[an error occurred while processing this directive]
NOW Claims Family Courts are Biased Against Women
posted by Scott on Thursday September 13, @03:24PM
from the divorce dept.
Divorce cheddah sent in this story from the National Organization for Women and writes "Can you believe that NOW is promoting the idea that family courts are biased against women!? Here is a quote: "These injustices are commonplace today in the closed-door family court system. These courts often claim to operate in a manner consistent with the "best interests of the child." In practice this often means that a judge, often a male judge, biased and imperious, defines that phrase. These judges decide, time and time again, when a woman raises the allegation of sexual abuse in a custody dispute, that it is she who will lose her children forever.""

Did Male Passengers Prevent Further Terrorism? | The Guy Code Pontificates on War in America  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Geeeez
by Nightmist (nightmist@mensactivism.org) on Thursday September 13, @04:01PM EST (#1)
(User #187 Info)
This sounds like backlash against father's rights to me. Perhaps NOW feels that fathers are finally about to be heard in child custody and divorce cases and they're using their guerilla marketing tactics to put a halt to it.

Just a theory.

Biased is right.
by DanCurry on Friday September 14, @01:46AM EST (#2)
(User #245 Info)
Yeah, it's biased in favor of mother over fathers and it's biased in favor of profit over principles, but in no stretch of the imagination is it biased in favor of men.

Somewhere around five percent of divoced fathers have custody. NOW thinks that number is to high. They've even gone as far as to state that "Most Abusers get Custody" attacking the few that do men that do have custody.

These man-haters will stop at nothing short of forced labor camps for divoced men and re-education camps for those with the courage to stand up to them.

They also don't mention that 40% of Divoce Cases contain false aligations of child abuse (they assume all aligations against men to be true). Not to mention the even higher number of false aligations of spousal abuse.

NOW clearly hates children. The statement in this article makes if very clear, we want your money not the child.

NOW says "Get rid of the "best interests of the child"

This article is riddled with lies and fake statisics as is 99.9% of NOW's claims.

This group is most repulsive and cowardly. Debating most feminist is a simple two step process. Once you identify a Feminist, quote facts, then out of the blue, the insults come.

The sheep of NOW have no ability to defend their position. They simply spew anti-male propaganda and use four letter words.

Dan Curry
DanCurry.com

Propaganda
by Anonymous User on Friday September 14, @02:08AM EST (#3)
It's a basic propaganda trick. When you've got nothing to defend your own position with, attack. You lose nothing, but you may well succeed in muddling the minds of uncommitted observers.
blatantly sexist article, NOW is full of dimwits.
by cheddah on Friday September 14, @09:28AM EST (#4)
(User #190 Info)
I was shocked at the emotional appeal that the article takes - make all fathers that are awarded custody look like violent men that hurt their love ones.

The underlying message of this article is to rally the NOW minions into supporting the idea that if any claim of abuse exists (almost every domestic abuse claim lacks evidential support and due process) than custodial rights are automatically revoked.

It is obvious that NOW is anti-family. They intend to label everything as "abuse" so the "system" can come crashing into peoples lives and drive the father out without any problem.

The more NOW lobbies under the guise of "supporting women" - the more laws will be passed bringing our society one step closer to forced gender-apartheid as governed by a socialist-gynarchist bureaucracy.

This article intends to outline that judicial powers should be removed, i.e. "determine the best interests of the child, often a male judge, biased and imperious, defines that phrase"

I can't believe how blatantly sexist this article is. The logic of the article is: a man is not suited to make a judgment on custody, and we should remove the ability to make a judgement on a case by case basis so that the women automatically get custody by issuing a domestic assault charge.

Are feminists really this stupid? Or do they hate hetereosexual males more than I thought...?
I agree with one thing said in this article
by Anonymous User on Friday September 14, @01:33PM EST (#5)
I agree with one statement made in this article, and one only:

"Open the courtrooms to the public and make judges accountable for their rulings."
I absolutely, totally, 99-44-100% agree. Forget confidentiality. These courtooms should be totally OPEN to the public. Hell, stick cameras in there and broadcast all proceedings on Court TV.

I don't think the Founding Fathers *ever* intended that these courtrooms be closed, despite the fact that children are involved. The Founding Fathers knew the danger of closed courtrooms and secret proceedings. If anything, the fact that children are involved is even more reason to open them up to public scrutiny. If people could see the shenanigans running wild in Family Court, they'd see that articles like this one are completely falsified propaganda.

Actually, I think it would spark a call to abolish Family Court completely and leave the resolution of private family matters where such resolution belongs...within the private confines of the family home.

Claire
[an error occurred while processing this directive]