|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday October 18, @01:50PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This is a rediculous article. To tack "50% is harmful" it the statement "Men want 50%" is insinuating that men seeing their kids often is harmful. I cannot believe someone could be so blatent in their manimupations. I will have to think about this one to write a reply. doG I cannot believe how stupid they must think we are. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, you and I think totally alike. I was so floored by this one, that to write a response (here or to the paper) I am gonna need about an hour or 2 to reread it, analyze, and compose. The wierd things that pop into my head :
1) mentioning how men are using the law to gain custody - how somehow that's bad for children - women have done this for years - NOW its bad???
2) notice there was NO counter view on the kids who were 50/50? Both were hating having to go back and forth. Where is the "honest counterview" of the child who liked having dad around?
I gotta read this and think it through. Hey Jen, just wanted to let you know, I been reading and posting here for a few months: Women like you who are so helpful and well written ... well you're worth your weight in gold. =)
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday October 18, @04:39PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
CAVA is a woman focused branch, here is another article. This one talking about working women, and using a huge amount of assumptions, like the 50% of single non-working mothers do not work because of childcare issues. Bull. Try the welfare incentive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,10 08467,00.html
And Steve, thanks.
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did some research on the "experts" who were mentioned in this piece. I think who contributes to the writing and what they are out to accomplish is often telling when trying to analyze how fair and useful an article is. There are several "family" or "social" experts touted in this piece. But all of them are either Feminist writers, Feminist Theorists, or teach Social Theory with the idea that "families" are mothers and children. Don't take my word. Read the article, do a Google search (as I did), read what they have written, what they teach, and what they advocate for. But, not to make vague my comments I include what I found below:
First:
CAVA:
Fiona Williams, the Director: is a Feminist writer and advocate.
Carol Smart, Deputy Director: is also the Director of the Centre for Research of Family, Kinship, and Childhood. This is interesting to note, because the "back up" of CAVA's research is The CRFKC.
CAVA's research has titles like: Mothers, Care, and Employment. Interesting how there is a complete lack of fathers being mentioned in their research when in relation to families. Their research and titles are all about broken families, women and children, and inequity. These are all noble subjects, but if this about families and children, it naturally begs the question: why are fathers so obviously not represented in their research. Men are not just sperm donors with financial obligations after the fact.
Second
Also quoted is: Liz Trinder a professor at the Centre for Research of Family, Kinship, and Childhood. Again I note how CAVA and CRFKC are linked in personnel and message. But, they are portrayed as 2 separate entities. Not so. That being said, let me give you what Liz Trinder's syllabus has on its schedule so you may have a better idea of who is speaking:
1) Part of her syllabus has a mental exercise followed by a debate. The subject? A hypothetical disease kills all men off. There is a large sperm bank that could propagate the species. The question put to the class is should men be brought back. The caveat question is: are fathers really a necessary part of a "family".
2) The other telling part of her syllabus is about visitation orders. She presents a scenario where a family has had a divorce and that the non-custodial parent, (no pretense at equity here) the father, wants visitation. The class runs a mock trial to see if he should be allowed to visit. Now, that would be "normal" or "fair-minded" to many. But to frame the discussion she puts the precepts that the father has been charged with DV during the divorce. Then the class should debate whether such parents should have visitation.
Third
Both children in this article find it hard to live with both parents. I find this interesting due to my personal experiences with others from single parent homes that wished to have a life with or more access to the noncustodial parent. But, since my PERSONAL anecdotes are not really relevant, I still have questions about this. Isn't the press, at least ideally, supposed to present both sides of an issue? Could not **ONE** child who liked the dual custody to be found? This is blatantly an agenda driven message.
Fourth
This is a quote from the article:
"According to Trinder's research, using the law to settle custody disputes usually makes matters worse for all concerned. Smart feels that the law can have a useful role in clarifying matters in family disputes, but she is clear that 'cutting children in half' is not the answer."
The feminist lobby for YEARS has been using the law to define custodial rights and financial responsibility, all in the name of the "best interest of the child". Now that men are using the law to present their side it's "wrong"?! And the Smart mentions 'cutting in half' the children. The unasked question and underlying assumption is that 'of course' a mother should be the custodial parent. Sometimes the Feminist lobby’s greatest weakness is its arrogance. The question of who can be the best parent is never asked because the bedrock to their thinking is that women are better parents and that fathers are an interfering and destabilizing force. My thought on this is that PARENTS disagree on methods of how to raise a child. Not along gender lines mind you, but PEOPLE have different thoughts on it. And if the father is against what a mother is teaching he is portrayed as interfering, undermining, or destabilizing. This of course has a counter view: If a father is the custodial parent, then if the mother disagrees with his parenting, is SHE "interfering, undermining or destabilizing"? Most Feminist "scholars" don't even want to have that question asked. I know, I have posted on many a feminist site, sometimes as a woman, on this subject. The very question gets angry responses and "verbal" attacks. That alone tells you the answer to the question.
Fifth
The fathers in the article, when it mentions them at all, are described as "militant" and "angry". Not once is a man described as loving his children but tormented that his visitation is being limited. That his children are being poisoned by someone who once loved him, but now reviles him. Not once is there shown a positive example of a father figure who is fighting (with his money, his time, his energy, and his desire to part of a child's life) to spend time with his children.
I know this post was long and more like a college paper, but I felt this issue and article should be given the attention it deserved.
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday October 18, @08:33PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
These are important and telling findings about the "experts" cited. Not surprising.
The problems raised in this article are misframed as arguments against 50/50 custody arrangements when really if you scratch at them they are arguments against divorce, because the problems cited are problems whether there is a 50/50 time share or not. Children don't enjoy being in a divorce, period. That's doesn't debunk the importance of shared parenting time.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great research and analysis!
The “journalist” makes a pathetic attempt to manipulate the reader. Several times she gives lip service to the apparent fairness of fathers’ issues and attempts to suck the casual reader into believing that she’s reporting objectively. And then she herds in the “experts” (read: man-haters) to set the story straight. What a crock!
On the positive side, to me this article shows that maybe the feminist media is a bit on the defensive. The writer seems to feel a need to at least APPEAR objective even if the more critical reader easily sees her desperation to promote feminist hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
