|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed this quote:
"Finally, there's the growing fathers' rights movement, which advocates equitable custody laws."
And that they recognized all the benefits of both parents to children. Good article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Besides, she says, letting go of her son every week so he could be with his dad has been excruciating. "I want to know where my child is all the time, that he's eating three meals a day and that he's happy, but I have to go five days without knowing."
...and feeling that way missing him for 5 days, imagine what the husband would feel had you been awarded sole custody. Add around 360 days to the anxious emotions you feel, and you'd have the feeling of the father.
Women (read: feminists in general) seem to have a hard time understanding that though the child was physically expelled by their gender's body, any normal father feels at least the same ammount of love for that child.
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women (read: feminists in general) seem to have a hard time understanding that though the child was physically expelled by their gender's body, any normal father feels at least the same ammount of love for that child.
Sorry, DeepThought, but the qualifier wasn't necessary. In fact a poll taken recently (which I have lost the link to) shows that most mothers do NOT believe that fathers should be equal partners in childrearing. Once the fight for 50/50 custody becomes front and center, the fathers' movement can look forward to a great deal of opposition from everyday non-feminist women, and had better prepare for it (psychologically and logistically).
Convincing women (and some men) that fathers love their children as much as mothers will be a very steep uphill battle. Think of the response to Mother's Day vs. Father's Day. This country is virtually a cult of motherhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In fact a poll taken recently (which I have lost the link to) shows that most mothers do NOT believe that fathers should be equal partners in childrearing"
But MOST women do believe that men must support their children, so that leave us with the fact that MOST women consider men chattle they can use whenever they want to have children and steal them, and slave labor they can profit for nothing.
Thats is MOST western women are HUMAN SCUM and must be treated accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women (read: feminists in general) seem to have a hard time understanding that though the child was physically expelled by their gender's body, any normal father feels at least the same ammount of love for that child.
You’ve just made a pretty good description of maybe the most acceptable prejudice going (and it’s not limited to feminists).
It persists not because it’s a difficult thing to understand, it’s persists because so many women would have to give up so much if they couldn’t hang on to the belief that the world owes them emotional gratification at the expense of fathers.
I think that prejudice lies at the heart of most family conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, one misfact I noticed was it talked about how mothers were more important thoughtout history. This just is not true. During the 19th century, men were the ones who raised the children. The women just looked after them, they didn't have to try and actually teach the children anything.
It wasn't until the nuclear family that women were the ones that 'raised' the child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article does have its weaknesses:
Joint physical custody, which is steadily becoming the preferred arrangement in many states, is when kids divide their time between Mom's place and Dad's place, usually with at least a 70%-30% split. While custody laws vary widely by state, the trend in Wisconsin is probably typical: in 1981 joint physical custody was awarded in just 2% of divorce cases involving children; by 1998 the figure was 23%.
That the author thinks the trend in Wisconsin is typical of the rest of the nation (i.e., joint physical custody in 23% of cases) shows incredible naivete and laziness regarding research; fifteen minutes on the Net could've showed her different. In NY State alone there is something like a 93% presumption for the mother in custody cases.
But what really troubles me about the whole situation is how "joint" physical custody was implemented. I don't believe the 70% mother/30% father time ratio was something that was negotiated by the parents after a 50/50 presumption. It sounds like something imposed by the courts and acquiesced to by the father and is the presumed formula. This is what joint physical custody will look if the fathers' rights movement succeeds but is not vigilant. In this scenario the father gets every weekend instead of every other weekend, an improvement but not equality. (So now dad gets to be Disney-dad times two with no social life and mom never gets to hang with the kid on the weekends.) The article did not linger on this inequity--as an article written by a father would have--and sets fathers up to view this as the norm.
Divorce is traumatic for kids; why have them suffer the additional pain of losing a parent? Moreover, studies show children do better when two parents are involved. Kids have higher self-esteem, better grades and fewer behavioral problems. Add to that deadbeat-dad prevention: fathers with joint custody are more likely to share the expense of raising kids. Finally, there's the growing fathers' rights movement, which advocates equitable custody laws.
In her explanation of why joint custody is sensible she emphasizes the children (fair enough), but refuses to acknowledge that fathers love their children as much as mothers or the pain the present system causes them. She focuses on deadbeat dads (the bastards) and the FR movement (the pains). This article is anything but a ringing endorsement of joint physical custody, but I suppose any recognition of a man's issue is better than the pink-out we now experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this certainly has it's faults, but it is still by far the most balanced article I have ever seen. I think it goes a long way towards opening dialog without pointing fingers, which is the only way to get results, whether or not one party should be held acountable or not. The feminist movement will fight tooth and nail if hit head on, but due to their inability to use logic, they are more easily circumnavigated.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am especially amused at the notion that divorce lawyers are "weary" of the arguments between ex's. Isn't that what their industry makes its money on?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
