relationship. Someone blamed all this on the sexual revolution. This is partly true. The real culprit though is people’s desire for freedom without responsibility.

I was taught that every date is a potential mate. Take a good look at the person across the table and honestly determine “do I want to spend the rest of my life with this person?” Do this before sleeping with them. When you do decide to have sex with someone, keep in mind that this act can tie you and your finances to them for many years.

This method is not foolproof, as people do tend to change over time. But it does work out much better than the alternative, as many divorced parents can attest.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2


The legalities of this are tricky.

If she leaves before the divorce is filed, then it is not illegal. She can take the kids where she wants, as she is the parent.

The flip side of that, is that the father can take the kids away from her if he wants--they just rarely do.


Yeah, but in all fairness to jtma508, he is talking about women taking their kids in violation of court order after the divorce is filed. This does happen, and it often happens to really good fathers because the wives are vindictive, not because the father is a danger to the children. Because the woman is now out of state jurisdiction, visitation cannot be enforced. However, if the father leaves the state, he often has no legal grounds for visitation enforcement. Thus, the deck is stacked against the father.

If a woman conspires to screw her husband, and she has a good lawyer, it is MUCH easier to do than vise versa. I am sorry, but this is just the case.


As a side note, Statistics show that the divorce rates are higher in the states that have higher numbers of religious people, and presumably value marraige more and take a firmer stance against homosexuality. What is your opinion on that?

My first response is that the NYT is using bad data and not retracting the story, or just flat out distorting the facts to sell a story, because divorce rates are only one piece of data, and they did not look at marriage rates for comparison. I mean logically... if more people are living out of wedlock, then fewer people will get divorced. That does not logically follow that liberals have more stable marriages. So, I analyzed the data closer...

The Census Bureau does not collect divorce statistics, as the story might appear to say: www.census.gov...

The CDC does collect these statistics, but the numbers do not match the NYT data: www.cdc.gov...

These statistics show that Nevada had the highest divorce rate in 2003, which was conveniently omitted by the NYT. But to test my hypothesis, I also looked at the marriage rates in the states, so I looked that up as well www.cdc.gov...

Several of the states with low divorce rates also have low marriage rates, so the ratio of divorce rate to marriage rate is much less stark than the divorce rate alone; but I suppose that doesn't support the liberal vs. conservative or religious vs. non-religious arguments, so I would expect that this was omitted from the article. That would make it a lie of omission in my opinion, while others may just call it shady or bad journalism.

Thus, it could be hypothesized that lower divorce rate may simply follow the number of out-of-wedlock relationships, which I would imagine is much higher in those states. Nevada by far had the lowest ratio of divorces to marriages, which makes sense because many people elope in Nevada.

But my points are really conjecture as well, and I am sure the problem is quite complex. But just pointing at divorce rates is not the whole picture, as is clear from the data. I think this is a reasonable argument, no?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
I stand by what I said: In my opinion I think that it is good that mothers get primary custody most of the time, because of biological differences, especially when the child is young, and I can see the courts appointing the weekday/weekend arrangement during the school days, in order to ensure continuity. That does not mean the father should be cut out of their lives, though, unless there is a documentable reason to do so.

Yes, women are more nurturing as a whole. But denial of visitation is quite common, in part or in full. Failure to pay child support is disproportionately less common, if the father has any visitation at all (I am sure that fathers who are deadbeats probably don't pay child support, so I imagine that all of us would agree that those cases where their lack of visitation is part of this argument).

So, why isn't women losing custody for denying visitation to the fathers more common then? That would even things up quite a bit, I would think.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by asmeone2
Let the parent that can best provide for the child financially and emotionally have the child. But then, that would yank the rug right out from feminists who, while they "need a man like a fish needs a bicycle", certainly seem to need the wallet of the man.


I agree with this point. Sry asmeone2, but the dude has a point.



Let's remove the incentive for women to financially rape men in court, and you will find that divorce rates go down.

I agree with this point. I think it may also discourage marriages to begin with, which will make people more serious about entering into such a relationship on a whim (at least more than they do now).



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed

Originally posted by asmeone2



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.

You are aware, I hope, that women are much more likely than men to abuse children?
www.acf.hhs.gov...

I think that depends on the definition of abuse. I think even asmeone2 would admit that raising your children in a strictly religious home where brainwashing is "normal" would realistically be abusive, yet this doesn't show up in the statistics. Also, children may be abused no matter if the custodial parent is mother or father (or grandparents for that matter) so your citation is probably making a one-sided argument.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed

Are males more often perpetrators of violence?

Not by much. Its about a 60/40 split.


A 60/40 split is a rather large split though. That means you are effectively 50% more likely to be abused by a male than a female.

Even if this election year were 60/40 in favor of a candidate, that would be a landslide election. So, you are not 5 times more likely, but it is still a lot more.

That being said, a lot of male-on-female violence is perpetrated by abusive men, and then the children exhibit this learned behavior and knock their mothers and/or sisters around. So, in all fairness, there are patterns in the violence that are not discerned in the stats alone, and women's poor choices, stubbornness, and irresponsibility seem to be excused since they are in a position of "weakness." However, since women's lib, many are getting fed up with the double-standards in these situations. We have generations of sons and daughters who are realizing that their "poor victimized mothers" were often manipulative, promiscuous, and irresponsible---and spent their time justifying their situations on "all those big bad men" in their lives.

They now are "used goods" that virtually nobody is interested in.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
After reading the opinions and stories in this particular thread, I have to say, that I feel very fortunate that when my parents divorced I did not have to go through such BS. Luckily my Mother and Father were mature enough to not talk crap about each other, my Mother never tried to bleed my Father dry of funds. There was never a case of child support made, never a custody battle.

When I wanted to live with my Father I did, when I wanted to live back with my Mother I did. No complaints between the two of them, no mudslinging at all. I never wanted for anything and never felt neglected. I did feel sad when I wanted both of my parents at one time, but that's natural in a divorce situation.

I got very lucky, my parents to this day still talk from time to time. It's been over 20 years since they've divorced at this point. Makes me very glad I got normal parents out of this life.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2



Statistically-wise, do you know who the most dangerous person to a child is? The child's SINGLE MOTHER. Followed closely by boyfriends of the SINGLE MOTHER, then STEP FATHERS of the mother. Know who ranks last on the list of people dangerous to a child? THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER.


That is a chicken-or-the-egg argument.

The biological father might be the least dangerous person on the list because he isn't, or simply because he isn't involved as much.




Until today I did not even know this thread existed.

What asmeone2,?????

Did you go to public school to get intelligent/smart enough to make a statement like this???

The father isn't as involved as much..but he is guilty somehow even though he is not as involved as much...the women involved as much are not even mentioned in your answer...this is chicken and egg posting in addition to bait and switch. This type of double talk posting is also called today...Politics.

You use/misuse the fathers in predictable bias but then state they are not involved as much...mostly as some state here..as a wallet. You do not mention anything about the women mentioned in the article as being abusive because they are mostly involved. This type of assumption is what I call a "Default Setting." Like this computer it is automatically supposed to play through..to go somewhere unchecked ..unchallenged ...unaccountable. This is exactly how the courts and public emotions work. By default even though conditions may not be true or equal...truth will not be heard or allowed...by default.

This is textbook of a political education today ..in short...Politics. You are even so bold, as is politics today, that you post this drivel and think no one will be able to think it through.

You in short use a counterfeit template to take the focus off those who are there the most amount of time.

Astonishing.

Orangetom



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dan Tanna

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.



I was going to give a well reasoned reply, until I read the above utter crock of crap you wrote.
Your very words denote a bias against mens ability to display / feel emotions as well as women, and you state your naturally inclined to favour the women...... so any discussion with you is void by your vey biased nature.







+1


Regards to all






top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join