|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm amazed that this suit just goes over the heads of so many men here and everywhere. I understand that all men here may not be divorced dads, and that those who are have been so let down by the court system that it's almost impossible not to be thoroughly jaded, but jeez...come on. If your not a divorced dad, or perhaps you've never been married and have no children, think about the men who are. If men were ever going to get involved in something that means the world to the male population now and for generations, then goddammit...THIS IS IT! If you guys can't see the positive ramifications of what this suit means, then what needs to happen to get your attention.
Is it possible that guys just don't care?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:22 PM October 8th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
This is excellent and long overdue.
Of course the article includes this drivel:
"This is one more attempt to say that every case that goes into court should start with the assumption that it's 50-50 time — even if they haven't been putting in 50-50 time before that," said Lynne Gold-Bikin, a family law attorney and past chair of the American Bar Association's family law section. "And why do they want 50-50 (custody)? Some people want it because they know they can reduce the support they pay to their wives" as a result.
Typical bigoted, male-hating, fact-free rhetoric. Men want an equal right to care for their children because men consider themselves to be equal to women as human beings, and children are an important part of life. M'am, do you care about equal justice under law? Of course not, you're just a fembot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:44 AM October 9th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose a person could take the position that women were hoarding all the time with the children before the divorce suit, therefore the men should now be compensated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a question of compensating...it's a question of parenting.
Of course you can't file a class action in a family court, and the only thing you can sue for, in a class action CIVIL court, IS money. But what you gain, in doing so, is a starting point on how, hopefully, to settle this issue so that dads do have adequate access without malicious moms blocking that access. This is the ultimate purpose of the suit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And of course feminazi lawyers have no monitary stake in the loss of billable hours that would result from a 50/50 policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:44 PM October 9th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
And why do women what sole custody? Some want it because they don't want to pay any of the costs of raising their children. They want to live off of their children instead. There is no good reason for any woman to demand sole custody unless she can prove the other parent unfit. Consequently, show me a mom demanding sole custody and in most cases I will show you a selfish control freak who loves money more than she loves her children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this has nothing to do with the above. But I am free to look at any woman I want!! I can even stare! I don't consider myself rude but I just want everyone to know that I could stare if I wanted to!!!
The next time I meet a woman's eye in, say, a starbuck's, and she assumes that since I glanced at her it means I want to rape her..ha ha, too bad..I am going to stare on purpose until she looks away. What is she going to do..call the police????? How ridiculous I am!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
