|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We shall see what NOW's agenda is. I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I see something different. My conserns would raise around what they perceive as fair. Getting social workers, psychologists, welfareworkers involved does not mean that the conserns and treatment of fathers will improve. I would want to know who decides "ties" if everything is equal. The idea that women are the more natural caretakers is still very prevelant in the US.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm ready to condemn them. ;) Actually, I have *serious* problems with the so-called "panel" containing social workers. We've all heard the horror stories about how families are rent asunder by these people, even if those families didn't deserve it.
Tennessee, in fact, has a LONG history of robbing families of their children in order to turn around and sell those children to adoptive parents.
Anyone remember the television show "Unsolved Mysteries?" A few of the individuals on that show who finally found their long lost relatives were victims of Tennessee's atrocious social welfare programs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If men try to implement a dramatic change in the system our efforts will fail. However, if we at least try to temper the NOW agenda of systematically criminalizing men, we stand a chance of minimizing their negative impact. The feminist strategy is based upon patience and the incremental passage of new laws that criminalize men. NOW knows that over twenty years the impact can be both secretive and dramatic.
I am from a state (CA) where we have laws criminalizing men for causing a woman to feel any negative emotion. It is NOW that was primarily responsible for those laws. If men's activists had have been around, I dare say that we would have more protections and rational laws. So, I wish this unholy alliance the best in mitigating the NOW's agenda of systematically criminalizing men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you know something, albeit NOW is gonna turn around and swerve the divorced dads...true the children involved in these divorces need to keep in touch with both of the parents...but are these two groups gonna learn to trust one another? After all, since NOW has had a bad rap sheet of familial injustices, it'll probably not flow! Anyway you put it, the mother will possibly come out winning custody of the children!
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
******MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!******
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NOW is only making a short-term ally because the female judges that were in place before are no longer there, having been replaced by male judges that are less 'sympathetic' to thier agenda. If they get this little brainstorm of thiers to work, they will be able to bypass or overpower anything a judge may have in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point Adam...but still, there needs to be proof that NOW can't be trusted...irregardless if the judges are not willing to participate!!
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
******MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!******
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 04, @11:03AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
FRIEND! What more proof do you need that NOW cannot be trusted then their celebration of Ms. Bobbit and their Super Bowel lie?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Local NOW members have been scrutinizing the court system over the past year after receiving complaints from women ... Men have similar complaints, Travis said. ...
I think we shouldn't get our hopes up.
... If parents are fighting over custody, that means their communication over their child's best interest has broken down," said Chambers, a family-law specialist. "It's highly probable that one of them won't like what a panel does. I would be very surprised, if in the end, the level of unhappiness wouldn't be about the same as it is today. So then the question might still be, even though one of them might be unhappy, will this new approach produce better decisions for the child? We don't know this in advance."
I think this is complete bullshit. If the courts can't do it, and these groups can't do it (they won't be able to either), then maybe there is no way to do it at all. You think?
The problem isn't with divorce. The problem is with marriage.
Maybe marriage should be abolished deprived of legal meaning as purely a concept within religion.
Anything else should be covered under contract law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read this:
The local NOW's Equality In Divorce Task Force and FER want to remove the final decision making from a judge to a team of professionals in mental health, social work, finance and education. The team would evaluate cases - looking at how a family break-up impacts a child from a psycho-social, financial and educational viewpoint - and then make custody decisions that would be enforced by the court.
What's missing here?
Imagine, 1954, the Jim Crow system in the south. Black parents want to send their children to a school restricted to whites. The leading status quo interests of the day, i.e. the NOW equivalents, piously talk about the best interests of the black child, and propose a panel of experts that would decide in each case whether the black child can attend the white school, based on "psycho-social, financial and educational viewpoints".
Black parents certainly would have been smart enough to know that these fine words obscured the reality of institutional racism, the limited perspective of predominately white experts, and the raw facts of inequality. They recognized that only simple, clear rights are strong enough to overcome the power of institutionalized racism. Expert analysis of education opportunities, the condition of school buildings, travel distances and their effects on student attention, are all mere obscurantism. Separate but equal is inherently unequal.
You too should recognize that the fine words in this article are just a cover for institutional sexism in the family courts. Articles such as this one, while discussing expert panels and complex investigations, ignore the reality that is obvious to any man that has tried to justify himself as a father to the Family Court.
Look what's missing in the article. Isn't it worth mentioning that family court system awards custody to the mother in about 80% of cases nationally? Isn't it worth questioning whether the system operates under the assumption that fathers are intrinsically inferior in caring for children? Isn't it worth asking whether the proposed reforms will make significant changes for the better?
The solution to the tragedy of family courts is simple: the law should require joint custody unless one party shows compelling reasons for a different decision. If you don't understand, ask a black person about racism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 04, @09:21PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I just don't trust NOW no matter what. They may have found a temporary ally in a men's rights group (or one that professes same), but I can't help having this sinking feeling that these guys have gotten into bed with the devil, and that they will soon regret their cooperation.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOW...evil, evil. I would not trust NOW for anything. This organization is nothing but evil. There are plenty of other feminists organizations out there that are not corrupt and are not out to destroy men. This sickens me, I believe these men have be turned into pawns for NOW.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
