Amanda is on Men’s Rights Radio Today!
| June 5th, 2005Amanda of Pandagon (who is also a frequent poster on “Alas”) will be appearing on Glenn Sacks’ radio show today. (Glenn has been mentioned on “Alas” a few times in the past).
As you might recall, Glenn’s show, “His Side,” is men’s rights activist central, so if anyone’s free from 5pm to 6pm pacific time (8pm to 9pm eastern) today, I’m sure Amanda would appreciate feminists calling in to give her some support while she’s in “enemy territory.”
You can listen to the show live on the web here, where you’ll also find instructions for calling in.
And even if you can’t call in, join me in sending “good luck vibes” Amanda’s way today!
June 5th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
I can’t really phone in as I’m so far away, but anyway, Amanda: Give ‘em hell!!
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Thanks for the support!
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
What I find very, very telling is the commericials. Listen to all those ads for divorce lawyers who will “Win at any cost”. You’ll hear a lot about getting justice for dads, and not alot about getting justice for the kids.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Thanks for calling in, Amp! Your call really impressed me and gave me an idea that I rode for the rest of the show to continually remind people that there’s never a *happy* ending in a divorce, but there is minimizing damage.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Any chance of a transcript of the interview?
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Reminder
I’ll be the guest on “His Side” with Glenn Sacks tonight 5-6 PST, 8-9 EST. It’s a call-in radio show, and I strongly encourage Pandagon readers to call in at 1-800-439-4805. Ever since Glenn announced that I’m coming on his…
This comment was written by Pandagon.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Yeah, it was cool that you called in Amp. I heard Glenn go “Barry has been waiting….” and I was all “COOL, I’m going to get to hear what TWO of my favorite bloggers sound like”.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2005 at 9:25 pm
Did anyone record this? I’d like to hear it as I accidentally missed it.
This comment was written by LAuren.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
Mousehounde: As far as I know, Glenn doesn’t do transcriptions, and I’m not gonna do one myself because it’s too much work. :-) If we got fifteen people willing to transcribe five minutes each, though, that would do it. Or we could pay a transcription service - my guess is that if we told them to skip the commericals and the bits before Amanda first spoke, it would be around $100.
Lauren: An audio file of the show will be up on the “His Side” archives sometime soon, I imagine.
Antigone: I’m told that you called in and kicked butt too! I couldn’t listen to the last half of the show, but I’m looking forward to listening sometime later.
Amanda: Great! I’m very happy if what I said was helpful to you.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
I’d transcribe it, but I’m of the belief to never listen or watch myself on tape unless I can go back and improve my performance :)
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 8:19 am
I’ll volunteer to transcribe 5 minutes from the online file. (Assuming enough other people are willing — I don’t want to have 5 lonely orphaned minutes!)
This comment was written by Tiger Spot.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 8:28 am
I’m a little alarmed at the idea of all my “ums” and “you knows” getting preserved like that. Now y’all have solid confirmation of my ignorant-sounding West Texas accent.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Well, judging from your radio comments, that’s not the only thing of which you are ignorant-sounding. Unless and until you are willing to really listen to fathers and attempt to understand the father-child bond and how it is routinely, systematically and sometimes thoroughly ruined in family court, you will be acting on an ignorant pretense. If it is difficult for you to understand that a father’s love for his child(ren) can be absolutely true and incorrupt, then your judgments of all men are inherently flawed. If you simply don’t want to admit such, you have nothing to add to the discussion but your own bigotry.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
Hey, I listened to that whole show (yelled at times, but yes, I did listen) and Amanda didn’t say word one about the quality of a father’s love. What she did say is that mandatory joint physical custody is not in the best interests of the child (you know, the one we’re all supposed to love unreservedly and look out for the best interests of). There is no solution to custody after divorce that can possibly be fair to all parties. Divorce is a bad business - necessary, but bad, at least where there’s children involved.
This comment was written by Ledasmom.Once admit that there is no one great solution that works every time, and perhaps we can discuss this intelligently. It’d be nice if all divorcing parents could put aside their animosities and work together on what was best for their kids, but in this world that’s not gonna happen.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
Well, judging from your radio comments, that’s not the only thing of which you are ignorant-sounding.
Starts off with a pure personal attack. The idea is that, by calling Amanda ignorant (what the hell does the child of a divorced family know about divorce?), he’ll be setting her up for… what?
David, do you really imagine that worthwhile exchanges begin with insults? Is that how the really, really good father’s advocates meetings begin; you guys sit in a circle, call each other ignorant bigots, and from there the conversation really takes off and goes productive places?
Look, I understand you’re feeling indignant that Amanda has dared to disagree with your view. But get off your high horse - not everyone in the world agrees with you. And if I don’t agree with you, that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m not listening; it may mean I listened, but nonetheless disagreed.
(I don’t think that anything in the human world - not even a father’s love or a mother’s love - is “absolutely true and incorrupt.” But that’s just me.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Why does there have to be a winner and loser with kids. Child support is about emotional, physical and financial support. Emancipated women shouldn’t need politically-correct alimony. No parent should have lesser access to the child then the other. Quebec has mandatory mediation without this “Families in Anguish” industry of divorce lawyers and divorce judges (former Divorce Attys who are political appointees). Get the government out of the lives of fit parents and concentrate on things that government should do: protecting our environment for example.
This comment was written by George Mason.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
My post is gone. Wow, censorship just as I said. If you limit the debate to like minded people, then you are essentially talking to yourself. You are not interested in a dialog, just a hallelujah chorus. Time to go back under my bridge.
This comment was written by Kelly B.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
Kelly, I haven’t deleted any posts from this thread yet - I don’t know what you’re talking about. And it’s not like I make any secret of the fact that I moderate my threads.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
I love how MRAs are all for one kind of female “emancipation”–being emancipated from getting the sort of support for child-rearing that men get without asking.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
Of course, that “emancipation” is rarely accompanied by MRA support for being emancipated from a husband that you divorced.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
Good stuff, Amanda! I missed the show, but listened to the archives. Remember the little folks who were reading Mouse Words before you became a national media star!
The only thing I regret about the performance was that I think your strongest point is humor, and there was never really an occassion for you to entertain the listeners with a clever wisecrack. You didn’t come off as deadly serious or anything: just, there are no clever phrases that I’ll be laughing about for weeks. I suppose joint custody isn’t exactly a really funny subject, so it’d be silly to expect too much there. Other than that, you held your own, made good points, and kept focused on the topic on hand.
That was the first time I’ve listened to Glenn Sacks, and maybe the last. The whole “I’m the only guy in existence who thinks men are decent human beings” shtick irritated me, as did his constant interruptions. It’s not so much the men’s rights agenda that irritated me (though that too): if a feminist radio host hosted MRAs and constantly cut them off I’d be irritated too. I guess I’m just a sucker for the infamous C-word, civility, and Glenn doesn’t quite cut it for me.
I’d be willing to do four minutes of transcription or something (we can cut out the ads, right?), but only once my finals are over. That’ll be in about five days. Anyone with me?
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
I had a paragraph long post on this thread earlier, now its not there.
This comment was written by Kelly B.If emancipation from your ex husband means liberating him from his children, you don’t have my sympathy. You both are still joined at the hip until they are 18, and even then you will be someday be grandma and he will be grandpa. You can complain or you can deal with it. I don’t like my ex, but I love my children far more. We split the time and decision making. We live close by each other, and neither one of us would move away without the other. I would never ask them to choose between us, that would be morally wrong on the deepest level. That way they have “fierce loyalty” to both of us, not just mom….hint, hint Amanda.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Kelly, who exactly do you think you’re arguing with? Perhaps the MRAs who are mad that being ‘joined at the hip’ means ‘paying for expenses’?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 1:23 am
I love my father very much and my mother was and still is a very good person and lucky for myself and my brothers, she did not buy all the anti-male bulldust she was being fed and”NO” she was no doormat.
With the amount of male bashing over the past 40 years there are few who have not been negatively affected. Men must be allowed to speak about thier inner experience of being painted as “the bad guy” all thier lives so that our children, both male and female can get some kind of balance as to understanding what has happened to themselves and thier generation and why so many were stolen from thier fathers for no reason other than he was male.
I know there are enough good males and females left to undo much of this damage, but it will take much heartache and I dare say, a lot more abuse from people who are making a career of male bashing, many with no other motivation than to be with the “in crowd” and further thier bank balance. No I am not accusing anyone in particular here.
Untill men are seen as equal to women there can be no resolution. There are too few females who are willing to be responsibe for thier actions. With rights comes responsibility. For some time abusing men in any way you can has been treated as a game. Many women have been unwilling to relinguish the powerful position of ” Head Socializer of children”? The trouble is you are being replaced and many of you support your own downfall and that of your children.
Hopefully, soon this, supposed feminist period will come to pass as have others, to be disected and ridiculed as just another politically motivated fad from the past. Did you females really think the patriarchs in government were sucking up to you for your benefit?? Now we have Mums being forced back into the work force ealier and earlier in thier childrens lives and Dads kicked out of thier childrens lives altogether. Have a look at the big picture, start caring for one another and stop the point scoring.
This comment was written by Karl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 1:41 am
First and foremost, she’s arguing with the bogeyman who dun went and ate her post. Really it was the collective hive mind of the feminist spirit, Kelly, we willed it away, knowing it beheld nothing but truths we women feared hearing about how men and women should both be allowed to parent their children.
Oh wait, many of us are parents and agree with that sentiment. We simply choose to qualify it with a: men and women that are fit should both be allowed to parent their children.
If a man is abusive to his wife - well, perhaps he should have thought about smacking the mother of his children around a bit more carefully?
That isn’t to say that all unfitness is on the side of men. In fact, I don’t think anyone on here would assert such an absurd claim. Just that it often does play a part in custody, and it’s irresponsible and wrong to push for joint custodial priviledges without reviewing the reasons for the seperation, or the potential reasons that make person B unfit, or A more fit to be the sole custodial parent.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 4:52 am
Yes Kelly, and the point is that false allegations from women are often believed and true allegations from men are hardly ever believed, so men are at a distinct disadvatage straight away in being portrayed as a demon when he in fact may be the best parent even if he was not the primary caregiver during marriage. Just because someone refuses to work to support the family does not mean they have been a good parent. The opposite may be true in that they were lazy right across the board and smacked the man and his kids about on top. Happens quite a bit. Of course this is a culturally sensitive issue that makes people think and challenge the status quo, but we cant have that can we?
This comment was written by Karl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 7:57 am
Karl, where are the women on this board who think “the patriarchs in government were sucking up to you for your benefit?” I’ve heard many things on the discussion threads of “Alas, a Blog,” from all varieties of feminists and non-feminists, but that one is entirely new to me.
It is, sadly, frequently considered that the mother is automatically the better parent. As it is, sadly, frequently considered that a man is automatically a better engineer, airplane pilot, banker, electrician, scientist, soldier, etc. Feminists are not big supporters of gender roles.
I believe you are correct that the abusive partner is frequently unemployed and generally doesn’t contribute much, rather than fitting neatly into the “homemaker” or “breadwinner” role. At least, that’s the case with men, who are usually the abusers. I would suspect it’s the case with abusive women too. Don’t know, though.
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 8:27 am
If emancipation from your ex husband means liberating him from his children, you don’t have my sympathy. You both are still joined at the hip until they are 18, and even then you will be someday be grandma and he will be grandpa. You can complain or you can deal with it.
Well, I suppose it’s classier than peeing on women to claim them.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 9:08 am
Karl, words of great wisdom!
There are many grown ‘fatherless children’ who resent their father being banned from their lives while growing up. Many have reunited with the fathers they were not allowed to know as children, and now greatly resent their loss.
Men are never considered good enough in our society these days. Oh, they’re good enough to send to war and die for our freedoms, but many are no longer afforded many of those freedoms. For the most part, males of all ages have been relegated to second-class citizens who no longer have even basic civil rights.
I never thought I’d see the day when a father could lose all rights to his child with a mere request of a protecetive order. They are given out to any female who requests it. Women’s groups teach what to say and how to get one with no questions asked, some even pay the ‘victim’ to lie to get one.
I believe the abuse of the power of this document has caused great destruction to vast numbers of children and fathers. I personally know of several women who have lied on this sworn statement in order to get their way. They should all be prosecuted, but their unlawful behavior will be totally ignored solely because they’re female. Females are always considered to be victims, and males are always considered to be the devil himself. It’s total bunk, and as a strong woman, I resent the label. That’s the “politically correct” way to feel these days though.
Is this really the equality that women started fighting for years ago? The radical feminist groups rake in billions of tax dollars every year. They use (admittedly) false statistics and cries of injustice to gain control and power over every part of the justice and family court system. I’ve lost all respect for what use to be a just cause, but has turned into a great travesty against humanity, especially our children. I would much prefer the way things were in the 50’s to what has happened to the American family now.
The tide will surely turn at some point, but what will be left in the wake of all the destruction? Only one thing is sure, the traditional American family will be extinct at some point in the near future, because there is no turning back now.
This comment was written by Celia.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 9:49 am
“For the most part, males of all ages have been relegated to second-class citizens who no longer have even basic civil rights.”
Oh, please. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry in the face of such obviously ludicrous claims. Try reading some of the other threads here (or, heh, try actually reading the news or maybe even talking to others in real life) to see just how “second-class” men’s lives *really* are.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Wow, what a bunch of horse doo-doo. In essence, the last few anti-feminist folks have stated:
- Women are liars.
- No really, all they do is lie.
- Feminists don’t want men to be part of child rearing.
- No really, they don’t.
- Dead-beat parents don’t have jobs because the system is extorting them.
- Doesn’t matter that their children need them, because it’s a given that the dead-beat parent is a victim of the system, and therefore justifiably not responsible for the children they supposedly love so much.
- The 1950’s nuclear family is preferable to now.
- The 1950’s nuclear family is ‘traditional’ (since the 1940’s/1950’s of course, but lets not be silly and quibble about this, we’re talking -tradition- here).
So much straw, so very little time. Also, these statements all come while talking OVER and AROUND the feminists on this board because it would be inconvenient to use anything like, well, the actual ideas or thoughts of feminists to portray the thoughts and ideas of feminists.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 10:37 am
I’ve been falsely accused to prevent me from getting to my house and seeing my son. I’ve never missed child support. Mom quit the home business she made to maximize support. 5 years after divorce Mom lied again and accused me of child abuse to get more control. DCFS found the charge unfounded but Mom was rewarded restrictions that I had to fight in court to change. Guilty until proven innocent has been my experience with family law, not all men have the time and resources to fight. Glen Sacks was one of the only places I saw on the web that offered free information. I checked out the breakthrough parenting link and found it help me improve my parenting and understand the court system better. Having my family and my access to my son limited has been horrible for us. Marc has missed out on many trips with Grandma because Mom needs to keep my visitation to 30%. I don’t think all women are abusing the system like my sons mom and I don’t think all men are as the feminist say. Many men were cheering as their sisters and cousins broke through the traditional boundaries. My son’s Mom, who is on her forth marriage, can be extremly violent and vindictive I am sure their are other men dealing with the same. I’ve spent so much money to protect my rights with my son. I’m so happy that I was able to meet a wonderful woman who is great with kids and helped change my opinion of marriage and women. In the Breakthrough Parenting class I saw both men and women dealing with abusive slandering spouses. “Catch them being good!”
Best,
This comment was written by Steve Whiteley.Steve
Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Julian Elson Wrote:
“I believe you are correct that the abusive partner is frequently unemployed and generally doesn’t contribute much, rather than fitting neatly into the “homemaker”? or “breadwinner”? role. ”
I have no idea what the stats are, but the abusers I’ve known best were working men with pretty good images in their community. This observation could be an accident of my upper middle class background, dunno. Reading the worst of the MRAs forcibly reminds me of one of the abusers I’ve known - while he did work, he contributed almost nothing at home (despite having married a feminist!), was astonished to be hauled off when he knocked his wife around a bit, screwed around but was shocked and outraged when his wife finally started doing the same, and when the divorce hit it was all “me, me, me”, with barely a thought for the kids, even when I flatly and repeatedly told him, “Look, you’re an adult. Your wife is an adult. Suck it up and do what’s right for your kids.” He’d say, “Of course I care about the kids,” but then was right back on, “me, me, me” and plotting all manner of things to do to his soon-to-be-ex-wife that would (had he succeeded) devastate the kids.
Abusive husbands don’t always fit the cliche - while my family was concerned when my friend married this guy, and I even tried to talk her out of it, we never imagined he’d actually be abusive. We just thought he was your standard self-centered jerk. Instead he was so convinced of his right to hit his wife he did it while I was visiting! And expected me to endorse his actions, no less.
It continues to amaze me that a man that deluded can even function in this society…
Celia wrote:
“Oh, they’re good enough to send to war and die for our freedoms, ”
This is the third time this week I’ve seen someone whining about feminists pull the “war card,” and I never fail to laugh at it. Do anti-feminists not even read what other anti-feminists have to say? Do anti-feminists not read regular newspapers? Both books and newspapers have trumpeted the fact that feminists have done their absolute level best to get women into the military for decades.
Brian Mitchell wrote a whole book on the subject - “Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military.” Chapter after chapter on how feminists have labored, by fair means or foul, to get women into the military and to convince society that, in the case of war, we should risk both men and women. Mitchell, being unsympathetic to the feminist cause, tends to focus on the means he considers foul, but the underlying principle is the same - feminists have battled mightily against the idea that men should be sacrificed in war, while women should not.
Feminists have fought far harder than any other group to try to eliminate this unfairness, so it is unbelievably silly for anti-feminists to “challenge” feminists with the “horrible fact” that men go to war and women do not. Perhaps I am the only one who ever comments on this because most feminists figure someone foolish enough to accuse feminists of in any way wanting men to go to war while women remain safe at home is clearly irrational on that point…
Sheryl
This comment was written by shiloh.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
I love these guys because—hey, I just got back from Iraq. I was in combat. They can bite me. How come there’s this 1000-to-one rule for guys? If one guy does it somewhere, then all guys get credit for it, yet if one woman does something—like me—-it barely even affects me? Then there’s the opposite rule: If a thousand guys do something, it doesn’t mean a damned thing, but if one woman does something, it must mean there’s a thousand women out there getting away with it.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Shame on you men…
I sit back and read your surly comments clearly aimed at convincing the “feminists” that they are wrong and that you are right. You throw out a couple of shots, they reply with a few “deadbeat dads”, “every man is an abuser”, “woe is me”, and the never ending cycle of worthless debate continues. Men, you must reconcile yourselves to the fact that you will not win the debate. It cannot be won. You cannot reason with unreasonable people. Bad mothers, by their own actions have done more to discredit themselves than we ever could by pointing it out. They know they aren’t fit to parent, but they can’t tolerate you knowing it, or worse yet pointing it out.
Don’t allow these self-important windbags to rile you. You don’t need a woman to tell you what is right or wrong or how to raise your children, so stop listening to them. Don’t worry about the feminist hype. It is unimportant and irrelevant.
There is a job to be done in this country. So quit giving weight to their silly arguments and make the change happen. Join a local or national fathers’ rights organization and hit the streets and courthouses in protest. Write letters to your local newspaper editor or senator if you wish. Do whatever you want, but get off your collective butts and do something significant.
Take some comfort in two things.
1) The current trend in the country toward conservative values is highly incompatible with the feminist leadership and their views. Their political strength has dwindled and will continue to do so.
2) As many “feminists” point out, this country is run by men. That tells me that we don’t have a very steep hill to climb.
That being said, stop complaining and take action.
This comment was written by Bob Watson.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
“Untill men are seen as equal to women there can be no resolution.”
and
“For the most part, males of all ages have been relegated to second-class citizens who no longer have even basic civil rights.”?
Whenever I see some ignorant sap spout this crap I remember the comment that a co-worker made when he was unhappy w/ the service at the local IBM branch. “Bunch of niggers & women,” he said. And that makes it clear that men are not yet the equals of women in the eyes of the common woman.
Clearly Celia is right. As a man I no longer am able to speak freely nor am I allowed freedom from unreasonable search and seizure nor am I allowed to peacefully meet with fellow citizens, nor do I enjoy the myriad of other basic civil liberties that only women have these days. Damn those women and their male-bashing that has consigned me to this second-class citizen status!
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
I’m beginning to feel guilty. I wasn’t going to post on this until the furor died down lest my blog get overrun. Didn’t occur to me that the trolls would spread out to others.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Ampersand says (post 15): “Starts off with a pure personal attack. The idea is that, by calling Amanda ignorant (what the hell does the child of a divorced family know about divorce?), he’ll be setting her up for… what?”
I did not call Amanda ignorant. I suggested she may be acting on an ignorant pretense with respect to what is really important to FRAs. Many men are motivated by a common experience of institutionalized gender discrimination in family court. From the perspective of many fathers, such discrimination is a vicious, destructive social evil and we seek change through social and political channels. If you wish to view us as misogynistic jerks sitting around in a circle ridiculing anti-father feminists then that is your business.
Additionally, my post did not mention “divorce” nor are Amanda’s or my views on divorce relevant in the context of my post. Putting words into my mouth in an attempt to discredit my views is a poor substitue for reasoned disagreement or the “productive” discussions and “worthwhile exchanges” which you apparently find lacking.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Many men are motivated by a common experience of institutionalized gender discrimination in family court.
You think I just pulled my criticisms of this belief out of thin air? No, I think, upon reading mounds and mounds of the stuff FRAs put out, that you are motivated by not getting your way as you think you are entitled, as a man.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Amanda,
I would think fighting against institutionalized gender discrimination would be a subject familiar to many (true)feminists. It therefore seems ridiculous that you find it so difficult to believe that gender discrimination exists.
Perhaps you believe discrimination only exists in some one-way universe, that corporations or government institutions never exploit men, racial minorities never hold racist views, homosexuals are never hetero-phobic. A small bit of research would likely uncover “mounds” of evidence that suggests this is not so.
To use your definition, the feminist movement is about “not getting your way as you think you are entitled”, as a woman. Fine, but if you really believe that certain principles of justice apply only to women and not to all human beings equally then such a concept indeed lacks credibility and perhaps was pulled out of thin air.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
The fact remains, women are under no obligation to pay for their children. The child will either by paid for by the father, or the state.
Futhermore, in most states, safe-haven abandonement by a mother is legal.
This is not equality.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
David, you don’t know me or my writing nearly as well as I know the MRA viewpoint. Perhaps you don’t want to get into this. Discrimination “against” men in the caretaking role for children is usually enacted by men themselves in marriages where they assume that women will take on the child-rearing duties and also the amazing benefit of falling behind in your career that comes with it. Once the divorce comes, these men expect the “non-discrimination” of men’s natural right to own wife and child to be honored in court and are alarmed to find that the courts are not as kneejerk pro-male dominance as they used to be. Not getting your way all the time is not “discrimination”. And I’m sick and tired of men whining and sending letters to me begging for my pity because just once in their life they didn’t get one over on a woman. Sorry.
The thing that really makes me sick is to hear these men demand that their children be jerked around and messed with in order to get “fairness” and then say that they’re doing it for the children. Bullshit. Hold your pearls, fellas, it was a man who explained to my dad that joint custody is a bad idea for his children and my dad, no feminist by any stretch, has turned around and educated other men on the same subject. I’m extremely sick of being told I’m anti-male when I am offering a way for men to minimize damage, form post-divorce relationships with children that are productive, and not get taken for every dollar they’re worth by lawyers.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
Amanda,
First, I appreciate even your half-hearted attempt at civility. However, I don’t need to be told by you or your dad what is good or not good for my own children. That’s just plain silly. You know nothing about the social, physical and emotional well being and needs of our children, their relationship with their parents and their own desires as people in their own right. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. From my experience, the courts know marginally more than you and rely instead on cookie-cutter solutions based on notions whose usefulness has long since passed.
Finally, your comments, unfortunately, indicate that you really have absolutely no grasp of the issue. I divorced my wife, not my children. You don’t fool me or any other serious FRA. Don’t fool yourself either. You offer men nothing. You can’t. You’re mired in a mindset that insists on defining the problem in terms of a narrow ideology and it’s resultant irrelevant subject matter. The gender discrimination I speak to happens, it’s real, it’s unjust and it will change just as there was great change for women over the last 40 years. Like any social movement based on the principles of social justice and the civil rights of citizens, we will eventually prevail because our cause IS just. History is likely to view you and your ilk as the George Wallaces of the South at gates of the school explaining why the ’stupid monkey people’ shouldn’t be allowed in.
Good day ma’am.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Amanda, I don’t see this offering, which I feel would be very valuable to kids, mom’s and dad’s. Will you point me in the direction of the writing regarding these specific offerings?
This comment was written by TJ.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
ginmar:
“I love these guys because…hey, I just got back from Iraq. I was in combat. They can bite me. How come there’s this 1000-to-one rule for guys? If one guy does it somewhere, then all guys get credit for it, yet if one woman does something…like me…-it barely even affects me? Then there’s the opposite rule: If a thousand guys do something, it doesn’t mean a damned thing, but if one woman does something, it must mean there’s a thousand women out there getting away with it. ”
Why did nobody else notice the excellence of this post?
[stands up & cheers ginmar].
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Thanks Sheena. I did notice the “excellence” of ginmar’s post. Well, half excellent. What about the missing half of her excellence? I hope at least some had the insight to see that this 1000 to 1 rule also applies in reversed gender roles as well, in one thousand ways descriminating against men, fathers and boys. Women are not the only ones descriminated against. Try reading a bit from Warren Farrell’s books.on the varying realities of equality between the genders.
This comment was written by advoc8.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
*ick, ick, ick, ick, ick*
Some days, i hate the internet. I feel we would be better off (and more polite all around) if we had face to face discussions. On the other hand, we might just kill each other. Never know.
Anyway, let’s try and find some common ground here:
Gender roles hurt everyone. Females AND males. Duh. So, if you want to get RID of these said gender roles, join the feminist movement, not the MRA’s. What the MRA’s seem to overwhelmingly be advocating for are STRICTER gender roles, not less restrictive ones. I have not heard a single solitary MRA advocate for stay-at-home-fatherhood. Not one.
The father’s rights have some legitimate concerns: the courts are biased against the non-primary caregiver. To change this?
a) Be a more involved parent during the marriage
b) Don’t be abusive to your wife or children (or, on the flip side, don’t let your husband be abusive to wife or children) . At the very least, document the abuse.
c) Be adults. Seriously. If you cannot set aside your conflict of being a parent, the courts will. Because it’s in society’s best intrest to have a child raised in a good envirnment.
d) If the courts find you to be the non-custodial parent PAY THE DAMN CHILD SUPPORT! You are supporting your CHILD, the person you claim to love. If you love them, you will want to make sure that they are being raised with enough food, clothing, and a good house. You are not supporting the ex, that’s what alimony’s for. If you want to bitch about alimony, make sure you pay your spouse for the housework.
Gender roles are bad, and unproductive. Divorce is messy and complicated.
This comment was written by Antigone.What I’ve taken away from these types of threads:
Don’t get married. And for god’s sake, don’t have children.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
“Don’t get married. And for god’s sake, don’t have children.”
Done and done!
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 7:06 am
Thank you, Sheena. I’ve noticed that telling men you’re a combat vet has the wonderful effect of shutting up the whole, “But men have to go to war!” whine.
Yeah, men have to go to a foreign land to go to war: for women, it’s right here on our streets, nobody gives us a weapon–hell, we even get bitched at for fighting back—, and the enemy refuses to fight fair or even wear a uniform. The only way you can identify them is by the same old code phrases they all use, every damned time.
Can’t imagine why wingnuts want to keep women out of combat, do you?
That being said, stop complaining and take action.
Gee, that sounds kind of threatening. I guess as long as women aren’t wearing burkas there’s a war to be waged, isn’t there, Bob? Nice strawman there, too.
Kind of gives you another insight into why they don’t want us knowing how to fight, much less able to cite our skills and our sacrifice against them, doesn’t it?
Oh, and I just posted something about how we view criminals over at thread about how only white girls go mising. *sarcasm* It’s kind of a compliment to these MRAs here, wanting only white guys to matter.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 7:15 am
advoc8, Warren Farrell’s books, huh? YOu agree with his position on incest and date rape, then?
“Before we called it date rape we called it…exciting.”
Yeah, that’s discrimination all right.
Tell you what, guys. You think what you get is so bad in terms of discrimination? I mean, you face men everywhere you look. The president is a man—and has always been a man. Most leaders of religion, politics, business, and law are men. These are the people discriminating against you.
YOu think that’s so bad? Yeah, well, walk a few miles in my boots, guys. I’ll trade you. You want discrimination? I’d love to experience the sort of discrimination men get to.
Oh, wait.
I did.
It was when my mom used to tell me that I couldn’t have everything I wanted.
I was five at the time.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 7:27 am
“Why did nobody else notice the excellence of this post?”
Sheena: :o
I was going to fix the wording of “God Bless The USA” and serenade ginmar with it, but I didn’t want to get my ass kicked. Aside from that, I concur that her original point is valid, even if I am a fuzz-headed hippie peacenik.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 7:48 am
Women should fight in combat, if necessary.
Women should have equal pay for the same job at equal quality.
Women should have the right to abortion and birth control - both pre and post coital options.
And men should have all of the above rights and responsibilities, as well.
Right now it is not equal. If “feminism” truely is interested in equality then they should also fight the injustices in the family court systems.
The fact that women are supported by laws specifically allowing them to “opt out” of pregnancies while also subserviating men, is an injustice and does not represent “equality”.
Live up to what you preach.
This comment was written by david.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 7:52 am
Uh, David? Did the whole ‘fem’ thing confuse you?
Sorry, just can’t do it. In a world where men face male judges, male cops, male CEOs and can probably go through life not facing one powerful female, they whine like kicked puppies.
Dude, the day men get pregnant is the day they get to tell me what to do with my body. But I guess this means you get to take me up on my offer! Here’s your DIY sex change kit, complete with knife. Go cut your rights in half and slash your salary by a third.
Live with that for a while, then get back to me, okay?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 9:09 am
I’m not telling you or any other woman what to do with your bodys.
I have routinely worked with highly educated and very highly compensated women on a daily basis in the engineering and marketing fields. Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered existence - all I can see is that focused education and effort pays very well for those inclined to push themselves.
Carly Fiorina seemed to do pretty well at HP and they have just recently announced Cathy Lyons as executive VP and Chief Marketing Officer….and these women are paid millions per year. Pretty good on anybodys scale.
My comments were not intended to inflame you - or produce combative responses.
This comment was written by david.The fact remain very clear and very one sided, however.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 9:35 am
Just so you know, this David addressed “Amanda” and is not associated with the most recent “David” posts #41, 51, and 53.
And Antigone, there is no need to “advocate for stay at home fathers” of which there are many in case you didn’t know. In fact, Glenn Sacks was a stay at home father and if I understand correctly he is the primary care giver for his daughter. But for your benefit, consider this an advocation for stay at home fathers even though that is already available to us if we choose.
With regard to paying your “damn child support” to support your child, please direct me to any law that requires one penny of any support received to be spent on a child.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Antigone made the point.
David, I suggest that you pay your support in cash and make sure to mark the bills so that you can make sure that this dollar was spent on clothing for the child and not say to replace an earlier dollar spent on the child. How patently ridiculous to think that your ex-wife doesn’t spend money on the children. Perhaps they sleep outside naked and scrounge for food?
Until FRAs worry less about what their ex-wives are “getting away with” now that they aren’t under direct husband supervision anymore and start worrying about children, we’ll be going nowhere fast. In the meantime, keep nickel and diming their mothers, guys, and watch those children grow to hate you.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 9:46 am
all I can see is that focused education and effort pays very well for those inclined to push themselves.
If you don’t want to inflame people, try not to insinuate that women do not succeed because of their own laziness, mmmmkay?
It’s the cowardice that gets to one after a while, I swear.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 10:35 am
I pointed out that these people are very successful, and have concluded over the long haul that most (but not all) successful people are that way due to hard work. There is lots of data to support this position.
I am not sure where you draw your insinuations from.
This comment was written by david.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 10:39 am
Abortion and contraception is not *just* being able to pick when and where we will have kids. Abortion and contraception is about choosing if we want to be pregnant. There’s a subtle difference.
Pre-birth, the ZEF is attached to a female’s body, using the females blood, nutrients, air. Without me, the ZEF would be dead. It’s a 2-1 ownership: My ovum, my body vs. your sperm.
After birth, however, it is a child. And then it becomes a half-and-half responsiblity: someone needs to take care of this child finacially and emotionally. If you prove to be incapable of providing any of the emotional benefit, you supply some finacial benefit.
My heart goes out to the guys who legitimately want to see their kids. It does, and there should be some scrutiny done to judges that make biased calls (thus the process known as “appeals”). But, I have no pity whatsoever to sperm-donars who are upset that they have to pay child support. None. That is there responsiblity now. I don’t feel any sympathy to mothers who have to pay child support, either. That is YOUR CHILD. Do you honestly want your kid to resent you because you don’t feel he/she is important enough to give some cash to?
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 11:05 am
>After birth, however, it is a child. And then it becomes a half-and-half responsiblity: someone needs to take care of this child finacially and emotionally.
This comment was written by david.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 11:07 am
Shorter david:
Some women are economically very successful. From this we can come to the logical conclusion that, economically speaking, there is economic equality between men and women. I have seen succesful women. Isn’t that proof enough?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 11:18 am
The fact remains, women are under no obligation to pay for their children. The child will either by paid for by the father, or the state.
David, this is ludicrous. In Oregon at least, any state support is directed at the PRIMARY CUSTODIAL PARENT. It has no inclusion of vagina, and no exclusion of the penis. Also, you are being deliberately obtuse if you are claiming that non-custodial mothers are not expected to pay child support. The patent sexism that is rife in this ‘poor us’ statement is so angering to me because it is so very deliberate and willful.
Futhermore, in most states, safe-haven abandonement by a mother is legal.
Shame on you, David. Once a child is abandoned, it’s abandoned and the reason this law exists is to make sure that children don’t end up DEAD. DEAD, DAVID. While I cannot say for sure, I’m pretty darn sure (and will be looking it up when I have the chance) that safe-haven abandonment is not gender specific. The law is about the children, not about the parents and you should know better than to mix this law with child support. Makes me sick to think you’d combine the two as a related issue.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 11:27 am
That’s right Amanda, they sleep outside naked and scrounge for food at moms and she spends the money on cigarettes and pedicures… Your patronizing, sophomoric smokescreen aside, you didn’t answer my question. Are YOU aware of ANY law that requires mom to spend support she receives to clothe and feed the children while they are in her care? Perhaps you are interested in passing a law that would require mom to use support money to feed and clothe children and put a stop to any such outrageous situations? Just let me know.
How sad for you that you so easily equate love with money, that if a father’s role as money provider is compromised for any reason that his children might somehow (perhaps should even be encouraged to) hate him. Take the lid off your ideological box and look around! The world is replete with dirt poor people that have very loving families.
It may be easier for you if my children hated me but fortunately I am able in our home to clothe them, give them a warm bed, provide regular and nutritious meals for them, AND keep the money flowing to mom. However, I don’t for a moment demand love in return for any of that. I teach them how to love by loving them. THIS is why they will likely continue to love me. I guess in your world my children should grow up to hate their mother because she doesn’t help out with our expenses by sending a check (or marked bills) every month.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Here is my bill- It’s not about men, it’s not about woman,it’s about whats fair for the children. lets not forget that.
FAISER- fathers and innocent spouses for equality/relief
A bill to reform the child support system nationwide
1. To be allowed the freedom and respect of choice as does any other American citizen and be able to have consideration for the fathers debts and living expenses. Such as home ownership, food and clothing. Even just the basics of normal life.
2. When the children reach 18 the child support payments stop and each child (ren) upon reaching 18 the amounts start to go down according to how many children are being supported. For example if a father is paying $500.00 a month for four children when one child reaches 18 the amount is reduced by $125. And so on.
3. To have our after taxes take home pay be considered as part of the basis for support, not before.
4. To have the state give vouchers to the custodial parent that can be used towards a part of the childrens needs (food, shelter, clothing, educational materials) when a payment is received from the obligor. That way the funds don’t go to the bar down the street.
5. Make it a crime for ANY state/federal worker to change figures that a parent fills out on any paperwork. Making them accountable for their unsavory and unfair practices. Have a independent company do random audits on Support enforcement to verify that they are complying.
6. For those people that are making an effort to pay the support on their own- STOP GARNISHMENT, LIENS
This comment was written by innocentspousepayingforit.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Oh, looks like somebody’s been caught.
I just love these FRAs, trying to screw their kids over and call it ‘concern.’
Taking after tax wages as the basic figure? God, how cheap can you get? These are YOUR KIDS. You are trying to get away with screwing YOUR KIDS.
Boy, these guys really don’t care who they have to hurt to get back at the wife, do they?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
David:
Money is fungible, David; the CS is deposited into the same account that all the other money goes to. There’s no way of keeping track of which dollar is spent where.
There are, however, laws that require mom (or dad, if the custodial parent is a father) to spend money - regardless of if it came from CS or not - on feeding, housing and clothing the children. Failing to feed, house and/or clothe children is called “neglect,” and it’s a serious crime in many states.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Innocentspousepayingforit (couldn’t you choose an easier name to type?) -
Why not call for child support payments to be tax deductible? It seems to me that would help out non-custodial parents without hurting kids or custodial parents. I’d have no problem supporting that - child support should be tax deductible (for the same reason that dependents are).
Regarding #2, you seem to be assuming that there are no benefits of scale to having multiple children. That assumption seems unlikely to be true.
Regarding #3, are you suggesting that judges are currently unaware of the fact that take-home income is smaller than pre-tax income? It seems to me that judges would just react to this policy by raising the proportion of CS-to-income so that the overall payments would remain the same.
Regarding #4, you’re proposing creating a new government bureaucracy (51 of them, actually) in order to solve a problem that you haven’t even proved exists. If a custodial parent is neglecting the child or children, then the laws against child neglect should apply. Why do we need new special laws, when the laws against neglect already exist?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
>>Shame on you, David. Once a child is abandoned, it’s abandoned and the reason this law exists is to make sure that children don’t end up DEAD. DEAD, DAVID. While I cannot say for sure, I’m pretty darn sure (and will be looking it up when I have the chance) that safe-haven abandonment is not gender specific. The law is about the children, not about the parents and you should know better than to mix this law with child support. Makes me sick to think you’d combine the two as a related issue. >>
Nope, not gender-specific. It doesn’t necessarily relieve the abandoning parent of all legal responsibility for the child, either–it simply decriminalizes the act of abandonment. And, like you said, it makes it possible for parents, primarily women, to leave babies in hospitals.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Plus, having to earmark the dollars seems like it’s an awful waste of time and money.
For instance, if a custodial parent drives a kid to school, does that parent get to call some gas and part of the insurance as for the child’s wellbeing and get to use child support money on that? Cable? Phone? Heat? Rent? Where’s it “for the child” and then “for the mom?”
If you feel your kid is neglected, then you should call the state and call for negligence. If you feel that your ex has it too nice, then you’re being an asshat.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Thanks Ampersand, for having the courtesy to admit you are not aware of any law that requires “child” support to be spent on children. I am not aware of one either.
It seems to me that if NCPs are going to be sent to jail for being behind in their support it is reasonable to require that children are indeed the beneficiaries of such harsh enforcement policies. Vouchers, or individual CS “debit cards” are two ideas that deserve some consideration. This would be especially true if there were a pool of “unused” support that could go to those getting very small amounts (ie, those with $10,000 monthly awards subsidizing those with $100). (Wow - a father and a socialist too. What next - voting for Kucinich?)
I don’t really want to get into the AMOUNT of support debate as that is a different politcal scheme. But I agree with Ampersand that CS should be tax deductible by the payor. It would reflect the economic reality for those that do pay of being income upon which the payor pays “income” tax but which he/she never realizes as “income.” It may also provide a mild incentive to someone to pay that may otherwise not.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
>>I don’t really want to get into the AMOUNT of support debate as that is a different politcal scheme. But I agree with Ampersand that CS should be tax deductible by the payor. It would reflect the economic reality for those that do pay of being income upon which the payor pays “income”? tax but which he/she never realizes as “income.”? It may also provide a mild incentive to someone to pay that may otherwise not.>>
Uh, actually, you do realize it as income. It’s money that you make that you get to spend taking care of your kids. Custodial parents don’t get to deduct child-related expenses (admittedly, it’d be pretty sweet for my family if they did). A custodial mother wouldn’t get to deduct the amount of money she is most definitely contributing to the child’s upkeep. This kind of double standard would likely create a really poisonous sense of entitlement–the idea that child-rearing and its related costs are something that non-custodial parents don’t have to take equal financial responsibility for.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
What, specifically, could your proposed CS debit card be used to pay for? Rent/mortgage? Grocery bills? Utilities? Auto (purchases & insurance)? Gifts? Dining? How would you determine what percentage of each that you say yes to could be paid by the CS debit card? What sort of beaurocracy will be needed to oversee this & enforce this? How much will that cost in terms of percentage of CS?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
David, if she’s making the kids sleep outside naked and scrounge for food, as she would be doing to refrain from spending money on the children, then you can be assured the law will take the kids from her. And even then, the child support is going to the rent/mortgage on the yard for them to sleep naked in. Sorry, you’re justifications for getting control over how your ex spends her money aren’t flying with me.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
I’m amused once more at the protests that withholding child support is “for the children” somehow, since FRAs are doing what they do “for the children”. Pathetic. Nickel and dime and obsess to make sure your ex doesn’t have a minute’s peace, huh, all “for the children” as well?
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Ampersand- Yes in fact that is # 7 that didn’t seem to post. The rest of it is as follows-
7. To be able to claim equal amounts of the child(ren) on their taxes. It’s unfair that only the custodial parent can claim them while the other is paying for them too.
I had a lengthly post which the web site didn’t post. But it’s mainly about how you shouldn’t judge people. My husband is very loving and caring to his children and when he was out of work and couldn’t pay he still brought them food from our own freezer and wood for their wood stove. If all you can do is put people down I dont’ see how you can get anywhere productive in life or society as a whole.
This comment was written by Innocent spouse.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Nuh uh.
I knew this one guy in college whose ex-wife forced the children to scrounge for sheet metal in junkyards while she invited every male attorney in her practice group over for caviar and champagne parties! And she beat them when they begged for nutritious food! And then! When the littlest one developed lockjaw, she spent the money for the doctor on shoes! Shoes for herself! And his lawyer said that he had no legal recourse at all! And he didn’t! Because I can use google to search the WorldNet archives, even though I think “LexisNexis” is a cell phone company!
Shorter me: What Amanda said. Neglect isn’t any more legal when it involves care than when it involves money.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
C’mon piny, Support paid is not income realized to the payor. If you don’t understand elementary economics, rudimentary accounting definintions, or the instruction to your 1040EZ, I can’t make it any more clear for you. Of course you fail to explain why the current double standard of the NCP paying the income tax on money that the CP receives as tax-free income doesn’t “create a really poisonous sense of entitlement…”
Jake: There are several more legitimate questions with such an arrangement as well as with vouchers. Since this is an idea open for discussion please feel free to contribute your answers to your questions. A few things are certain, it could not be used for cigarettes, liquor, pedicures, dog grooming, casinos, pedicures, pleasure boats and luxury automobiles, ‘adult’ entertainment or cosmetic breast enhancement surgery. Perhaps expenditures forbidden as well would be your ex-spouse attorney, the fine for a DUI conviction, gemstone jewelry, and perhaps a few more items from the absolutely unlimited things support can now be used for. I think you get the idea that it would be limited to relevant basic expenditures.
What is the current cost of the CS bureaucracy? Why is the cost important to you?
income The receiving parent is already in conflict with your Under your scenario the receiving parent would have taxable income for CS received.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Amanda,
Little I say is going to “fly with you.” I think we can agree on that. “George Wallaces of the South” indeed
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
You guys would be miserable with “debit” cards since once they were implemented, you’d find they don’t give you the control you wanted.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
Amanda,
I have been looking for that offering. I know so many people who could use it. Seems to me that no intelligently person can catagorize the feelings of any father, mother or child/children in any family based upon the beliefs of the person doing the catagorizing. There are women who physically abuse men, there are men who do the same to women. There are dads and moms who do support their children and provide them the same lifestyle they had before the family ripped apart, then there are moms and dads who don’t. Not one case is the same and NOBODY can say that women are worse than men or men are worse than women. The laws must be fair, and unbiased based on every human being no matter what your gender is. How can anyone want less for humanity.
This comment was written by TJ.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Respectfully responding to Amanda when she says she offers men something, patiently waiting for that offering to be defined, giving polite, gentle reminders, and speaking in gender neutral and reasonable terms apparently can only mean one thing to Amanda: All men want is control.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Exactly how is making your ex tell you exactly what he/she is using the money for anything BUT control?
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
But I agree with Ampersand that CS should be tax deductible by the payor.
Really? I’m filing for divorce the minute that happens. I like the idea that my children’s normal, everyday expenses could be tax-deductible, if my partner and I were no longer legally married.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Tax deductibility is a regressive way of helping non-custodial parents with child support. For parents making $22,000 who are struggling with child support payments, the deduction pays for 15% of child support expenses. For parents making $330,000, the deduction pays for 35% of child support expenses.
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
“Really? I’m filing for divorce the minute that happens. I like the idea that my children’s normal, everyday expenses could be tax-deductible, if my partner and I were no longer legally married.”
LOL
Yeah, I can’t see a policy like that doing much to lower the divorce rate.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Still patiently waiting for an answer on the CS debit card idea of David’s. Or are you not serious about it?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
You assume that fathers only want “control,” then you wonder why you are accused of misandry? Why do you think fathers are motivated by a desire for control? Don’t you think that perhaps, just maybe, some of them are simply looking for fairness?
So, if you donated money to say… a charity, and you wanted to make sure the charity actually spent the money on the cause it was upholding, then would you be trying to “control” the charity?
If you pay taxes, would you be trying to “control” the government if you wanted to make sure the money goes to the programs it’s supposed to instead of into the pockets of bureaucrats?
If you must pay money that is supposed to go towards X, then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to make sure your money actually goes towards X. Is wanting accountability really just about control?
Last time I checked, child support wasn’t supposed to be alimony. Some feminist posters have suggested that if a mother really spent the child support on herself and neglected the child, then she would incur charges of neglect. But couldn’t a mother spend just barely enough of the child support on a child to take care of its basic needs, then spend the rest on herself? I don’t know what amount of custodial mothers actually would do such a thing, but under the current system there is nothing stopping them from doing it if I understand things correctly. Hence, the system is objectively unfair, even if only a small amount of custodial parents exploit that unfairness.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
I think payment vouchers are a better idea. My husbands ex is an alcholic who spends it at the bar. “now how is that fair to the children?”
This comment was written by Innocent spouse.I spoke to DSHS about it and they said basically it was her choice as to what to spend it with. EXCUSE ME!!! It’s supposed to be for the kids. This just makes me so very angry how the rules are sided.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
“But couldn’t a mother spend just barely enough of the child support on a child to take care of its basic needs, then spend the rest on herself?”
And the non-custodial parent gets to decide what the “bare minimum” would be ? Even if said parent hadn’t really done the bulk of the child-rearing in the marriage ?
Gevalt.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
“EXCUSE ME!!! It’s supposed to be for the kids. This just makes me so very angry how the rules are sided. ”
Custodial parents are also * quite* capable of pissing away their money on drink, gambling etc when it should eb spent on the kids.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
I never suggested that non-custodial parents should decide any such thing. Why are you making such ridiculous assumptions?
So they should be able to waste child support payments also?
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Then who should decide, Aegis ? I’m sure you’re dying to tell us. [rolleyes]
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
I apologise for my lack of clarity. When I said “custodial parents”, I was actually referring to parents in “intact”, non-divorced families, not custodial post-divorce parents. And with my own extended family history in mind, I was thinking specifically of feckless alcoholic fathers who shirked obligations while still married.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Oh please Aegis. (rolling eyes).Grow up or Wake up!!!!. Actually I think it’s a good idea for the custodial parent to pick from a list of the childrens needs then when the funds are received to the state vouchers are sent out for that need.
This comment was written by Innocent spouse.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
So, if you donated money to say… a charity, and you wanted to make sure the charity actually spent the money on the cause it was upholding, then would you be trying to “control”? the charity?
Aegis, supporting a child is not a charity. Not supporting your child is called neglect. This connotation is absolutely immature and inaccurate.
Every child incurs expenses. I have one, with one on the way.
Parents attempting to make custodial parents justify every dime that they spend without legitimately suspecting (and in that case presumably as it is their responsibility reporting) child neglect are simply being assholes.
The expenses of having a child living with you are not negligible, and a few hundred dollars a month out of pocket is not unreasonable to expect of non-custodial parents.
What are they helping to pay for?
Food, childcare, clothing, bills in general. Should custodial parents have to write down how many loads of childrens laundry they do to justify part of the money going to the water bill? Should how much time a child spends in a lighted room or in a heated house, or using an electric source be listed for the perusal and judgement of the non-custodial parent? Should every mile driven on the car that is either driving a child somewhere or driving to get a child from somewhere be written down for the non-custodial parent? Should that run to the market to pick up a bottle of bactine because they scraped their knee and you didn’t realise you were out be kept in receipt to be shown to non-custodial parent? Should that trip to the swimming pool with their friends and the snacks they have be listed? How about the new sippy cups? The wipies, the diapers, the soap, the bandaids? Should a non-custodial parent get to come in once a month and take inventory and be provided with receipts? What about that oil change for the car? Sure the kid didn’t need it, but the car did, and not getting it causes what to happen? OHHHH that’s right! The engine head could crack causing you to pay hundreds of dollars in repairs.
And what nerve of the custodial parent that they should happen to want to go out for free time on occassion, right? That they might wish to spend money on -anything- other than the child, because not only the child support, but the money they have outside 0f the child support should be justified, else why would they need child support, right?
And this isn’t about control? Give me a fucking break.
The numbers aren’t arbitrary, and the court decides how much is needed to help support that child.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
I really haven’t followed FRA very closely, so I didn’t have a very strong opinion. I’m going to assume those posting here from that side are among the best spoken advocates of that position. I’ve gotta say, it looks like it’s all about control.
David has written:
“.A few things are certain, it could not be used for cigarettes, liquor, pedicures, dog grooming, casinos, pedicures, pleasure boats and luxury automobiles, ‘adult’ entertainment or cosmetic breast enhancement surgery.”
And how do you determine that it is child support money going for these items and not custodial parent money gotten from other sources? And you’re not going to let your kids get their dog groomed? How do you expect me to believe that you are looking out for the best interests of your children when you spout stuff like that? How do you determine (and who determines) what is a luxury car & what is not? What is more important to you, how well your ex-wife lives or how well your kids live? From what you have written it seems that the most important thing on the FRA agenda is to make sure that the ex doesn’t live too well. And that is why it seems to me that people are right when they say that this is all about control.
Oh, and you look like fools when you complain that feminists (and you might look up the definition of the word and its roots) aren’t working to make things better for men.
I have a complaint. Why don’t FRAs work to make things better for women?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
Kim (b.v.) and others really covered most of what I wanted to say, but I’ll add a little bit anyway.
In 2002, the median non-custodial father who paid child support, paid $300 a month (pdf file - see page 6). $300 a month doesn’t seem to me like an awe-inspiring amount of money for a typical non-custodial parent to pay.
More importantly, $300 a month - which is the typical amount custodial mothers receive in child support - is not an amount of money that needs to be accounted for; it’s safe to assume that, except in cases of extreme neglect, the child’s share of food, housing, utilities, car, and all those other things Kim (bv) mentioned add up to well over $300.
* * *
It costs taxpayer money to run things like voucher programs - more than it costs to simply write a check. If that money were being spent on something needed and worthwhile, then maybe I’d favor it. But considering that the typical non-resident father’s child support payment is only $300, I’m simply not convinced that there’s any real problem here to solve. The average custodial parent is spending well over $300 on the kid.
That leaves the problem of neglectful parents, of course. But if the parent really is neglecting her child, then why can’t we just use the laws against neglect to address this problem?
* * *
By the way, this State of Oregon report (pdf file) and this somewhat older paper both contain interesting facts about how much it costs to rear a child in the USA.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Last time I checked, child support wasn’t supposed to be alimony
When did you last check? Seriously?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Good lord. $300 a month???
My wife gets $1400 from her ex, for two kids. It seems like a reasonable amount; it covers their incidentals and makes up for the difference in the housing and transportation we need for a family of five vs. a family of three.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
[AAAARRGH!
I just accidentally wiped out the rest of David's post!
David, I swear, it wasn't intentional; I just screwed up. I was replying to your post, but I accidentally did it in the field where your post was, rather than in the "new post" field. If you have a copy of your post, email it to me, and I'll put it back up here.
I sincerely apologize for my mistake.
--Amp]
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
As an incidental;
I’m writing from Michigan currently, my husband, daughter and I visiting my folks for the week. You’d think a vacation (especially with grandparents involved) would not be that big of a money sink, right? Let me break it down for you:
Grandma went and bought bubbles for Syd today, and some other toys and fun stuff. Awesome - Yay grandma, that’s what grandparents do.
Husband and I bought (unexpected cost as discussed prior):
- Baby wash - Grandma had bought shampoo but didn’t get any soap.
- Electrical outlet covers (baby-proofing)
- Cupboard bungie things that keep the cabinets inaccessible to curious toddlers.
- Infant sudafed for her ears to avoid having an ear issue like we did last time we came (which last visit cost us an unexpected 137.00 for additional non-covered insurance costs at the emergency room + several types of baby meds).
Today’s total for such expenses:
- 3.00 for the cupboard latch things, 3 packages of 2 (9.00 total).
- 2.00 for the electrical outlet shields.
- 2.00 for the baby body wash.
- 4.50 for the baby sudafed.
Grand Total: $17.50 on child.
Point: These sorts of expenses are incurred daily, and anyone needing a blow-by-blow nickel and dime breakdown of such expenses is not being ‘reasonable’, they are being controlling.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 12:34 am
David (and others)
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Did you not notice that Amanda is herself a child of divorce? And one who seems to have a pretty good relationship with her Dad. But oh no, she’s a woman so she couldn’t possibly know anything about the subject right?
Do any of you people actually listen to what the rest of us are saying?
Amanda, you’re a brave woman. You’ll probably be wading through hate mail for weeks.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 12:46 am
Celia said
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.“For the most part, males of all ages have been relegated to second-class citizens who no longer have even basic civil rights. ”
Celia darling, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but men hold 90%+ of the senior positions in government, in industry, in finance…you know, the places where the real power is.
If that’s what constitutes a second class citizen with no civil rights then I will happily agree to swop places with them. I suspect that I wouldn’t be the only one.
Oh, and before you start accusing me of hating fathers, I adore my Dad and, at 31, still talk to him on a regular basis and still tell him I love him each and every time. As he tells me the same thing. This really isn’t about hating fathers, honestly.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 1:13 am
Amanda
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.“David, if she’s making the kids sleep outside naked and scrounge for food, as she would be doing to refrain from spending money on the children, then you can be assured the law will take the kids from her. And even then, the child support is going to the rent/mortgage on the yard for them to sleep naked in. Sorry, you’re justifications for getting control over how your ex spends her money aren’t flying with me. ”
Actually, I think what they were hoping for is that the kids would be sleeping indoors in their warm beds and that Mom would be outside sleeping naked on the lawn. Oh, and she can use the car to drive the kids to school but she has to walk home. And she can buy enough food to make dinner for the kids but she doesn’t get to eat any of it. The neighbors might find it all a bit wierd and the kids might be bullied at school because of the emaciated, naked, generally pathetic Mom who picks them up from school (for which the ex has generously decreed that she may use the car that she left parked outside the school in the morning so that she would be sure not to spend the gas money during the day while the kids weren’t with her) but hey, at least the ex wouldn’t be spending any of HIS money on herself, right?
Does that just about sum up the situation that our FRA friends had in mind? Classy, guys, very classy.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 1:14 am
David:
Regarding whether or not Jake has offered suggestions. It’s not Jake’s job to make your policy suggestion work, any more than it’s your job to make feminist policies work. Since Jake is arguing (if I understood him correctly) that the status quo is better than your suggestion, he doesn’t have to find a way to make your suggestion work, or suggest an alternative. You suggested the policy; logically, it’s up to you to refine and defend it, not Jake.
Speaking for myself, this whole “debit card” notion still looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. Since the typical monthly payment made by a nonresident father is around $300, it seems to me that we can safely assume that, apart from cases of extreme neglect, that the typical single-mother household is spending an amount on her child(ren) that’s larger than the typical child support award.
You’re also underestimating the difficulties of this debit card. How would what the debit card is used for be policed? If it’s after-the-fact, then someone needs to be paid to go over the debit card records every month and make sure it was only used for “approved” expenses. If it’s going to be policed “live” - that is, if the debit card will only be accepted and usable when it’s spent on the “right” thing - then you’re talking about a pretty huge bureocracy. Not only supermarkets, but banks, lenders, utility companies, schools, gas stations, doctors, bookstores, clothes stores, landlords, etc.., will all have to be convinced or induced to accept the debit card, and schooled in how to use it.
Have you ever been waiting in line in the grocery behind someone using TANF to buy groceries? I have, and sorting what is and isn’t allowed is a long and complex process,which majorly slows down service for everyone. Do we really want to export and expand that problem to every industry that a parent might have a legitimate expense in? In order to solve a problem that doesn’t appear to exist in any widespread fashion? It doesn’t seem worth it.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 3:23 am
This really isn’t about hating fathers, honestly.
It isn’t about reality, either. They think that all feminists hate men and that men are the most abused creatures on the planet. This is quite the trick, considering the fact that they hold all the power. Explain that to me again?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 3:31 am
There goes Aegis again, telling us what’s really going on in the world because it’s only stuff that he sees that exists. And there’s absoluting nothing wrong with being lectured by a nineteen-year-old.
David, this statement: A few things are certain, it could not be used for cigarettes, liquor, pedicures, dog grooming, casinos, pedicures, pleasure boats and luxury automobiles, ‘adult’ entertainment or cosmetic breast enhancement surgery.”?
…couldn’t be more sexist.
Yep, she’s vain, shallow, alcoholic, promiscuous, and loves her pets more than her kids.
I can’t imagine why guys who think stuff like this about women get divorced. I’m shocked, shocked that a woman wouldn’t want to raise kids with someone whose attitude toward her is so clearly liberated and inspiring.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 4:53 am
But he wants polite control over how his ex spends hers money. Well, right up until the inevitable item on the list that he doesn’t want her to have.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 5:17 am
Is that kind of like wanting to control a woman’s reaction to his demand for a kiss?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 5:44 am
It’s obviously imposible to reason with some of you here. “Did I say those kinds of things would not be allowed, Or even a car repair not allowed?”
This comment was written by Innocent spouse.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 6:28 am
Point is, innocent spouse—someone’s not protesting too much, are they?—-that you or your hubbie want to be the one doing the controlling.
Can’t imagine why that’s not an attractive habit in a husband. I also can’t imagine why a woman looking at a guy acting like this wouldn’t wonder, “What if he divorces me?”
If your husband’s ex is truly spending all her time in a bar, why, exactly, hasn’t the hubbie gone to court about it? Oh, wait, lemme guess. It’s because the courts are so biased against men, even though most of the judges are men, and conservative men at that.
I wonder if anybody’s done a study of the divorce rate in second marriages in the FRA crowd.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 7:04 am
I think we’re arguing apples and oranges again. Yes, there are irresponsible CPs who spend their money unwisely. Yes, there are extremely responsible CPs who are doing the best they can in a difficult situation. But also yes, there are responsible NCPs who are doing the best they can in a difficult situation and irresponsible NCPs who spend their money unwisely. One-size-fits-all solutions aren’t going to help when a responsible NCP is paired with an irresponsible CP, and vice versa.
But except in certain very limited ways, we can’t force people to be responsible adults. And we also to have to allow for some fun - the last time I looked, the “pursuit of happiness” was allowed for everyone, not just for people who aren’t in a divorced-with-children arrangements! As an exercise in U.S. government class once, we were given a typical welfare check and a typical TANF voucher packet and asked to budget for a family of four (one parent, three kids). What could we buy with this? It was amazing how punitive we were. If I remember correctly, our theoretical family could have a card table and folding chairs, three sets of clothing each, one place setting of dishes each, and so on. They were eating the absolute cheapest cuts of meat available, the almost-spoiled vegetables and fruit, bulk oatmeal, generic everything else. We got into arguments about whether or not they could have ice cream or animal crackers. The whole mind-set was that they didn’t deserve anything frivilous, ever, because they were using OUR tax dollars to live on. I think that’s pretty controlling, and I think most efforts for NCPs to demand an accounting for the child support payments come out of the same mindset.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 8:54 am
I give up on the offering. There is no such thing obviously!
This comment was written by TJ.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Demanding that your opponent in a debate come up with the details of the policy that you propose is a time-honored tactic of those who have no facts to back up their opinions & views of how things should be. All you need to do is wait for your opponent to ask for details of your vague policy & then you’re set.
David, the reason I ask about the cost of your CSDebitCard ™ program is because I want to know how it will be paid for. Will there be a surcharge added to all CS payments by NC parents? If there is a surcharge on CS payments, the cost as a percentage of CS becomes very, very important to you I would think. Or will it come out of the general budget so that I have to pay for you to have that much more control over your ex? Will this be a federal program? Or just a federally mandated program for which each state must pay?
The statements of you and other FRAs here makes me think that I care more about your kids than you do. I pay my taxes that provide things like public schools for your kids without complaining about my lack of control of how that money is spent. You, on the other hand, seem to be more concerned that the ex doesn’t have to consult you on how every penny is spent. Are your kids healthy, loved & well cared for? If so, I don’t understand what the problem is.
You’ve got nerve to get all pissy when somebody questions you about the feasability of a proposal that you made.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Squid
I had a lengthy post that, according to Amp, was inadvertently was deleted.
David writes: A few things are certain, it could not be used for cigarettes, liquor, pedicures, dog grooming, casinos, pedicures, pleasure boats and luxury automobiles, ‘adult’ entertainment or cosmetic breast enhancement surgery.”?
Look, the above are obvious choices for exclusion in a debit card program and would be incorporated into administrative rules. The card user is the only one who knows what is purchased so your control premise is invalid. I sincerly doubt that you think child support money should be for used cigarettes, liquor, porn, gambling, yachts, BMW SUVs, and new cosmetic boobs for mom but if you do, then you are exactly the kind of moron that justifies such a system.
And as for your comments about the posts you’ve read here being the best FRAs have to offer, they are appropriate coming from someone who thinks they are clever by sugesting there is a link between the mistreatment of children and taking Rover to the day spa… Stop embarrassing yourself.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 9:45 am
I didn’t say anything about controlling my husbands ex. Nor does he. And where do you get off judging and picking apart every little thing I say?. I just want the money to go towards the kids. And no I don’t mean getting an itemized list of whatever. It would be casual like a check to walmart for school supplies. Assumption makes an ASS out of you. This is only a first start with this bill. I’ve sent it to senators and legislators that deal with these kinds of things to smooth out the details to make it FAIR FOR EVERYBODY. Our first amendment rights are being violated. and if you must know ginmar he did try to get his youngest to come live him to get her out of the situation and she refuses because all her cheerleading group is in the town where her mom lives. She doesn’t want to leave it. We live in another state. “Why don’t you try asking questions instead of going on ASSumptions?”
This comment was written by Innocent spouse.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 9:57 am
“And where do you get off judging and picking apart every little thing I say?”
Did someone force you to come here ? And aren’t you arguing for your own right to judge and pick apart someone else’s life ?
Want some cheese with your whine ?
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:05 am
Speaking of ASSumptions, innocent spouse, why do you assume that your husband’s ex isn’t using child support on the kids? Are they without clothes? Without food? Without school supplies? No toys? No bicycles? No extracurricular activities? Is the electricity or gas service to the house shut off on a regular basis? Because it seems to me that you want me to assume that the child support money is funding her drinking habits, rather than her own employment. Obviously, she must be spending some money on her children if her daughter is in cheerleading.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Yes I am arguing for my rights. I don’t think I was addressing you alsis.????
This comment was written by Innocent spouse.I’m just getting frustrated with a system that doesn’t care about the NCP rights or the rights of the children. I tell them his ex drinks their response “We don’t care what she spends it with”. WELL I DO!!!!. It’s supposed to go to the children. I think with the rise of drugs/alchohol in our society this is what we are headed for. I’ll ask a question. “Is it fair to be living in a motor park home in an RV with my husband because DSHS takes half of his pay because that is all we can afford to live in, While his ex lives in a mansion of a house and goes off to Hawaii with the kids for vacation?”
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:13 am
‘Is it fair to be living in a motor park home in an RV with my husband because DSHS takes half of his pay’
Well this would certainly be considered fair if they were together - why does the geographical location of your husband make this not fair? Do chi9ldren cost less when he is not around?
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:21 am
“…I don’t think I was addressing you, alsis…”
Oh, silly me. This being a board accessable to most anyone, I had this dopey idea that anyone could jump into a conversation even without express permission from you. You want a private conversation with no risk of input from the unwashed ? Try email. You want to rant with no one contradicting your POV ? Try a board that specializes in rants. Or start one.
I’m sorry if you feel that your spouses former wife is getting away with something that she shouldn’t, but I have the distinct feeling that if she were here, her story would be pretty different than yours. So excuse me for not taking your every word as gospel. Yeesh.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Actually his ex did ask us for $$$ for her cheerleading right after making a support payment, if you must know. We have proof that she is drinking it (oldest son told us). the oldest son is very close to his dad. There were times when she would call my husband and tell him “they are going to shutt off the electricity” in order to get more $. The point being about the RV park. We have a right as does any other american to live in a home that is of our choosing. “Would you want to have to live like that?”
This comment was written by Innocent spouse.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:24 am
Wait a second…. I think that innocentspouse is advocating for a communist society. Look, in our country, it is perfectly fair (under our economic & social rules) for one person to live in a mansion while another lives in a motor home park. If you tell me what part of the country you are in, I’ll point you to your local socialist party.
Here is the problem w/ the FRA folks, from my point of view. You either don’t trust the ex-spouse to take reasonable care of the kids (But you haven’t stated that the kids are hungry or sick or ill-cared for in any way. In fact, innocentspouse states that her husbands child wishes to stay with her mom. That points in the direction of satisfactory care.) Or you want the ex-spouse to have as little as you can force on them.
Here’s the thing. The custodial parent gets to decide how the money is spent. That is both the responsibility & privilege of being the custodial spouse. You don’t like it? Get joint custody or become the custodial spouse. If you can’t get that, be a parent and make sure that your kids needs are met - even if your only input is financial.
Oh, also, you are addressing everybody who is reading this thread.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:26 am
Duh….. replace “spouse” w/ “parent” after those “custodial” mistakes of mine.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:45 am
(rolling eyes), Oh please. I do not want a communistic society. I want OUR freedoms to be able to do things in life. We can’t even afford to go out for a movie. I want to wake up in the morning and be able to go shopping for new jeans that I so desperatly need. I wanted to be able to have children with my husband. Alas I would need medical intervention and cannot afford it. This just forces my husband to have to work under the table just so we can live. I’m not whining. I just want to have the same freedoms everybody else enjoys.
This comment was written by Innocent spouse.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:54 am
Speaking of communists, why am I being censored?
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:56 am
O.K. Thanks…
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:58 am
“We have proof she is drinking it (oldest son told us).”
So….she has no job, no inheritance, no source of income other than child support? Color me skeptical. I suppose it is possible, if your husband is an extraordinarily wealthy man, but then, you probably wouldn’t be living in a trailer park, would you?
I mean, it just doesn’t add up. I live in a city that has just about the most affordable housing in the nation for a city of its size (and has had for many years), and still it costs over $300 a month to live in a trailer park, and anywhere from between $1200-$1500 a month (not including property taxes!) to live in a well-tricked out 3-4 bedroom suburban home. This difference in cost would be even more magnified if it was a real “mansion”, or if we were talking about an area of the country with higher housing costs.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:00 am
In other words, you’re pissed off that she’s better off than you both are and think that because she is, you should not have to contribute to the children’s support.
Sounds pretty shady to me.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:04 am
David: There are a lot of reasons your post could be put into moderation. It could be that you used a word or character sequence that the computer thinks is associated with spammers. It could be that you changed some detail of your email address field, making it think that you’re a new poster (new posters need their first posts approved by a moderator).
As long as you can see your post and it says that it’s awaiting moderation, you haven’t been censored; it’s just that P-A and I don’t spend every minute of every hour online moderating “Alas.” If we decide not to allow your post through, the post will disappear entirely, rather than being marked “waiting for moderation.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:04 am
innocent spouse escrits: “Oh please. I do not want a communistic society. I want OUR freedoms to be able to do things in life.”
So, you don’t want EVERYBODY to have the freedom to live well. Just you. Thanks for the flat out statement that it is all about you and that the kids don’t mean shit. Color me unsympathetic.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:05 am
“I just want to have the same freedoms everybody else enjoys.”
Here’s a newsflash for you, “innocent”: Even a lot of Americans who are childfree by choice are in the same boat as you are. Which means that it’s possible that there are other economic factors involved in your predicament than an irresponsible first wife who allegedly hits the sauce too much. Before you set her up as sole fall gal for your troubles, you might want to consider that.
BTW, you admit that your husband’s son doesn’t care for his mother, and that your knowledge of her supposed alcoholism comes mostly from him. Do you really think that by itself should be gospel proof to a bystander, much less a judge or juror ?
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Oh Alisis, how could you imply such a thing! It is unheard of that a teenager would not get along with their custodial parent and attempt to use things they know are irritants as leverage points with the non-custodial parents to manipulate a situation. Such a thing could never, and would never happen!
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:20 am
Well, Kim, drawing on my own experience as a child of an “unbroken” home, I’m not even sure that dynamic is limited to children of divorce. Ahem. :o But, of course, only my siblings tried to play Mom and Dad off each other. *I* was a perfect angel.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:21 am
Squid says: “Here’s the thing. The custodial parent gets to decide how the money is spent.”
That’s right, Squid, the CP can decide to buy groceries or gamble the money away at the track. Do you get it???? That’s what you choose to defend??? So much for your “best interests of the child” arguments.
Of course, suggesting that this might not be the best use of support money, in your view, makes one a communist, in ill-informed FRA, a controlling NCP, a vindictive ex-spous. etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.
All this AND pearls of wisdom on the art of “debate” from you…
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:29 am
I find it very telling that it “she”, the ex-wife, is the one who is living too luxoriously. Not a single note about the fact that the children are living in an equal level of luxory.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:30 am
Oh, and by the by David, “Communist” and “socialist” aren’t insults on this board :)
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Innocent spouse, are the children fed? Do they have clothing? Schoolbooks? Is there heat in their home? If they have all these things, then clearly some money is being spent on them, and it isn’t all going to drink.
On the other hand, if they don’t have all these things, I don’t understand why you haven’t reported her for child neglect.
That said, I do have sympathy for your situation. It sucks that you don’t have money for basics like clothing and (especially) medical care. And it’s true that having to pay child support when you’re poor sucks.
What state do you live in? Did the judge follow the state’s child support guidelines when deciding on your husband’s child support, or did the judge bump up from the standard guidelines for some reason?
Keep in mind, lots of people who don’t have to pay child support also have trouble affording basics. We need universal health care for everyone, not just people who pay child support.
* * *
Also, the point someone (maybe Innocent Spouse) made before about after-tax versus pre-tax income for calculating child support makes more sense than I had previously thought, at least in Oregon.
In Oregon, the court adds up the incomes of both parents and calls that the total income size. Then, based on how many kids are in the household, the court says “in a typical household with X kids, % of total household income goes to child rearing.”
So let’s say there’s one kid; Dad makes $30,000 a year, Mom makes $20,000 a year; and the judge says for a household like theirs, it’s typical to spend 40% - in this case, $20,000 - on the kids. Mom has custody. Of the $50,000 total income in this family, 60% is earned by Dad. So the court orders Dad to pay child support of $12,000 a year (or $1000 a month) - that is, 60% of $20,000.
That leaves Dad with $18,000 a year to live on, and Mom & kid with $32,000 a year to live on. That may seem harsh, but it’s not unfair; the purpose is not to keep Mom and Dad even; the purpose is to give the child an approximation of the economic opportunities she would have had if her parents hadn’t divorced.
But now imagine that Dad is paying 25% of his income in taxes, and Mom (who gets to claim the kid as a dependent, and maybe even to benefit from EITC) pays 10%. That means the post-tax income for Dad is $22,500, of which $12,000 goes to Mom, leaving Dad with $9,500 to live on for a year. Meanwhile, Mom and kid (whose post-tax income is $18,000) have $30,000 to live on for a year.
If the original idea behind Oregon’s formula - that each parent should pay a proportion of child rearing expenses proportional to their income - is fair, then the situation I’ve described is unfair; what’s being spent is disproportionate to actual income. Calculating CS based on post-tax income might be more fair, because it would be based on how much income the parties actually have, rather than on a theoretical gross income.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:39 am
innocent spouse,
Since you’ve chosen to share some details of your personal life, I hope you don’t mind if I ask some personal questions you can feel free to ignore. What I am most curious about is whether you knew the financial situation when you married the guy. Presumably he was paying child support when you got involved, right? Did you just assume that would go away? Or was your husband not entirely honest about the situation? My husband was not totally honest about his debt situation when we got married (he was under the delusion that he could pay off the debt before I found out about it), so I know it happens with the best of them.
I am also reeling a bit at the idea that the ex-wife is living in a mansion and taking vacations to Hawaii on hubby’s cash while the ex-husband is living in an RV park. I’ve never seen that happen in real life, and the only time I’ve ever heard of it was with an FRA who freely admits he deliberately quit his job and now works for cash only in order to avoid making his child payments. Why would the courts order a man to support his wife in a mansion when he can barely make ends meet, even when you say he is taking payment under the table (meaning his child support is based on a lower income than he actually has, plus he isn’t paying taxes or SS on some percentage of his income)? For that matter, if he made enough to afford the mansion in the first place, why is he living in an RV? What happened to the job that presumably supported that lifestyle? It all seems very odd to me.
Finally, I wonder if you’re aware that living in an RV court can be a rather pricey approach to life. Since your husband is not opposed to moving away from his kids, you might do better moving to a small town in the midwest and buying a house. Plenty of RVs cost more than my house did (my house cost 36,000), plus you have to pay lot and hookup fees. Unless you insist on living in a fancy suburb, you can live pretty well in many midwest cities or towns on not so much. We’ve got a five bedroom, two-story house with a full basement and yard for $36,000 and a big field next door we picked up for $1,500. Plus you can generally get a longer-term loan for a house than for an RV, which means lower payments per month (and paying more money long term, of course, but OTOH you can pay over each month, and pay off the loan faster, in which case it can be a pretty good deal).
I have some sympathy for your situation, because my cousin has been paying child support on three kids for years, and their mom is a sometime drug addict and an all-around dead beat (everyone begged him not to marry her in the first place). But I don’t have a lot of sympathy for your *attitude*, because, again, my cousin has been paying child support on three kids for years, even though he is quite sure than child number three isn’t even his (her adultery was what finally convinced him to get the divorce). He could have insisted on DNA testing so he wouldn’t have to pay for child number three, but first off it wasn’t the kid’s fault his mom was an idiot, second the kid knows no dad but my cousin, and third my cousin knows that the money he gives for child number three ends up helping children numbers one and two.
He does keep a close watch on the situation (with the help of his family when he’s had jobs that involved travel) and is in frequent contact with the social worker on the case. But the thing is, he puts his kids first. I admire him for that. And I have never, ever heard him whine about his ex-wife. My aunt does, but my cousin? Never. That woman is the mother of his children, and even though the marriage didn’t work out, he’s going to do everything he can to keep the relationship cool and to keep in contact with his children.
When I compare his attitude with those of some FRAs I’ve run across on the Internet, the FRAs come off very badly. And financially? My cousin is thriving. I can’t speak as to your husband, of course, but I honestly believe that many FRAs whose situations I’ve read up on would do far better to just give up on trying to control their ex-wife and get on with their lives. All the energy they waste trying to control the ex-wife is energy they can’t use to get better jobs or otherwise improve their own situation. The bitter FRAs (and I will assume this is not every FRA) are hurting themselves as much, and I suspect sometimes even more, than they are hurting the ex-wife.
This comment was written by shiloh.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Antigone, it sounded like everyone in Innocent Spouse’s story was fighting over crumbs. That’s the really sad part. Someone else, not mentioned in the story, is getting the cake.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Innocent, are you suggesting that moving the kids in and trying to find space for them and paying for all their things will improve your financial situation?
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:48 am
If you read the way Squid used “communist” you would know it was derrogatory - and I criticized no one for being a socialist, god bless them. :)
Thank you Amp, understood. Sorry.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:51 am
Regarding the tax deduction for child support, a lot of people disagreed with me on that. I have to admit, I haven’t thought through the details of how it should be done. But it seems to me unfair that only one parent gets to claim the child (or children) as a dependent for tax purposes, when both are paying to support the child.
It’s an established part of our tax system that we try to help out parents by reducing their tax load. I can’t think of any principled reason for the tax system to help out custodial parents but not non-custodial parents (assuming the NCP is paying child support).
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 11:54 am
David, I think it’s usual on this board to refer to Jake Squid as “Jake” or perhaps “Mr. Squid,” not as “Squid.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Yes, that’s what I choose to defend. See, we have judges to decide who gets to be the CP. We trust that those judges have good judgement & that, in the vast majority of cases, they will choose the parent most likely to take the best care of the child. That is part of the basis of our system of government. Sure, a reasonable person can disagree with a judges decision - but I don’t see how your vague and undefined Debit Card program rectifies the inevitable wrong decisions that do & will occur. I see that it imposes large restrictions on every custodial parent at a large financial cost.
I choose to defend the right of the custodial parent to decide how CS money is spent with the knowledge that if they are not caring for the child that they will be reported & the situation rectified if there is proof of such neglect.
What makes one a communist is innocentspouse’s remark that I quoted. What you are advocating is a dictatorship of non-CP over CP. I am firmly on the side of freedom and so I am firmly against you.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
>>It’s an established part of our tax system that we try to help out parents by reducing their tax load. I can’t think of any principled reason for the tax system to help out custodial parents but not non-custodial parents (assuming the NCP is paying child support). >>
Ah. Then I misunderstood. There’s a difference between making CS payments–that is, your entire financial contribution to the raising of your child–tax-deductible, and allowing NCP’s to take a tax deduction because they have a dependent. The former would provide disparate support tilted way too far in favor of NCP’s, unless CP’s also get to deduct all of their child-related expenses (”Let’s see…does the zoo count as ‘educational purposes?’…”). The latter doesn’t seem unfair.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Ampersand- I think you worded accuratly what I was trying to convey. If they would just go by after taxes pay it would be more fair. And it just so happens we are talking OR state. We don’t live in an RV park anymore. We have a house that we cannot make the payments on now. At the time she was living with her then new spouse in a mansion of a house.While we were going more broke. Yes I guess you could say I’m angry at her and resentful. She is vindictive and tries anything she can to get what ever she can from my husband.What is more scary is that they had figured the $565 a month for four kids when my husband was working minimum wage. Now there are two kids he pays support for in the same amount. Even when we tried to get it modified the State refused to look at our situation. So yes I’m feeling slighted and angry and like my constitional rights have been violated.
This comment was written by Innocent spouse.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Giving a child deduction to both parents? Sounds fair, but like mythago said earlier, this would create a marriage penalty. Also, how many divorced parents spend 50/50 time with their kids? So…if giving both parents a partial deduction based on custodial time would be the only “fair” solution, I see a nightmare of litigation and bureaucracy if this idea went anywhere.
Meanwhile, here’s the Illinois formula:
one child: 20% of net income
two children: 28% of net income
three children: 32% of net income
four children: 40% of net income
five children: 45% of net income
six or more children: 50% of net income
Seems fairer to base support on the net income of the parent, rather than a hypothetical dual income or the gross income. I know a lot of folks who have gripes about their exes, but child support doesn’t make the list for too many, because of the way the formula is set up.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
A big problem is the inability to seperate the horrible emotions common in divorce from what is best for the children. While I understand the intense hurt and, yes, sometimes hate that exists in ex-spouses, I will not advocate a system designed to extend that hate in such a way that it adversely effects the children. And, from the comments here, it looks to me as if the FRA folks care a whole lot more about inflicting pain on the ex than they care about the well-being of their children.
Not one of the commenters here coming from the FRA view have expressed concern about the well-being of their children. Not one has claimed that their children are being harmed by the custodial parent. They have expressed concern only that their ex may be using some CS money for themselves, or that their ex is an addict. They have produced no evidence that this is the case. They have produced no evidence that their children are being neglected or abused. It sounds to me like they are suffering from extreme emotional distress at the idea that they may be helping a person that they now hate. They are quite possibly hurting their own children in the effort to inflict damage on thier ex. It may well be that some counseling would help them deal better with their emotions.
While I have sympathy for people suffering from those emotions, I think that they are expressing a willingness to negatively impact a huge number of people so that they can have their small bit of vengeance on a single person who hurt them emotionally in the past. I cannot and I will not support such a thing.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Thinking more about it, I’m not sure that FRA is all about power and control. I think that power & control are a means to vengeance for emotional pain past & present. But it does provide a clear example of exactly how equal men and women are today in the USA. By that I mean that, because of strong cultural gender roles, most of the time the mother becomes the CP and the father pays CS. As such, I have to believe that there are an equal amount of CP’s in deep emotional pain as there are NCP’s. Given that, I think that there are probably as many women who believe that NCP’s should pay more and have less say in the lives of their children. But you don’t see any organized movement and you don’t see talk radio hosts representing the MRA’s, do you? Might that be because men wield most of the economic and political power in this country?
Well, it’s a thought.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Well, we feminist conspirators do our best work in secret, Jake. You know, just like the worldwide cabal of Jewish bankers. That’s why we don’t really need equal pay or better representation in elected offices. We already run everything, don’t you know…
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Shhhhhh. Ixnay on the ewishjay ankersbay.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Ohohoho, I’m telling Matt so he can read this and then activate the EoZ brain link and upload the heresy! BUSTED.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Huh. I’m starting to think that some of these angry second partners might be onto something. . .
Next time I date a guy with a kid from a previous relationship, I will ask his ex to be my scapegoat. I will pay her generously for it (and that money will be used expressly for her own gratification–manicures/pedicures, massages, slutty nights at the clubs, whatevah). When things don’t go right in my life or my guy’s life, I’ll blame her. If the scapegoat pay is generous enough, I’m sure she won’t mind if I post about her alleged drinking, mansion-living ways all over cyberspace.
As to the copies of checks–I don’t write checks. I use a debit card, and I’ll be damned if anyone–even an ex-husband and his angry new squeeze–has the right to look at my personal financial business. If that’s the case, then how about we rifle through your records when you scream poormouth?
What alsis and shiloh said. It’s not as if people without kids don’t have financial problems, and it’s rather odd that someone who had a job that paid for a mansion before cannot afford a bloody condo or ranch home. And really, you had no idea that he had kids and CS payments?
If any guy I was involved with talked smack about his ex as much as the FR scamps do, I’d be gone. Gone. I don’t expect anyone to like their exes, and I certainly don’t expect anyone who’s hurt or angry to never complain about their ex. But Jesus–to whine about supporting your kids? Come on. To make such bitterness a large part of your life–to the point where the kids will get hurt? To be so obsessed with your SO’s ex–to own his conflicts with her to such an extent? That’s sad. Not to mention tedious.
Make no mistake about it, the kids are the ones who get hurt by this BS. Every single divorced parent or second partner who swears up and down that they don’t show any negativity towards the ex around the kids is deluding themselves. The kids pick up on it. They overhear you. And frankly, a lot of people just talk smack and think it’s being oh-so-reasonable, because it’s the “truth” and the ex “deserves” it, and who cares that maybe it puts the kids in the middle? They walk into the house and hear the muttererd comments, see the looks, and catch the ‘tude. It’s because of you that your poor father and I are broke all the time. Don’t give me the crap that really, your beef is with their mother–that’s their mother, they live with her, and it’s that money you’re complaining about that puts the clothes on their back and the food on their table. They’ll do the math, and they’ll come to the conclusion rather quickly that they are the cause of all this trouble.
Trust me, chances are good they’ve got more loyalty towards her than you. She’s their mother. I didn’t get along with my mother very well when I was younger, but if anyone trashed her, they’d have gotten a swift drop kick to the head.
You’re putting these kids in the middle, making them defensive for their custodial parent, making them conflicted and anxious and angry. It’s not a great way to welcome them, or treat them. And it’s not a particularly convincing way to show us that really, you’re concerned about the children.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
“We don’t care what she spends it with”?.
Really? I’m sure that’s totally accurate, honest.
WELL I DO!!!!. It’s supposed to go to the children. I think with the rise of drugs/alchohol in our society this is what we are headed for. I’ll ask a question. “Is it fair to be living in a motor park home in an RV with my husband because DSHS takes half of his pay because that is all we can afford to live in, While his ex lives in a mansion of a house and goes off to Hawaii with the kids for vacation?”?
So his ex lives in a mansion and you guys live in a trailor park—-and the ex has the kids? But you’re bitter because it’s all….going to the kids like you say you want it?
Yeah, that makes sense. Except it makes about as much sense as that whole thing where you freaked out over someone picking apart your comments while….endorsing picking part someone’s budget.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Jake Squid writes: “We trust that those judges have good judgement & that, in the vast majority of cases, they will choose the parent most likely to take the best care of the child.”
First, you demonstrate an exquisite misunderstanding of the workings of family court. At the end of the day, being male is the biggest obstacle fathers face in family court. Such “trust” is certainly shown to be inconsistent as it is feminists who are quick to question the judgment of any judge that would grant custody to a father (or joint custody). Examine your own bias: Under what instances do you think a father should get joint custody?
Second, it unfortunate that you think of CPs as “…more likely to take the best care the child.” The implication of course is that NCPs are less likely to take the best care of the child. This is an unnecessary stigmatization based on a flawed stereotype. I urge your to re-examine this viewpoint as it certainly leads to corrupt and flawed ideas many fathers.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Yes, that is indeed the implication. You want to lay blame for mothers being more likely to be named the CP? Look at the gender roles enforced by our culture that place men as breadwinners & women as childraisers.
When should men (or more accurately, the non- CP) get joint custody? When the divorcing parents are able to interact on a civil and non-hostile level and when the non-CP is a competent parent. If the parents cannot act together in the best interests of the child (because of hostility & emotions attendant to their divorce) one parent needs to be the one to make the decisions. That would be the custodial parent.
Do you think that you and your ex could get along well enough to make decisions for your children together? It doesn’t sound like it from your comments here.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
The 2nd wives thing really blows my mind–when I explained the whole thing to my dad, he was confused, because his 2nd wife and my mom get along really well. Of course, his 2nd wife has a kid from the 1st marriage and she and he have been trying to get $30,000 of back child support from her ex-husband, so she’s not really going to complain about my dad’s prompt payment of his to my mom. Well, when we were kids, of course.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Do you have any reasonably objective (i.e., peer-reviewed or the like) evidence to support this claim?
A book that I’ve seen many FRAs recommend is Dividing the Child, which is by two well-regarded scholars. However, what they conclude is that the evidence doesn’t show one way or the other that there’s a bias in family courts:
In the “vast majority” of cases, the court doesn’t make the decision; the parents jointly agree on mother-custody, most of the time. In the small minority of cases that are actually decided by a court, if a father puts up a legal fight, he tends to get custody about half the time or more. (Trish Wilson has more on this subject).
Back to David’s post….
David, isn’t that the primary thing the “best interest of the child” standard claims to be based on - which living situation would most benefit the child?
I think that, if all else is equal, a case where the father and mother can get along well and both want joint custody, is a case where both parents should get joint custody.
If all else is equal, and the father did more of the actual caretaking work, then I think the father should get primary or sole custody.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Amanda Writes:
June 7th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
” I’m extremely sick of being told I’m anti-male when I am offering a way for men to minimize damage, form post-divorce relationships with children that are productive, and not get taken for every dollar they’re
worth by lawyers.”
Amanda, I’ve respectfully asked you for direction several times, regarding your offerings. I see NO writings from you offering a way for men or women to minimize damage, form post-divorce relationships with children that are productive, and not get taken for every dollar they’re worth by lawyers.
This comment was written by TJ.It doesn’t exist, you just said that to make your opinion look fair for your enemy, we’ve observed your comments and now know that your opinion (which wavers frequently depending on who you lash at) is only meant to engage in conflict. You have helped me form my opinion of feminists and I thank you.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
I just can’t make up my mind whether I feel sorrier for sad plight of the “men are second-class citizens at the mercy of evil feminists” folks or the “We christians are persecuted martyrs at the mercy of evil secular humanists” folks. Personally, I blame it all on the fluoride in the water.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
I’ve not read the book, although “We have found that although mothers receive sole physical custody in the vast majority of cases….” The authors then launch into intellectual supposition…
“… even though the overall ratio among conflicted cases is closer to 2 to 1 in favor of mothers demonstrates neither the presence nor the absence of gender bias.” The authors finally conclude that they were unable to confirm or eliminate bias as a possible explanation of their research on OUTCOMES. The difficulty researchers have is that family courts, unlike other courts, are more like administrative agencies, keep much information non-public and difficult to obtain, often leave no record of their proceedings and keep few statistics on their decisions. One could look at census estimates that there are about 11,000,000 custodail mothers and 3,000,000 custodial fathers and not be able to draw any scientifically valid conclusions. I didn’t just wake up one day and decide that courts were biased. I became an FRA after my experience. I discovered thousands and thousands of fathers that had similar experiences. If you need more information I suggest you inquire of a reputable father’s rights organization such as the American Coalition of Father’s and Children.
“David, isn’t that the primary thing the “best interest of the child”? standard claims to be based on - which living situation would most benefit the child?”
Yes, and the Patriot Act is only for our own good, right? My point is, this concept gives family court the power to summon and impose their orders on citizens who have committed no legal transgression. If you doubt that institutionalized discrimination exists where broad mandates and unrestricted powers are given, go to the airport with your Arab friends.
“I think that, if all else is equal, a case where the father and mother can get along well and both want joint custody, is a case where both parents should get joint custody.”
Unfortunately not all else is equal. Couples capable of this kind of cooperation don’t ever end up in court. You’ve probably heard NCPs complain that the children were used as bargaining chips to obtain favorable financial settlements. Someone intent on this kind of behavior has a ready made forum, family court. It’s often the worst of the worst. This is why believe presumed joint custody will lower their divorce rates.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Oh, my God, he just compared family court and its decisions to the Patriot Act.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
TJ, just because you don’t like what I said doesn’t mean it’s not there. 1) Don’t find excuses to sue your ex. 2) If you weren’t the primary caregiver, accept that you will not get primary custody 3) Don’t demand joint custody to keep things “fair”, because that’s not fair to your children 4) Pay your child support 5) Don’t try to get control in exchange for child support 6) Don’t talk shit about your ex 7) Be on time and congenial during visitation.
As a bonus piece of advice, something my dad did with aplomb: 8) Look for opportunities to relieve your ex’s burden. She’s a single mother and that’s not easy to do, so try to help. Schedule visitations so that she can have time to herself or real dates without children around. If you are sincere, odds are she’ll do the same for you. Help them move if they need the help. Be polite and gracious to your ex-in-laws. Don’t date women who want to be enemies of your ex-wife and make it clear to the women you date that your children come first. (That’ll weed out the sorts who want to cut back on your child support payments so they have more household money.) Don’t nickel and dime visitation–if your kids are busy this month, try to just get an extra visit in next month. Be flexible–these are kids, not bank accounts.
Well, none of that will give you the satisfaction of fucking with your ex, but it will create a solid, loving relationship with your children. Your choice!
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
If you doubt that institutionalized discrimination exists where broad mandates and unrestricted powers are given, go to the airport with your Arab friends.
Wow. Come down off the cross, David.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
David, I read tons of that material; I’ve attended FR meetings; I know the claims very well.
However, I also know that there are all sorts of similar anecdotes - and that’s all you have, anecdotes - from mothers talking about how courts are biased and sexist against them. Why should I consider anecdotal data from father’s rights activists dispositive, while ignoring similar anecdotal data from mothers?
Logically, I don’t think it’s possible to say that we know for sure one way or the other from the evidence that’s out there. If you have any non-anecdotal evidence from a legitimate source that contradicts my view, please link to it.
Virtually any other concept - including presumed joint custody, which it appears you favor - would have the same effect.
I don’t doubt that institutionalized discrimination often exists, as a matter of abstract theory. However, that doesn’t prove that it does exist in the particular case of family courts; and it doesn’t prove anything about which direction the discrimination runs.
Yes, I have. And I’ve heard the exact same complaint from CPs. Again, I don’t see why I should credit either claim above the other.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
Your bemusement at David’s rhetorical whinging would be more credible if you didn’t do the same kind of thing.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Amp, I actually think that the idea of tax breaks for the NCP (ie them being able to claim the chold as a dependent) would be a great idea IF you make it contingent on them actually paying their child support. That way it’s fairer AND it provides the NSP with an incentive to pay the chold support.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Of course I’m not well versed in tax law so there may be a problem here I don’t know about, but in principle I’m not seeing any good reason not to do this.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
However, I think that the debit card system is a terrible idea. Firstly because it would require a large and expensive bureaucracy to run it, and I suspect that the money to pay for it would be taken from some other welfare program, and funding is pretty thin on the ground as it is. More importantly IMHO, I suspect that such a system would end up stigmatising both the kids and the CP. Have you ever watched the way people react to someone using food stamps at the supermarket? I wouldn’t want any kids of mine, or an ex even if I hated them, to be on the receiving end of that. There’s enough stigma attached to divorce anyway, why do anything that might make it worse?
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Oh, and what Shiloh said. The level of venom coming from most of ths FRA folks I see is amazing. I’m confused as to why any woman would marry a man this angry. to be quite honest, I’d be afraid that a guy like this would either lash out at me in anger, or end up just repeating the same pattern. I’d be scared to live in the same house with someone expressing this much hostility towards women. Also, you know the old saying that if someone will cheat with you, they’ll cheat on you too? Seems like the same analogy might work too. Wht makes the new wife think that hubby won’t do the same thing to her further down the line?
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Honestly, the more FRAs I see the more I love my Dad. And I don’t care if that sounds dorky.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
Perhaps this is a false dichotomy? Couldn’t some judges in some courts in some areas have anti-father bias, while anti-mother bias could exist in other contexts?
Why can’t you credit both? Perhaps CPs and NCPs are simply talking about different aspects of bias in the system that exist simultaneously.
Injustice against fathers must be corrected regardless of the existence or prevalence of injustice against mothers, and vice versa. It’s not a zero sum game. The point is that the injustices get fixed, not to find out who has it harder. If it was true that fathers experienced less discrimination in family courts than mothers, I would have no trouble admitting this as long as the discrimination was fixed.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Opps, I meant Sheelzebub in the previous posting. Though yeh, what shiloh, alsis and Jake said too.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Ampersand says: “Logically, I don’t think it’s possible to say that we know for sure one way or the other from the evidence that’s out there.”
Logically it is possible, and sorry to rain on your belief system, I do know for sure that what I say about family court is true despite your attempt to discredit my personal experience.
I understand that in saying we just can’t know whether I am right or wrong that you are trying to prove me wrong. But you’re claiming lack of evidence while quickly sweeping legitimate evidence under the rug. With regard to annecdotes, they can function quite legitimately as evidence and although I’m not a scientist it seems perfectly logical, if not scientific, to form a conclusion about the credibility, or truthfulness, of individual annecdotes. Given enough annecdotes from credible sources it is possible to form logical conclusions from the similarity between such annecdotes that arose independent of each other. Given enough credible annecdotes that originated independent of each other that all describe similarly the same phenomna, a logical conclusion is not only possible but likely accurate.
“I don’t doubt that institutionalized discrimination often exists, as a matter of abstract theory.”
Good. This will be helpful in following this blog. :)
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
So, David, do you and the ex get along well enough that the two of you could jointly make decisions about your child’s welfare?
As to anecdotal evidence… I suggest you take a look here:
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/anecdotal.asp
(if Amp wants to make that a real link, go right ahead)
or go to wikipedia (and also read about logical fallacies).
Despite what may seem logical to you, anecdotal evidence does not support a position in a debate. Go to those sites and learn something about what is generally accepted as evidence.
(Oh, gosh! There I go again lecturing you about the rules of debate! Maybe if you’d bother to check these things out the rest of us wouldn’t have to repeat this over and over.)
This is not to say that what you claim happened to you did not happen. It’s just that what happened to you proves nothing except what happened to you.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Oh, cool. It became a link on its own. In that case…
David read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
BritGirlSF: The reason I don’t think we’ll be seeing child support as a tax deduction anytime soon, is because it provides a huge marriage penalty. Married parents (or single parents who don’t receive child support) can’t deduct the cost of most expenses connected with child raising. Think about it—only a tiny portion of daycare costs are allowed as a deduction. Until we are ready as a society to allow all parents to deduct the cost of raising their children, child support isn’t going to be deductible. There’s too many people who see children as a punishment, to allow that to happen.
Of course, it could be structured to give each parent a partial deduction, but that would be another maze of litigation and bureaucracy, as contentious parents would either be hauling their asses into court in an attempt to get a bigger slice of the pie, or angry parents who have the lion’s share of the custody (and expenses) would be howling at politicians about the unfairness of one parent getting a 50% deduction while only paying for and/or having the kids 20% of the time. It would sure keep some family law attorneys busy.
I’m bothered by the idea that there has to be some “incentive” to pay child support. Call me Old School, but damn! isn’t the child enough of an incentive?! I mean, that’s your duty as a parent—married or single.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
In dedication to the many good peoples I know. Men and women.
Julian Epsom, (Number 27) sorry to take so long to reply. Exam time. What I meant by that remark was that the patriarchs (and matriarchs for that matter) dont give a toss about you or I. And please, all comments are generalisations as space is limited.
Whilst males and females argue about agendas placed by political minorities hoping to gain power at the expense of all others, those at the top can keep screwing the rest of us. All of us, male and female. There is an attitude out there from many women that they have it all over men and they like that(men know it too). Whilst these women are basking in that glow the rights of younger women to be stay at home mums is eroding(except for those with money).
Of course feminists despised stay at home mums and this has suited governments right down to the ground. Well done girls. The sisterhood lives. Just seems to me (dare I say it) that it has been the patriarchs the feminists have been in bed with all the time, despite demanding thier supporters not to sleep with the enemy.
There are many, perhaps even a majority of women from the vast anti-male feminist cohort (yes I know feminists have done a lot of good. Opening the debate on family violence was one such thing) who are very smug about the harm they have done to men and boys.
They (behave as if they) think it is good and right to harm someone because of his maleness. They do not look at the harm being done to themselves as aggressive and spiteful human beings nor the damage they do to children or innocent, decent males.
Children are viewed by the courts as material possesions, despite all the rhetoric. The system is set up to treat them this way, by pitting females against males and the most damaging and hurtful tactic is to use false allegations. As much as they want to disown this, the feminists in positions of power support this behaviour. Despite the good feminism has achieved,women still see men as primarily a means to an end and unfortunately this extends to children and all household goods. This is the staus quo.
This applies to a (thankfully shrinking) large % of lawyers. By the very nature of thier work, they are required to uphold the status quo (unless you are wealthy enough for them to find another status quo).They want points on the board. Thats thier worth. I am hopefull that there is a growing army of decent lawyers who wish to see the damage stop.
Untill feminism as a whole is willing to permit its own analysis upon itself and female behaviour (particularly abusive behaviour), it remains the subjective model that has underpinned it since the 1970s. As stated by feminists surrounding the advocacy of the domestic violence refuges in the past; if they did thier job properly there would be no need for them in the future. Obviously they have not done thier job properly and that is not hard to understand.
They have become the very things they despised in the beginning; supporters of the status quo and supporters of family abuse (consciously or not)and supporters of power. They have things to buy and bills to pay.They dont want to lose thier jobs in the domestic violence industry.
So to all you angry, anti-male feminist dinosaurs out there, you will be made to take responsibility at some stage. Unfortunately many of you will have died from old age by then and will have missed the opportunaty to grow and be happy, decent and balanced human beings. Of course the damage you have created will continue long after your passing.
I dont want to return to the 50s, nor to the 70s, where many feminists still reside, but I do want a future for our children that allows them time to grow and be respected for thier honesty and courage(two areas undermined by overprotective moddycodling and arresting of freedom of spirit). Here the feminists too have been at thier destructive best, telling boys they are predisposed to being horrible people and telling girls they are predisposed to being fantastic no matter how they behave or treat other people. It is amazing to think that a movement that prided itself on protecting those with less power could be so nasty to innocent children.
Lets pray the mens movement does not head down the path of hate that the womens movement has. Good people, be vigilant. It is not about payback. Thats a bitchy thing.
Hope I have touched a few raw nerves. It is much needed.
This comment was written by Karl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
Jake Squid.
It seems to hold some importance to you how my ex and I get along… why is that?
I’m glad you’ve done some recent research on logical fallacies and anecdotes. Remember this little gem of yours:
Jake Squid: “And you’re not going to let your kids get their dog groomed? How do you expect me to believe that you are looking out for the best interests of your children when you spout stuff like that?”
If you want to hold all bloggers, including YOURSELF to formal rules of debate I would be more than happy to oblige. You’ve already demonstrated you can’t “debate” your way out of a wet paper bag.
And your’re right, what happened to Rosa Parks proves nothing except what happened to Rosa Parks. It’s just an anecdote. You’re just making this too easy. Maybe you should check out footinyourmouth.com.
Good Day
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
Of course feminists despised stay at home mums and this has suited governments right down to the ground. Well done girls. The sisterhood lives.
So you mitigate domestic parents that are feminists to the status of no-voice, by pretty much assuming that all the folks commenting here that are not buying into the systematic discrimination of family courts as anti-male and extremist?
That is hardly the case by any means. I know for a fact that many of the people posting in this thread are both feminists and extremely dedicated parents. The difference I keep seeing popping up is one of devotion to the well being of the child in a way that supercedes petty adult disputes over finances.
Earlier someone commented on people viewing the responsibility to support their children as needing ‘incentive’, and then pointed out quite rightfully that the children’s well being should be more than incentive enough.
I’ve not read on this thread any ncp’s saying; “I’ve attempted several times to speak to my ex about the concerns and hopes I have with regards to how some of the money is allocated and they simply refuse to allow me any input in the day to day upbringing of my child!” - I’d actually be far more sympathetic if the problem was clearly one of the ncp’s attempting to respectfully deal with their ex’s and the ex’s being unwilling to listen. I’d also, however, expect the ncp’s to keep proper recordings of any genuine concerns, and a concerted and contineous effort to solve things in the best interests of their children.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
David,
When somebody calls a foul, it’s probably best to say, “Ooops, sorry.” And move on within the commonly accepted rules of the game.
The reason that it is important to me how you and your ex get along is because of your strong feeling that you should have equal say in the raising of your child. How the two of you interact has everything to do with whether or not that is possible.
Please explain how my question about paying for your kid’s dog to be groomed is a logical fallacy. If you can do that, I will admit my mistake.
I have given you my honest opinion of what I have seen you write. When this thread started, I was pretty open to hearing what an FRA might have to say. My mind was not made up on the issue. Now it is.
And yes, what happened to Rosa Parks (or Abraham Lincoln or the biblical Abraham or you or me or anybody else), when held as proof of something only proves what happened to Rosa Parks (or Abraham Lincoln or the biblical Abraham or you or me or anybody else). That doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen or that it is unimportant. It just means that it is not enough evidence to support a side of a debate.
Did you read either of the links on anecdotal evidence? Just in case actually reading a link is too much trouble, let me quote Wikipedia here for you.
“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence that has not been empirically tested, and which is used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing.
For example, someone who is not a physician or other kind of expert might argue that eating crushed garlic and drinking one glass of red wine per day will prolong your life, just because their own neighbour indulged in that habit and died aged 90. It becomes clear that in this case any form of inductive reasoning lacks a broad empirical basis.
Similarly, a politician might publicly demand better teacher training facilities just because their own son or daughter happens to have a spectacularly incompetent teacher.
This is not to say that anecdotal evidence is fallacious per se; it just depends on how it is used. In many cases, it can be the starting point rather than the result of scientific investigation.”
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
Edit: The difference I keep seeing popping
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Meant to type: The difference I keep see popping. Blargh.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Of course feminists despised stay at home mums and this has suited governments right down to the ground. Well done girls.
This is bullshit. I’m sorry, but this is bullshit. Many feminists became feminists because of the contempt for motherhood. Great case of projection there.
The sisterhood lives. Just seems to me (dare I say it) that it has been the patriarchs the feminists have been in bed with all the time, despite demanding thier supporters not to sleep with the enemy.
Uh, yeah. Where do you get this shit? Your ass?
There are many, perhaps even a majority of women from the vast anti-male feminist cohort (yes I know feminists have done a lot of good. Opening the debate on family violence was one such thing) who are very smug about the harm they have done to men and boys.
Oh, give me a fucking break. Like men need any help at all. Take a look at Congress, Karl. Then cry me a river. Seriously. You don’t get one toy on your christmas list and it’s probably the f ault of a feminist.
No anti-feminist has ever done any good for anybody but herself–and for men who are desperate to believe they’re victims.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
La Luba
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.My point was that if the CP does in fact get to claim the kids as a deductible (as people here have stated) then it seems logical that the NCP should be able to do so as well IF they pay their child support. It may be that the people here who have claimed that the CP gets to claim the kids as deductible are incorrect - I’m not sure, since I don’t have kids. I would love to see society restructured in such a way that raising children is not regarded as a “choice” which should logically carry penalties, but yeah, that will probably happen some time after they start offering skiing holidays in hell. And I would love to see the choice NOT to have children honored as well, but we as a society do seem to be taking a rather punitive approach there too. The current idea seems to be that you should be punished if you don’t want to have kids, and also punished if you do. Lovely society, huh?
I may have been insufficiently clear on the whole tax deductibles as an incentive thing. OBVIOUSLY people should just pay their child support because it’s the right thing to do, and should stop bitching about it. No incentive should be needed - you should do it because you love your kids, end of story. In fact, even if you DON’T love your kids (which seems to be the case with many of the FRAs here - not all, but many) you should still pay your child support because they’re your kids and they’re your responsibility. However, as the posts of many FRAs here have made clear, there are plenty of men who are not willing to do this just because it’s the right thing to do. A very large number of people fail to pay their court-ordered child support. My point was that maybe an incentive would prod a few more of them to do so (by no means all of them, of course), resulting in a few less destitute single mothers and a few kids being a bit better off. I agree that we shouldn’t have to bribe people to do the right thing but seriously, look at some of the posts from FRAs above - do you really think they can be relied upon to act in the best interests of their kids just because it’s the right thing to do?
Don’t mean to jump on you, just that I think you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Karl, love, please put down the crack pipe or whatever else you’ve been smoking and step away slowly before you hurt yourself. I mean really, I know the drugs induce paranoia and all, but this is just silly.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.There is no vast anti-male feminist conspiracy. We’re not out to get you. We don’t despise stay at home Mums - I was raised by one and I worshipped the ground she walked on. In fact, seeing the lack of respect she got was a big part of what got me into feminism in the first place. We’re certainly not out to get little boys - I can still remember being a little girl and if I remember corretly I was quite fond of little boys at the time. If you’d pay attention you’d realise that a lot of the women on this board have kids who they’re actually rather fond of.
The bit about all those jobs in the DV industry that we’re apparently trying to protect was particularly funny by the way. Every DV organization I’ve ever encountered has been pathetically underfunded and barely scraping by, and would collapse in an instant without the constant support of many unpaid volunteers.
I’m guessing from the fact that you were off studying for exams that you’re still in Uni. If so, you might want to go get a bit more life experience before you start making sweeping generalisations about a movement that you obviously don’t know very much about. Just a suggestion, eh?
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Funny about how a thread about FRA and MRA somehow “mysteriously” drifts into “Feminsist’s are man-hating bitches” and anti-feminist movement. Odd.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Britgirl you’re wasting your time. Anybody who repeats the canard that feminists are anti-motherhood is just ig’nant. Life’s too short, you know?
On the other hand…You’re obviously a Brit. I’m still trying to help this one guy, and I can’t find one fucking MRG that will help the guy. You know of any at all that aren’t bullshit? He’s disabled, and in Yorkshire.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
Ginmar
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.I wish I could help, but I’ve been in the States for 8 years and am not at all up to date about what organizations/resources are avaliable back home. I’m guessing that you’ve already tried contacting the various MRA groups operating in the UK to see if any are willing to help, right?
About Karl - I have no illusions that I or anyone else is going to change his mind. It’s just that his tone annoyed me so I felt like mocking him a bit. I grew up with blokes like him. Can’t say I miss them.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Keep in mind that a major reason for non-payment of CS is poverty. The people who owe but don’t pay child support (female or male) are much, much more likely to be poor than people who do pay child support. Presumably, anything we do that makes poor NCPs a bit less poor will increase the odds of them paying CS, at least on the margin.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
Fair enough Jake Squid.
It started out serious but this blog quickly became about pushing everybody’s button. As an example let’s look at ginmars recent outburst:
“This is bullshit. I’m sorry, but this is bullshit”
“Uh, yeah. Where do you get this shit? Your ass?”
“Oh, give me a fucking break.”
You can probably formulate opinions of people in this button-pushing exercise but you won’t find anything in my comments belittling the legitimate and just principles of the women’s movement. Social justice is social justice for men or women, fathers or mothers. I have my cause and I believe in it and you have yours. It would be wrong to judge my cause by the fact that I figured out how to push your buttons on this forum just as it would be wrong for me to judge your cause by ginmars agitated outburst. But since you say you have made up your mind there seems to be little sense in starting a serious debate. I did try and follow what rules were explained (stopped calling you Squid when directed) but clearly this is a place to verbally joust over ingrained attitudes that are not likely to change.
It’s much to late for me - frankly, I don’t give a crap if you right off the whole Fathers movement off as wife-beating psychos (which a few of you already have, apparently) - but it’s the world I want for my children. I think it will be a better world you think it will be worse. I think your a George Wallace. You think I’m an ass.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
David wrote:
Okay, let’s take it back a few steps - you have to explain things to me carefully.
I’m faced with solid data that doesn’t really tell me, one way or the other, which sex (if any) has the advantage in contested custody cases.
There are also a lot of anecdotes from FRAs about how unfair and biased against fathers courts are.
There are also a lot of anecdotes from mothers about how unfair and biased against mothers courts are.
So what’s really happening? As Aegis points out, correctly, it is logically possible for all the anecdotes to be true; that is, it’s possible that some judges are biased against mothers, and others are biased against fathers.
It’s also possible that the FRAs are generally correct are painting an accurate picture of the overall situation, and that fathers are far more discriminated against in family courts than mothers.
It’s also possible that the reverse is true.
How can I logically choose which one of these three possibilities is correct? I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say, which is why I say that I don’t know.
In response, you write:
First of all, there are many anecdotes on both sides with similarities. So that doesn’t solve anything - I’m still left with two contrary (or not?) groups of anecdotes, and each side seems as credible as the other (at least, it does if I put my own ideology, which tells me that the mothers are more trustworthy than FRAs, to one side).
Second of all, the main purveyor of anecdotes about bias against fathers in courts are Father’s Rights groups. That means that the anecdotes are not actually unrelated; there’s an obvious selection bias in which anecdotes FR groups find worth retelling and reprinting, and which they don’t. (You could, of course, say the exact same thing about anecdotes about anti-mom bias in courtrooms.)
Nor are the fathers telling these stories, if they’re involved with FR groups, unaware of the fact that other fathers are telling similar stories, which means they’re not really independent. Yes, I realize that many fathers joined FR groups after their divorce had started; but they often don’t tell their stories until after involvement with FR groups.
Finally, what objective standards determine which sources are “credible” and which are not?
* * *
Rosa Parks’ famous bus ride isn’t an anecdote at all; it was widely reported on at the time, and dozens of witnesses verify that her ride did indeed happen. She was arrested for refusing to ride the back of the bus, and we have her arrest records, and photographs, to prove it. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the event did not take place.
An anecdote, by definition, lacks such strong supporting evidence.
In short, the “Ross Parks” counter-example you bring up isn’t an anecdote at all, and so is irrelevant to what we’re discussing.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
I think it would be a better debate forum if people wrote a lot less about each other’s intelligence or characters, and more about arguments. But that’s just me.
Who gives a damn if Jake is George Wallace? Or if you’re an ass? Your arguments are good; or they’re not. The rest is irrelevant.
(Sorry, I’m in a grumpy mood tonight.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 12:18 am
We’ve got a five bedroom, two-story house with a full basement and yard for $36,000 and a big field next door we picked up for $1,500.
Ahem, I hope you won’t hate me for this digression, but holy cow! that’s 19,000 pounds! You can barely get a garden conservatory for that price in the UK. A 5 bedroom house would be at least twenty if not thirty times that figure. *sobs*
Are you sure you didn’t live out a zero in there? Please tell me it was a typo, and you meant 360,000. It’d still be cheap but at least my mind could process it. :)
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 12:21 am
erm, speaking of typos, it was “leave out”, not “live out”… sorry…
Sorry for the off topic, too. Just couldn’t resist asking when I saw that figure!
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 12:30 am
Amp,
You make this much more difficult than it really needs to be. Let me simplify this whole thing for you. You don’t believe anybody. Not me, not the other men, not the women, not the children, not the authors, not the scholars. not the intellectuals, not the government. Why worry about credibility? Why worry what “objective standards” to use? Why worry about whether an anecdote is an anecdote or when it’s relevant? Why worry about the logical possibilites of being correct? Why complicate your life with worrying whether there is or is not bias against fathers in family court at all? Were your children literally ripped from your arms by order of the state? Did you spend weeks trying to locate them? Was your accesss to them severely limited by a court because of false allegations? Did you instantly become homeless and have nowhere to go? Did you spend six months in the bowels of family court PROVING those allegations false at great emotional and financial expense? Did you wonder how this was possible in America? Did you long to see your children everyday yet were told you had no legal right to do so? Were you told that, as a man, any protest you made of this treatment would be construed as creating “conflict” and increase the chance of being barred from any meaningful contact with your children? Were you then subject to the worst kind of character assasination by the best sleazy lawyer money could buy? Did you then spend another 6 months in the bowels of the family court system and your entire life savings again clearing your good name? During that time were you subjected to invasive psychological tests prying into your most personal, personal thoughts? Did, after these psychological tests again vindicated you were you told that you could no longer be considered the primary parent since you had not been allowed access to your children? Did you have to depose witnesses to directly rebut and PROVE FALSE the testimony of the children’s own state appointed guardian who was later found to have family ties to my ex? Were you betrayed that the court never prosecuted her on ethics violations or my ex for perjury? Were you threatened and battered by a female inlaw yet terrified to report it because you knew that those allegations would be turned around and nobody would believe a battered man? Did you look to ‘the system’ for help only to be told those services were available only to women? Were you? Did you keep meticulous records of the entire proceeds, including 3rd party eye-witness testimony, just in case someone ever doubted that it happened? After all that were you then granted brief periods with your children. Were you? If so then you need nothing from me. If not, it’s likely that you’re never going to find what you claim to be looking for (althought the faux sincerity is a bit transparent).
Here’s what you say: “I don’t doubt that institutionalized discrimination often exists, as a matter of abstract theory.”?
and then mysteriously you claim:
“Rosa Parks’ famous bus ride isn’t an anecdote at all; it was widely reported on at the time, and dozens of witnesses verify that her ride did indeed happen. She was arrested for refusing to ride the back of the bus, and we have her arrest records, and photographs, to prove it. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the event did not take place.”
Please……. This is funny. You ought to charge admission.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 12:52 am
“On the other hand…You’re obviously a Brit. I’m still trying to help this one guy, and I can’t find one fucking MRG that will help the guy. You know of any at all that aren’t bullshit? He’s disabled, and in Yorkshire. ”
Ginmar - the only legitmate group specifically for male victims of domestic violence in the UK is MALE 0845 064 6800. There are other services (non-gendered) that could help as well depending on what he needs - if you want to post here or email me I’d be happy to help.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 12:53 am
Email = spicyheart27@hotmail.com
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 1:00 am
“The system is set up to treat them this way, by pitting females against males and the most damaging and hurtful tactic is to use false allegations. As much as they want to disown this, the feminists in positions of power support this behaviour.”
Err… no we don’t. I’m a ‘feminist in power ‘ and speak out loudly about how despicable false allegations are - not least because they make my work assisting domestic violence victims FAR harder.
However, false allegations by women is one of the biggest myths going - false allegations by men are actually more common. For example:
Are Allegations of Sexual Abuse That Arise During Child Custody
Disputes More Likely to Be False?
An Annotated Review of the Research
Bala, N. & Schuman, J. (2000). Allegations of sexual abuse when
parents have separated. Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 17, 191-241.
Excerpt:
Canadian Family Law Judgments: Nicholas Bala and John Schuman, two
Queen’s University law professors, reviewed judges’ written decisions
in 196 cases between 1990 and 1998 where allegations of either
physical or sexual abuse were raised in the context of parental
separation. Only family law cases were considered; child protection
and criminal decisions were excluded.
The study showed that the judges felt that only a third of unproven
cases of child abuse stemming from custody battles involve someone
deliberately lying in court. In these cases, the judges found that
fathers were more likely to fabricate the accusations than mothers.
Of female-initiated allegations, just 1.3% were deemed intentionally
false by civil courts, compared with 21% when the man in the failed
relationship brought similar allegations.
The cases involved 262 alleged child victims (74% of them alleged
sexual abuse). Thirty-two percent of these children were under 5
years of age, 46% were 5 to 9 years of age, 13% were 10 or older; for
9% the age was not specified. About 71% of the allegations were made
by mothers (64% custodial and 6% non-custodial), 17% were by fathers
(6% custodial and 11% non-custodial), 2% were from grandparents or
foster parents. In about 9% of the cases the child was the prime
instigator of the allegations. This study found that fathers were
most likely to be accused of abuse (74%), followed by mothers (13%),
mother’s boyfriend or stepfather (7%), grandparent (3%) and other
relatives, including siblings (3%).
See here for more: http://members.aol.com/asherah/falsealleg.html
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 3:28 am
Call me skeptical, but when a man does not argue with sexist statements and finds the response to them more abhorrant than the sexism—-gee, I can’t imagine why he can’t get people to agree with him. Also, good job on the selective quoting. Nothing else says trustworthy than someone trying to give an incorrect impression.
Of course feminists despised stay at home mums and this has suited governments right down to the ground. Well done girls.
This is the comment to which I was responding and curiously enough, you left it out. Let’s examine this comment, shall we? First, it’s a lie. Most feminists are wives and mothers. Then it’s patronizing—referring to women as girls. Gee, I’m sure you just forgot that. Or that’s all you can see—a woman who reacts angrily to sexism must be wrong, because there’s no such thing as sexism unless it affects some poor guy like….Oh, like you.
The sisterhood lives. Just seems to me (dare I say it) that it has been the patriarchs the feminists have been in bed with all the time, despite demanding thier supporters not to sleep with the enemy.
Sarcastic use of sisterhood, plus accusations of hypocrisy based on what evidence? Oh, someone’s opinion of women. That someone happens to be a guy who’s made sexist statements about women, but obviously we should give him the benefit of the doubt till the cows come home, the fat lady sings and the sun rises in the West.
There are many, perhaps even a majority of women from the vast anti-male feminist cohort (yes I know feminists have done a lot of good. Opening the debate on family violence was one such thing) who are very smug about the harm they have done to men and boys.
There’s so much crap in this comment here that it’s really like trying to comb out somebody’s hair after they’ve been in a windtunnel. Vast=Uh, yeah, they’re taking over! Anti-male—Yep, man-haters, that’s us. Smug. Yeah, right. Harm to men and boys. Yup, guys, we’re out for your dicks.
Go talk to Nicole Simpson, David, if you want to talk harm.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 5:35 am
Thank you, Spicy.
YOu know, what I find most damning about the FRAs is this—-after their tortured appeals, after their recitations of woe, after their wails of discrimination—they are determined not to make sure that no one else ever gets likewise victimized—they are in fact absolutely set upon getting revenge and forcing their experience on women.
I’ve talked to lots of women who were raped. Not a one of them wanted to do the same thing to the man who raped them. Not a single one. I’ve talked to victims of domestic violence. Same reaction—they wanted him locked up, because of course it was always a guy. But they did not want to give him a taste of his own medicine, not in any way that would effect legislation.
I’ve talked to male victims of DV; same thing. It’s funny, I’ve never seen a male victim of male rape pop up and try and take the floor like male victims of female rape. M/M rape victims seem so different; f/m victims seem almost…affronted, somehow. For starters, it’s rare to have them actually show up; it’s always a friend of theirs who talks about the guy won’t talk about it. There, the desire is for something complicated: they want feminists to make it all better. I’ve never seeen a one of them express an interest in other victims, though, and their attitude to female victims of rape is almost resentful at the attention they get. The most common excuse for their behavior is that it’s worse for men. They and their supporters do nothing for other victims, but they certainly take a great deal of pleasure in being the exception to the rule. They do not as far as I know use their experience against other men—only women.
But that’s kind of what you see in FRAs. They’ve suffered, by God, and they’re the most important victim of all. You have to wonder if it’s the first time they’ve ever faced some of the same discrimination that women are so familiar with. A woman could tell her story, and these guys couldn’t care less. They want to make sure that no man wants to go through what they did. They want to punish women for it. Not the courts, not the law—these are all the fault of that secret feminist conspiracy. They seethe with rage at what was done to them, and yet they’re incapable of empathy toward anybody who doesn’t have a dick. They reveal themselves with their resentment against feminists, against women who fight back, against women who just won’t tolerate being dismissed and reviled. The little insults keep coming out because they just can’t be contained. “girls.” “sisterhood” and so on.
But that lack of sympathy gives them away every time. That, and that scary feeling of entitlement they seem to draw from their rage. They never worry what effect their actions have on t heir kids. They talk only about injustices to them. It’s only about them. And you have to wonder if that belief that they were the only one that mattered is not only what ended the marriage in the first place, but is even a good thing to reveal around a child.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 5:56 am
something else I forgot: it’s a well known fact that sons of abusers often become abusers themselves, which seems counter-intuitive, but in view of the FRAs’ lack of sympathy takes on some significance. I’ve had a few women comment on my blog that they were abused by their fathers but their brothers absolutely would not blame the fathers. At least one of them wrote that her brother tried to form a relationship with his batterer dad and had contempt for their mother.
What the FRAs express is complete and utter contempt and rage for women. They don’t recognize it for what it is, because for them it’s simple reality—these are appaling harpies, they think, that has every one else fooled. Somehow they manage to get married a second time and convince the second wife that he’s a victim. That raises red flags for me. What about the way abusers never appear abusive at first? That sure explain it.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 7:50 am
Yep. Mark Lepin, anyone ? His father beat him, so he ran out and shot a bunch of female engineers that were complete strangers to him. The “feminists” ruined his life, not his abusive old man.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 8:00 am
It’s funny, isn’t it, how the Lepine case is almost totally forgotten? It’s like the way the FRAs want to talk about the secret feminist conspiracy instead of looking at hard numbers: how many cops are men, how many CEOs, how many politicians, presidents, this, that, and the other—all the powerful people are men. So how can you be discriminated against? Maybe they secretly fear it’s deserved. Sympathize with women and you’re out of the boys’ club.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 8:03 am
David,
I think that what has happened to you is terrible. Nobody should have to go through anything like what you describe.
I don’t think that your proposals offer a real solution to the problems that you have experienced, though. I think that your proposals risk making things a lot worse for a lot of people at tremendous social and financial cost to the public at large. Your debit card proposal functions to take decision making away from the person chosen as CP and to give near total control to the person with greater financial power.
I do stand by what I said earlier about the issue being hurt and anger and hate and all the other emotions that go along with divorce and its related stresses. Even through your description of the horrible things that happened to you in court relating to your divorce you never voice concern for the well-being of your children. You never say that you believe that they were being mistreated or neglected or abused. It’s all about you and the bad things that happened to you. How would your debit card proposal rectify any of the ills that you describe in your summary of your experiences of divorce? It seems totally unrelated. These are the reasons that I am now against the positions of FRAs. What comes first for the fathers in these groups? Their children or themselves? I know what it sounds like from the comments on this thread.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 8:05 am
Of course feminists despised stay at home mums
People who say this like to pretend that anti-feminists ever honored stay-at-home mothers. Sure they did–the same way that we honor our five-year-old for doing a particularly earnest macaroni sculpture in kindergarten. Being an at-home mom was always seen as a wonderful, honorable and not incidentally necessary role for women–but it certainly wasn’t good enough for men, and it wasn’t anything we honor with anything other than lip service.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Jake Squid:
The fact is I went through the process because the system said my children would otherwise be fatherless. Fatherless children?What decent parent would want that for their children? Not once do you mention what motivated their mother to viciously manipulate the system (and thus the children)themselves) in order to deprive them of a father. Given that her allegations were thoroughly investigated and found completely without merit, do you think her actions showed concern for our children’s well being?
Although I have never discussed details with them (I want them to love their mother), my children intuitively absorbed some of what I went through to remain a part of their lives. Why can’t you realize that THEY wanted me and THEY needed me? My children were the only thing that kept me going. How could I let them down? My concern for my children’s well being is evident and needs no further definition. You see what you want to see. I could have given up…then I would have fit nicely into your stereotype of the deadbeat dad.
As for the debit card issue, it’s not an important concern of mine. I simply joined the discussion and offered some suggestions while you criticized and demanded to know the cost, if I recall. Rules directing support to groceries instead of cigarettes seems to have at least an element of common sense. Even if this idea were shown to save you money, you still, apparently, don’t like the idea because it infringes on a CPs ‘freedom’ to spend support on cigarettes. What’s left to discuss?
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 11:14 am
No, I believe the critisms on your debit card had nothing to do with the ex-spouse’s “freedom” and more that it was patently ridiculous. YOU, would have control of your children’s money. So, it was all about about what you could force your ex to not have. Car’s TOO luxorious? House is TOO big? Meals TOO nice? I don’t think that shows a lot of concern for women.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Okay, David, you’ve been through a horrible experience where your adversary beat you at all facets of the contest. I understand that and I feel badly for you.
What changes, specifically, are you advocating? The only thing that I can remember is the debit card idea. When you propose a change, you should expect to receive questions and criticisms of that proposal. Coming up with answers to those questions and criticisms should either strengthen your proposal or lead you to discard it. You haven’t answered the questions and criticisms.
Sure you could have given up. But giving up does not mean you become a “deadbeat dad.” Not paying child support is what causes you to become a “deadbeat dad.”
It is clear that in the conflict between you and your ex-wife that only one of you could “win.” By that I mean that only one of you was going to wind up as the CP and have the lion’s share of the time with and responsibility for them. She won, or has won thus far. Given that only one of you will ever win due to the animosity between the two of you what is the fairest outcome? Not knowing either of you I am unable to judge, thus I must rely on the judgement of the courts. It is absolutely possible that you were jobbed and that you went in front of incompetent or biased judges. That happens. How can the current system be improved without simply shifting the bias from mothers to fathers?
You mention in your summary of your tribulations a number of issues that should be addressed. What are your proposals to deal with each of those?
For example, my wife sued a dentist for malpractice. For a variety of reasons, we represented ourselves for a while. When facing a motion for summary judgement, we were not allowed to conceal the identity of our expert witness because in our state only a lawyer is allowed to do that. A person representing themselves must disclose the name of the expert. That severely handicaps anybody representing themselves and is, in my view, patently unfair. So, after defeating the motion and being forced to reveal our expert’s identity, I went to my state representative and had that rule in the civil code changed to allow a person representing themself to conceal their expert just as a lawyer can.
What have you done or tried to do? What reasons were given to you as to why those proposed changes couldn’t be implemented?
Very few things in life are fair. Your ex played the system better than you did. So propose changes to improve the system. Expect questions and criticisms of those proposals and answer them. Realize that your views may be colored by the intense emotions you have about your whole experience.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Amanda,
Thank you, I was hoping you would provide what is obviously in your head. I agree with your points, My ex-husband and I followed your recommendations to a tee when we divorced (I did not have your recommendations at that time obviously). That is why I am very disappointed that you don’t SPECIFY in your writing that your recommendations are directed at both parties involved in the divorce. Unfortunately I FEEL they are clearly one-sided.
One last note, I’m involved with mediations for others divorcing as well as the best interest of children, I won’t be able to refer them to your writing because of your foul words “6) Don’t talk shit about your ex”, “Well, none of that will give you the satisfaction of fucking with your ex”
but I will reference them as well as possible because I think you have good points.
HEY THANKS AGAIN, I ALMOST GAVE UP.
AMP,
YOU ARE RIGHT! I had absolutely no opinion before now, what opinion I do have I learned right here, over the last few days. My opinion on teaching people what you think and feel, is that intelligent people share AND OBJECT/DISAGREE respectfully and use decent words. Anything less shows paltriness and a lack of credibility. That is how I see it, how you see is important as well.
This comment was written by TJ.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Looks like I’m the last one left standing here. Who says I can’t take criticism. Sorry, will not have time to carry all of you…
Antigone: Neither you, nor anyone else has established that I would have control of anything. Jake Squid, please explain fallacy to Antigone and direct her to your website links.
Jake Squid: “Very few things in life are fair.” Fallacy in this context - consult your website links”
Jake Squid: “Coming up with answers to those questions and criticisms should either strengthen your proposal or lead you to discard it.” Fallacy in this context - consult you website link.
Jake Squid: “You haven’t answered the questions and criticisms.” False statement therefore fallacious ( True statement: I haven’t come around to your way of thinking)
Jake Squid: “Not paying child support is what causes you to become a ‘deadbeat dad.’” Again, fallacy. Ampersand has stated on this forum that the biggest single reason for not paying support is poverty. Involuntary unemployment, becoming permanently and totally disabled, extended deployment in the armed services…need I go on?
Jake Squid: “It is clear that in the conflict between you and your ex-wife that only one of you could “win.”? Fallacy. Presumes facts not established. For one thing, I divorce a violent, controlling spouse.
Jake Squid: “By that I mean that only one of you was going to wind up as the CP and have the lion’s share of the time with and responsibility for them.” Multiple fallacies. Presumes both were requesting to be CP. Presumes custody=responsibility (goes back to your fallacious presumption that NCPs are inherently less qualified parents). etc.
Jake Squid: “What have you done or tried to do? What reasons were given to you as to why those proposed changes couldn’t be implemented?” … “So propose changes to improve the system. Expect questions and criticisms of those proposals and answer them.” You seem remarkably uninformed of the social and political efforts of FRAs for someone who has made up their mind on the matter. Read on….
Jake Squid: “Not knowing either of you I am unable to judge, thus I must rely on the judgement of the courts.” Fallacy. You need place no reliance on the courts whatsoever. You CHOOSE to rely. I prevailed on every judgment made by the court, to include one judge scolding my ex for her behavior.” It’s not their judgment at issue. It’s the system in which they operate that allows it to become a pig-circus in the first place, in my view.
Jake Squid: “Your ex played the system better than you did.” See my previous sentence.
I would hate to think that you are using your anecdote about your dentist to support your position in a debate. If so, consult your website link. Anecdotes aside, it’s interesting that when your dentist “played the system” better than you you complain it’s “…patently unfair.” The judge apparently followed the law in ruling against you. You sought to change the law. FRAs attempt to rectify what they find patently unfair through the social and political process. Welcome to democracy. For FRAs the job is exponentialy more complex and difficult because it involves not only legal concepts, entrenched government bureauracracies and huge vested financial interests, but social values as well. Welcome to the ideological debate. I’m willing to quibble ideologiesl with you here but if you are interested an explanation of the specific social and political efforts of FRAs, consult a legitimate FRA organization.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
“all the powerful people are men. So how can you be discriminated against?”
Indeed, very good point….and one I sincerely doubt any of the pro-FRA types will come up with a decent response to. Because the real answer is obvious.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Ginmar said: “If your husband’s ex is truly spending all her time in a bar, why, exactly, hasn’t the hubbie gone to court about it? Oh, wait, lemme guess. It’s because the courts are so biased against men, even though most of the judges are men, and conservative men at that.”
Bingo! That’s exactly the point, conservative men, more than anyone, are notorious for their *chivalrous* attitudes, for the idea of rigid sex roles, and for the idea that women need *protecting*. So it is to this ex-wife’s advantage that the judges are “conservative men.” Though I’d have to say there is little evidence that most judges are anything approaching conservative and honestly there are tons of women judges.
If I were an ex-wife who was pissing away money and not using it properly on the children, I’d far rather go before one of the male judges than a woman…the woman would see through my garbage where the man would want to protect motherhood and apple pie. This isn’t exactly rocket science, or don’t I hear feminists complaining about chivalrous attitudes and men being protective?
This comment was written by Sloopy.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Yeah, I think that “protecting” of women only goes as far as controling their action. If judges and cops were so interested in “protecting” women then more rape and DV cases would be getting prosecuted.
But by all means, make sure there are not sexist judges out there. Then they can look at the “primary caregiver” precedent without regard to gender at all. And while we’re at it, make sure that includes homosexuals getting custody of their kids as well
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Her question was posed as mocking the very idea that there is bias against men in the courtroom, due to the fact, she claims, that all these conservative male judges must naturally be biased in favor of men.
In fact, by pointing to conservative male judges she destroyed her own argument, since they are notoriously chivalrous and harder on men (for example they regard a stay-at-home dad as a deadbeat and a stay-at-home mom as apple-pie American and to be preserved.)
That was the extent of the point, and it holds.
This comment was written by Sloopy.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
What exactly do FRAs think that judges have against men? Why do they “hate” men? What is the historical cause of this animosity? The entire history of the world has been a history of women’s oppression–did the handful of secret female superiorists all become judges and take over the court system secretly?
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 6:42 am
In fact, by pointing to conservative male judges she destroyed her own argument, since they are notoriously chivalrous and harder on men (for example they regard a stay-at-home dad as a deadbeat and a stay-at-home mom as apple-pie American and to be preserved.)
Got any proof for this or are you as usual pulling stuff out of your ass? Notoriously chivalrous—to whom? Nicole Simpson?
The fact is, conservatism is no friend to women. Conservatives want to protect women all right—-from other men, not from themselves. And if a woman is not a stay at home apple-pie American, she’s fucked because she’s a bad mother. ONly good mothers—perfect, sexless, self-sacrificing—get the chivalrous treatment, if in fact they get more than lip service and hypocrisy.
Yeah, conservatives sure do want to protect those wimmenfolks! Just don’t ask why t hey’re not interested in letting women protect themselves against all men, while having no right to defend against conservative scumbags who want to control everybody else’s life.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 7:11 am
In fact, by pointing to conservative male judges she destroyed her own argument, since they are notoriously chivalrous and harder on men (for example they regard a stay-at-home dad as a deadbeat and a stay-at-home mom as apple-pie American and to be preserved.)
That was the extent of the point, and it holds.
I don’t think it does hold, Sloopy. The same judges you use as potentially biased in favor of women due to protectiveness would also fall prey to the same sorts of hateful bias that go hand in hand with that stereo-type. Mom was screwing around on dad? Slut’s don’t raise children.
The only way your point holds is -if- mom is fulfilling the apple-pie American dream, otherwise she gets to be with the bad women in the not so nice stereo-types. You know, the drinking and frivolously spending away all of poor good ole’ American Billy down at Maytag’s hard earned paycheck.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 7:12 am
Argh, somehow I ended up posting almost the same thing you did Ginmar. Your comment hadn’t shown up yet when I made my post, but yes, exactly. I agree. I concur. I’m on that page too! ;)
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 8:29 am
The belief that women are natural caretakers of children, and so it’s always in the best interests of the child to be placed with the mother. Do you really find it impossible to suppose that this belief exists, or that some judges might adhere to it?
As Kim (bv!) and Ginmar have pointed out, this belief often comes combined with other, anti-woman beliefs - such as the belief that a woman can’t be a good mother if she’s serious about her career, or is a lesbian, or doesn’t live like a nun. These sexist beliefs, in many cases, might counteract or mitigate the sexist belief that only women can raise children.
But that doesn’t mean that there have never been any cases where a judge’s sexist belief that kids always belong with mom decided custody.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
But that doesn’t mean that there have never been any cases where a judge’s sexist belief that kids always belong with mom decided custody.
Also doesn’t rule out the chance that they might have been biased against because of the ‘not fitting in’ to the June Cleaver stereo-type.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Heh, Kim. Great minds think alike.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Thank you for letting my know what ignorance I have in store for me in getting my bill passed by US citizens voting on it- Not a Communistic society that Jake so blantanly accused me of. I only posted and honest question and what I got was alot of people thrashing me and my husband (who is a great guy and makes sure all his kids needs are meet) and meanwhile got a nice email saying how I was the one that was criticising. Okay, “Why don’t you go look at the thread and see the truth?” OR “are you blind to?” I doubt this will be printed because the owner will probably not allow it thus negatting my first amendment rights to speech. Thank you and GOD BLESS!!!
This comment was written by Innocent spouse.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
ginmar: “Got any proof for this or are you as usual pulling stuff out of your ass? Notoriously chivalrous…to whom? Nicole Simpson?”
ginmar, nobody can prove much of anything to you until you stop continually discounting everything that ruffles your feathers as coming out of someone’s ass. From what you’ve demonstrated here, a lot of what is in your head should be coming out of your ass.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
I only posted and honest question and what I got was alot of people thrashing me and my husband (who is a great guy and makes sure all his kids needs are meet) and meanwhile got a nice email saying how I was the one that was criticising.
You posted an idea that mostly held a great deal of malice and scorn towards custodial parents. You immediately identified yourself as a victim, and as time went on you showed that the victimization was very much a questionable thing. Your husband works under the table so doesn’t even claim all of the money he makes. Your husband does not pay alimony, only child support, and even then right around 125.00 a month per child. You blame your husbands ex-wife for having a better lifestyle than you because she married a man that makes more than your husband, and accuse her of being a drunken and neglectful mother, but admit that it’s based on the rantings of a teenage son who is going through a phase of not getting along with his mother. You do this in the presence of a bunch of people that are also parents that take their roles VERY seriously, and the responsibility that their roles entail VERY seriously and want sympathy. In short, you’ve portrayed little else than a picture of a person intent on controlling and disregarding the children of your ex-husband to get out of having to pay a minimal amount of money towards their support. What do you want? A standing effing ovation over how you’ve overcome adversity with such grace and aplomb? I don’t think so.
I doubt this will be printed because the owner will probably not allow it thus negatting my first amendment rights to speech.
Eh? This is a private board that you are allowed to participate in at the grace of the blog owner, not a public square. This site is very clear on it’s politics, and you either didn’t bother to figure out what those politics were or thought that your stellar and convincing arguments would suddenly make the rest of us see another light. Unlike David, you’ve barely shown a case of question, much less anything more serious. It sucks that you’re broke, but guess what - their are plenty of families that are together that are way more broke than you and trying to make ends meet. Be happy that your step-children live in good conditions and that you have a home payment you can at least ’struggle’ to make.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Um, David, Sweetie? You belong to a group that makes up 100% of US presidents and a majority of the powerful of the lawmakers and administratos in the US. Sorry to burst your bubble, but whines about how hard you have it need to be supported by more than, “OMG, I have suffered, and therefore all y’all beyotches need to step back cuz I am the most important here.” I’m not gonna prove your case for you. The number don’t look good for you, either. Sealing the deal is you bitching about ‘ruffling feathers.’ Think about it, Dave, seriously. Wanna rely on a stereotype of ‘hens’ to make your case? Because nothing says genuine to me more than some guy bitching that though he’s part of the group that makes up 100% of US presidents, 98% of the Congress, 980-% of the judiciary, he’s still somehow discriminated against by a powerful group that’s a majority only amongst the poor, the raped, the murdered, the abused, and the powerless.
Yeah, David. So what were you saying, again?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
ginmar:” Yeah, David. So what were you saying, again?”
David: “From what you’ve demonstrated here, a lot of what is in your head should be coming out of your ass.”
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
Cry me a river. Where’s the smilie with the violins.
David: Were your children literally ripped from your arms by order of the state?
Nope. Mine were literally ripped from my arms by their father– after he’d broken down the door of our apartment. They were 18 months and three years old. He had beaten me within an inch of my life for all four of the years we had lived together.
This was 1974. There were no laws against a father doing what he did– he was just a father with his kids. The police didn’t do anything. They didn’t even look for him. I did though– for six weeks. I papered the West Coast and Vancouver B.C. with posters: “Have you seen these children?” He finally called me. I pretended I was going to go back to him so I could find out where the kids were. They were 1,800 miles and three states away. I flew there, got a court order, a police escort, and got them back.
He then followed me back to Washington and tried to kill me by beating me with a metal pipe, fracturing my skull, fracturing my eye sockets.
All because he was really so interested in being a good dad. Because what he really wanted all along was to be with his children.
Huh.
He was found guilty of assault with intent to commit murder and with a deadly weapon and went to the state penitentiary. He was released briefly after 12 years and tried to kill another woman and was sent back to the pen, where he died eight years ago.
Did you spend weeks trying to locate them?
Yep.
Was your accesss to them severely limited by a court because of false allegations?
Nope. My access was prevented by their father, who hid them from me after seizing them. And nobody could do a thing about it in those days. He was just a father with his kids. The police didn’t even look for them.
Did you instantly become homeless and have nowhere to go?
Yep. The moment I left him after having been beaten silly for years, I was homeless, with nowhere to go, with two little boys to care for, and the hell of it was, he could find me, because I had a job as a cocktail waitress in a bar and I needed to support my kids. His idea of “work” was high stakes gambling which resulted several times in thugs breaking into our apartment and taking everything we had to satisfy his gambling debts.
Did you spend six months in the bowels of family court PROVING those allegations false at great emotional and financial expense?
I spent four years in hell at the hands of a batterer. When I at first left him, he sought custody, and I had to spend over a year in the bowels of family court PROVING I was not a slut (because I had a boyfriend, in part to protect me from HIM, which is often why women fleeing have boyfriends and are hence called sluts), PROVING I would be a better parent, because after all, he’d be home on welfare and would have time for them, whereas I’d be holding down a job (and, don’t forget, I was a slut, because I had a boyfriend, so I’d be a bad influence). When the family court officials were clearly coming down on my side he broke down my door and took the kids. When I got them back, he tried to kill me.
Did you wonder how this was possible in America?
Nope. I KNEW how it was possible. Because unlike David, unlike most men, I don’t have a sense of entitlement roughly the size of the Rocky Mountain Range. I have never, and will never, enjoy male privilege. I expected to be judged harshly by society, my family and the courts because (1) I was a cocktail waitress; (2) I was a single mom and had left my husband and was divorcing him; (3) I had a boyfriend and hence I was a slut. I knew what I was up against in America, I knew America was not really my country and that its government and laws were not meant to protect me– EVER.
Did you long to see your children everyday yet were told you had no legal right to do so?
I was prevented from doing so because their father took them and hid them, and I was told I had no legal recourse because they were just kids with their dad.
Were you told that, as a man, any protest you made of this treatment would be construed as creating “conflict”? and increase the chance of being barred from any meaningful contact with your children?
The “as a man” part is bullshit. Parental alienation syndrome is actually a weapon FRAs use far and away against custodial mothers, not the other way around.
And no, I wasn’t told any such thing, I didn’t have any way to protest this treatment short of risking my life to find and retrieve my children.
Were you then subject to the worst kind of character assasination by the best sleazy lawyer money could buy?
Yep. Even though all I was was a mother, completely nonviolent, a pacifist, a battered woman, the only working parent, a conscientious mother to my children. Before he tried to kill me, hell yeah, he did all he could to assassinate my character, in every way he could.
Did you then spend another 6 months in the bowels of the family court system and your entire life savings again clearing your good name?
I had no money. I was poor. I had the clothes on my back, my babies, and my job. You had life savings to spend. Most single moms do not.
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Ugh, I hit submit before I was done.
But I think I made my point.
Before the feminist movement, dads held ALL of the cards. ALL. Going back a hundred years, women could not divorce, period, almost without exception, but if they did, they had no rights to property or their children, they left with the clothes on their back.
Until the Second Wave, there were no rules against battering one’s wife, against a man raping his wife, against fathers beating children. Fathers got away with paying no child support at all and with taking their children, too, because laws around custody and support were not reciprocal from state to state and could not be enforced in other than the state in which custody and support orders were entered.
Most of what Fathers’ Rights men have posted to this thread is bullshit. When a father seeks custody now days, 85 percent of the time, he is awarded custody. Most fathers don’t get custody because they don’t seek it. Many fathers abuse their wives and don’t admit it. They also abuse their kids and don’t admit it. Time and time again I’ve heard or read fathers complaining of their poor treatment in the court, only to see them later admit to abuse without even realizing what they are admitting they did WAS abuse (or rape or neglect). In most states, courts enter joint parenting plans, custody is shared, and both parents pay child support. If one does not actually cut a check, it’s because the amount one has to pay is offset by the amount the other has to pay because one earns more than the other. Fathers Rights types OFTEN seek to be custodial parents not because they really want custody but because they want a favorable child support order based on the kids residing with them. Once the courts enter the order, they don’t actually care for their children and leave them with the children’s mother far more than the court orders specify, meaning she is bearing the lion’s share of the care and is paying for it and is not receiving adequate support because support amounts were awarded based on the children spending most of their time with their fathers. When the dads get a bug up their butt and decided suddenly that they want their kids to spend time with them — usually without regard to what the parenting plans actually say — and the mothers won’t agree to it, they scream that the mothers are “keeping them from their kids,” without acknowledging that they haven’t wanted their kids with them anywhere near the amount of time specified in the plan and without acknowledging their own failure to adequately provide for their kids in that they deceived the courts and their wives from the get-go. As to all of this support that is not being spent on the kids: bullshit. If the kids are living with their mothers, their mothers are spending the child support caring for the kids. PERIOD. In my second divorce, I had to pay my ex (who took an early retirement five years before our divorce) “spousal maintenance” for the year we were divorcing, even though he got retirement and was living free with friends. I ended up with all the bills, the mortgage, primary custody and responsibility for my business. He paid $261 per month — for seven minor children. He has seen them once since the divorce 11 years ago. And has made a huge stink with the kids when they asked for a little extra money, because after all, that gigantic, princely sum of $261 should be spent for *them* and what am I doing with it anyway.
And my story is COMMON. There are variations woman to woman, but MOST of us have experiences along these lines.
And of course, as to my first husband, I never got a penny and my “kids” are now 31 and 33. He couldn’t pay support in that he was in jail for trying to kill their mother, me.
I have no doubt that some women deal unfairly with their kids’ fathers, but you know what? For MILLENNIA women received NO justice at all under male heterosupremacy. And most of the time, we still don’t. It will be a long time before we begin to. In the meantime, just as billions of us suffered the injustices which were our lot, a *few* of you will suffer a tiny portion of what MOST of us suffered. Things are tough all over.
So like I say, cry me a river. If you men really do care so much about your children, here are my suggestions: pay your fucking child support every month, on time, work overtime if you have to, borrow money when you have to, (because that’s what we custodial mothers have to do, work overtime and borrow money), show up on time for visitation, show up EVERY time for visitation, remember birthdays and Christmas, show up at school for conferences and events, don’t lay your hand on your kids violently to “discipline” them — EVER — don’t badmouth their mothers to them or to anyone, OR your in-laws, and live as responsible adult citizens.
Because does anybody here really believe that we custodial mothers would NOT want shared custody with men we could trust? Would not want that break, that comfort, that support, that respite, that time to themselves, to be able to take off once in a while, to be able to enjoy some peace and quiet on occasion without our kids around? Does anybody here really believe that mothers would NOT want their kids to enjoy a good relationship with a decent father? If you do believe that, you are sorely deluded. And I don’t believe YOU. I think you want what men had until feminism: your way or the highway. Fatherhood on your own terms. Well, thank the goddess, those days are long gone.
Heart
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
Gee, I wonder if David or Robert will show up now.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Amanda: “What exactly do FRAs think that judges have against men?”
You mean you are a spokesperson for your cause and you don’t know? This only invites the suggestion that your arguments have thier root in prejudice rather than reasons.
Amand: “Why do they “hate”? men? What is the historical cause of this animosity?”
If I understand you correctly, one is to take your rhetorcal questions to mean that judges don’t hate men and there is no “historical animosity.” Why don’t you just say so and establish that as your premise. If you again phrase it as a question because you don’t know, a little research on this subject may lead you to an appropriate rebuttal if a legitimate FRA were to ever assert that judges hate men and the animosity is historical.
Amanda: “The entire history of the world has been a history of women’s oppression”“” A remarkable display of sexism depite that by some estimates the “world” predates women by hundreds of billions of years.
Amanda: “-did the handful of secret female superiorists all become judges and take over the court system secretly?”
Am I to understand that there are secret ones too?
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Not one word of your rebuttal made a lick of sense. Checkmate!
This comment was written by Amanda Marcotte.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Cheryl,
I haven’t heard anyone here advocate beating a spouse, kidnapping children, rape, or child abuse.
You say: “Until the Second Wave, there were no rules against battering one’s wife, against a man raping his wife, against fathers beating children.” — I’m not sure at what point in history your “Second Wave” occurred but I don’t believe this society, or any society from which this country evolved, condoned, promoted, or encouraged any such behavior. I’m willing to change my mind if you can show me that beating your spouse is or was codified in America, an accepted social norm or that such behavior is today socially acceptable. Certainly not denying the behaviour exists, simply that it is not, nor has it been the widely accept norm since the dawn of civilization, if ever.
You say: “Fathers got away with paying no child support at all and with taking their children, too, because laws around custody and support were not reciprocal from state to state and could not be enforced in other than the state in which custody and support orders were entered.” - - - You are really making a mish-mash out of the history of custody and support. So much so as to be innaccurate and take way too lengthy an explanation to set you straight. Since we both were subject to what is most likely the current law you would do best to focus on that.
From what you tell me about yourself and your spouse, frankly I’m surprised that the state didn’t take the children away from BOTH of you (or all 4 of you. It’s a bit hard to know with 2 ex husbands, 7 children or more, boyfriends, etc). I noted several inconsistencies in your story. All I can say is it doesn’t sound like either of you were very responsible breeders let alone parents. God, poverty is such an ugly thing, yet when combined with such ‘white trash’ behavior my heart breaks even more for children in such an environment.
Your situation in no way compares to mine except that we each probably wish we ‘d have chosen different people to have children with.
ginmar, see my previous message to you…
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
“… ‘white trash’ behavior…”
Charming. Really charming, David. Don’t you think that it’s time you hied yourself back to Glenn-land now, or wherever it is you came from ?
“Your situation in no way compares to mine…”
No, it doesn’t. Your life was never in danger, was it ? Only, it would seem, your obviously gargantuan ego and corresponding sense that everything should go your way, because you’re the man. [shakes head] Gevalt.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Amanda,
Thanks for reading. It is my sincere hope that someday you acquire the capacity to understand every word. BINGO!
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Breeders? Oh my goddess, wtf? Cheryl, you’re story is heartbreaking. David, where exactly is your empathy? Seriously.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
Eh. David’s a sore loser. They all are. The hit dawgs howl.
It’s really worse than David suspects though: I’m not only a breeder, I am a *rank* breeder. I have given birth to not 7, not nine, but 11 children. And one reason is, I was a conservative Christian for 20 years and the group I was part of forbade birth control. If you do not use birth control, breeding happens, yanno. I was kind of ashamed of this until one day my 29yo daughter — a radical feminist, like me — told me how much she admired me. Men so often preen over their habit of spreading their seed around and knocking up all sorts of women; I had plenty of fun along the way with a number of men, had all of those many beautiful babies, and raised them myself and did a bang-up job. Heh heh. Only a few left to go now, and it’s easy, given that I’ve been at it for 33 years. And I’ve got grandkids now and amazingly cool daughters-in-law, too– lots of family for support and help. I’m a stunning matriarch with a whole lot of life and energy left in me to dole shit out to the likes of David.
Cause ya know, I am strong as fuck. Seven of my children are adults now, all gainfully employed, not a one of them has ever been in trouble with the law, given me a lick of trouble, nothing, despite their deadbeat, violent dads. I homeschooled my kids through high school, for over 20 years, and five of them went on to college. One is on a pre-med track and is a straight A student on full scholarships at a prestigious private school.
I don’t really qualify for white trash, although I feel a bond with those who are called white trash, people who are poor and live very simply, on the land, as I do. But my first two husbands were black, so white trash doesn’t really describe my family. And I live on a six-acre farm in the Pacific Northwest with a beautiful stream adjacent, a barn, a beautiful house, sheep and chickens, orchards, gardens, which I bought after I sued eight organizations on the Religious Right when they put me out of business — for divorcing my second (fundie) ex– you know, the really godly one who has seen his kids once in 11 years and complains (from the bar at the casino where he preaches the gospel daily) about paying $261 a month in child support. With that judgment, won with the help of kickass feminist woman attorneys, I made a great life for myself and my kids.
That women were chattel through the early 1800s, not entitled to own land, nor to divorce, nor to vote, nor to have custody of children when they divorced, is common knowledge. Nothing at all complicated or esoteric or mysterious about it. That through the 60s there was not reciprocal recognition of custody and child support orders is also common knowledge– easily verifiable. Marital rape was not outlawed in all 50 states until very recently. Children may still be legally abused, beaten, in most states in the U.S., though not Europe. Beating of wives was viewed as a “domestic matter” before the DV shelter movement of the 60s and 70s, courtesy of feminism.
So, David, you need to do a little homework. In the meantime, you are Exhibit A of the danger the Mens/Fathers’ Rights movements are to women and to children. Thank god, most people don’t take you at all seriously.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
You know, after reading David’s story, I have been feeling a bit sad for him that he seemed to possibly be one of the unfortunate folks (both men and women) who end up in a bad situation due to circumstances beyond their control.
I then spent a good twenty minutes reading Cheryl’s post and feeling a profound sadness and then relief (that the system has begun to reflect the needed changes).
I then read David’s retort, and suddenly David’s character and motivations became far more clear. David is only worried about David. David has tunnel vision, in which the only victims are the ones that David deems ‘victimized’. Otherwise, David will summarily dismiss any information that might shed perspective that he chooses not to see. The world in which David lives is of David’s design.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 8:20 pm
Not only are there no inconsistencies in what I say, what I say is a matter of public record courtesy of my law suit against three conservative Christian churches and five organizations on the Religious Right. All anybody has to do is google my name.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
That women were chattel through the early 1800s
This is a typo. Women were chattel in the U.S. through the early 1900s. And of course, they are still chattel in a huge number of countries throughout the world.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
And thanks for all the support, alsis, Kim, Antigone. The system has begun to change, but men can still work it, and they work it well; hence, the ongoing and continuing need for committed feminist activism.
In solidarity with you, and you, Amanda, and all the kickass feminists here,
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Cheryl, you’re quite a poster child for the cause…
I’m sorry for not expressing more empathy with respect to the physical abuse/ brutal assault(s) you sufferred. I would not wish it on anyone.
Still waiting for directions to credible information that would suggest that battering one’s wife, beating one’s child, raping ones wife, is or was the prevailing social norm in our society. Anyone…
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
No problem, Hearrt. Hey, as long as these guys are around, we probably won’t have time to argue with each other. Silver linings, don’t you know. :/
Errr… David, have you tried hitting the archives of this very blog ? How about any one of the many, many feminist blogs listed on this blog’s main page. That would do for a start, if your question is genuine and not just more smoke-blowing. You could also, oh, I don’t know— try googling “domestic violence history” into your handy search engine. That would give you stuff along the lines of:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
So David, out of curiousity, do you recall that old ‘Honeymooner’s’ line, “One of these days, Alice! Bang! Zoom! Straight to the moon!!” Many laughed. What do you suppose this implied? Couldn’t be a humorous threat to violence, right?
What about men smacking women in old movies - to calm them down from hysteria, you know?
Not tangible enough for you? How about reading this study that discusses the romanticization of domestic abuse, control and violence against women with media and literature.
There is tons more out there, all just waiting for you to google up.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 6:08 am
KIm, you’re wasting your time. David’s character could not have more perfectly revealed if he’d tried, even though he does try to conceal it.
David’s biggest problem isn’t what he claims he’s suffered: it’s the revenge that he intends to get. And somehow I don’t think he’s just hostile to his ex; his behavior here has pretty clearly revealed how hostile he is to other women.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 7:58 am
In response to David’s request for additional information:
Here is a legislative history of child support.
http://www.childsupport-aces.org/LegislativeHistory.htm
Here is an extensive, annotated history of the movement to end domestic violence against women. :
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html
Here is a history of the movement to make marital rape illegal. It is still not altogether illegal in some states in the United States where there are “exemptions” for husbands:
http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/mrape/mrape.html#id75103
Here is an article on violence against children in the United States:
http://www.childadvocate.org/1a_research.htm
Alsis, I was thinking the same thing, heh heh.
Heart
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 8:11 am
David, you know that you don’t actually have a case that men have been systematically oppressed for all of human history like women have, so instead you called me “sexist” when what you meant was “speciesist”. How big a stretch do you have to make? My female cat bests my male cat in their play fighting all the time, true, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Perhaps you would like to point to the mythological Amazonian culture to make your case for historical male oppression that is contributing to your perceived victimhood. Or maybe Martians are matriarchal? You could go with that.
This comment was written by Amanda Marcotte.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 8:27 am
David Says:
“I don’t believe this society, or any society from which this country evolved, condoned, promoted, or encouraged [battering one's wife].”
(I realize this isn’t going to register, but) David, seriously, are you actually that ignorant of American history that you think that men were never legally allowed to hit their wives for disobedience? Or is it not “battering” if there are rules about it?
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 8:46 am
Oh, c’mon. Why are you all picking on poor David ? His silence CLEARLY means that he is off reading tons of readily-accessable DV History links and having his consciousness raised about how he lives in a patriarchy– the same one all his ancestors did.
Yeah, sure he is. And I won $500,000 playing video p*k*r last night after he left. I’m hopping on the Concorde now and going to Paris for a nice twelve-course champagne brunch. Any of you want to join me ? :/
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Still waiting for directions to credible information that would suggest that battering one’s wife, beating one’s child, raping ones wife, is or was the prevailing social norm in our society.
You have an oxymoron in there, David. Until recently, there was no such thing as “raping one’s wife.” Rape laws specifically excluded anything that happened between husband and wife.
Here’s an example for you: a 1986 Alabama criminal case where laws against forcible sodomy did not apply to spouses.
http://www.law.ua.edu/colquitt/crimmain/crimcase/wms.htm
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Hate to break it to you, but the VAST majority of victims of violent crimes are male. You’re never going to find a single legit statistics that’s going to state females are victims of crime more often than males. Fact of the matter is the more violent the crime, the more likely the victim is male. Stats show that in EVERY nation that collects them. Funny part about DV is most victims of familial violence are male. DV stats only count intimate partners, and don’t include men, lesbsians or gays in their stats. Or worse they take them from centers and shelters. That’s like going to a hospital and asking how many people are sick. But if you include familial violence (the cops do, that’s why it called a “domestic” distrubance), then men are just slightly more likely to be victims. Don’t believe me? Go check out the stats on for 2003 on the FBI’s website.
You’re right about the laws though. Like how most state’s rape laws say you have to be female to be raped. Or like how sodomy laws exactly imply that both parties were willing participants. Laws are funny like that. But that’s why we have Supreme Courts.
And, just because I noticed a whole lot of “wifebeater” and “baby raper” rhetorictic being thrown around, here’s this link: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/summary.htm
My favorite part is this: “Female perpetrators, mostly mothers, were typically younger than male perpetrators, mostly fathers. Women also comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 58 percent compared to 42 percent”
Just food for thought. Attack away.
This comment was written by Drake.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
alsis,
I’m in. Paris sounds fantastic right about now. :)
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Yeah, but Paris gets more tourists. Tourists mean people like, oh, I don’t know—David there, who probably bellows at people in English in their own country, and gets genuinely offended when they treat him like a presumptuous brat. Azay-le-Rideau, anyone? Langeis? And a patisserie on every corner. Sigh.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
*sigh* somebody link Drake, and tell him why his information is false and misleading. I don’t want to.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Drake:
I hate to break it to you, but no one here has said that women are the majority of victims of all violent crime. No one.
I really hate it when people just spout off irrelevant boilerplate, rather than reading and responding to the actual discussion content of the discussion. And, of course, if I don’t let your comment through - even though it’s obvious that you’re not really responding to what people here have actually written - you’ll whine about me being a “censor.”
Actually, that’s true only of murder - which is, relatively to other crimes, very rare. (Which is good!) What I’d call the next most traumatic crime - rape - happens far more often to women than men.
Well, it depends on what source you use. Anyone who says absolutist statements like “DV stats only count X, and don’t count Y,” etc., is showing that they’re ignorant - because not all data collections are the same.
For instance, the CDC-DOJ survey of violence, conducted by the federal government, included men and women, lesbians and gays, in their study.
They didn’t include child abuse - and you’re right, many statistics show that women are the majority of child abusers. (Why on earth do you think that would be news to me?) My guess is that’s because women are so much more likely to be parents (the vast majority of single parents are women), and even when there are two parents the mother spends far more time with the child (typically).
Only in states which make a meaningless distinction between “rape” and some other term for male victims, like “sexual assault.” If I’m wrong, show me - with a link, not just with your unsupported say-so - a state where the rape and sexual assault laws preclude men being victims.
I’d be interested in a link to such a law. Do you know how many states have such a law? What are men’s rights activists doing to change these laws?
Anyway, if you come back, please try actually reading and responding to what’s actually been written here, rather than just repeating boilerplate arguments. Also, please try to dial back your condescending attitude a few notches. Thanks.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Wow–I don’t think I’ve actually seen an MRA pretend that men get raped as often as women. We’re close to the pure insanity tipping point–anyday now they are going to start making noise about how women force sex on men more than the other way around.
This comment was written by Amanda Marcotte.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Amanda, I’ve had some guys come really, really close to that very argument. That, and one where they argue that rape is so much worse for men than for women.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Amp, (you don’t mind if I call you that, do you?) just how familiar are you with the US legal system? Since my dad’s a lawyer, I’ve been around law my whole life. Sodomy laws were written with the implication that ALL acts of sodomy were illegal. That means consenual acts too. But, you asked for a link. Is this fine: http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/introduction.htm It’s a little on the long side, but I think this proves my point: White said that Georgia was justified in outlawing private, consensual sodomy because of the “presumed belief of a majority of the electorate in Georgia that homosexual sodomy is immoral and unacceptable.” Thus, merely because the state long had interfered with sexual activity between consenting adults, that was sufficient constitutional justification for permitting them to continue doing so.
And guess what, until recently ALL states had sodomy laws like that.
For the rape law, that’s really easy. Check here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape
Lots of states have modified their laws under pressure from child abuse groups, prison right activists, and a ton of male victims and their families and supporters like the women from the Independant Women’s Forum. Now when I say modified, most of the time it’s only in court. The law isn’t rewritten or revised. It’s just applied to other people. Some states do have gender neutral rape laws, but a lot don’t. I’m doing something about. So is my dad and some of his close friends with connections to the Illinois Supreme Court.
But those changes weren’t because of feminists. That was all on the men and the groups that support them.
I got a kid, so I’m going to have to dare to be different and say that the worst, most cowardly crime any person could do is a crime, any crime, against a child. Sorry I think child abuse is a worser problem.
BTW, you got a link to this is up: “Actually, that’s true only of murder - which is, relatively to other crimes, very rare. ”
Because every stat I’ve ever seen on violent crime, from Germany, Japan, China, Australia, England, Canada and the United States, along with South Africa, Iraq, Palestine and India says that outside of rape, males are more like to be the victims of violent crimes.
I guess they could ALL be wrong, but I doubt it.
And Amanda, sorry I’m not a MRA. I’m a humanist. I spent last summer fighting with the City of Chicago to get more funding to several women’s shelters on the West Side where my aunts and sisters live. And I spent that time making sure that no boys or men would be turned away without being given info on male-friendly therapists in the area. It’s scary, I know, suggesting that something should be done to help men.
There’s something I say whenever I talk to people like you about stopping violence. I say it to folks when I talk about immigrations, or when I speak to my Southern family who can’t stand a wetback dropping by every Christmas.
I know that you’re afraid. You’re afraid of us. You’re afraid of change. I don’t know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin. I’m going to hang up this phone, and then I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m going to show them a world… without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.
This comment was written by Drake.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
“Amanda, I’ve had some guys come really, really close to that very argument. That, and one where they argue that rape is so much worse for men than for women.”
So you think rape is worse for women? How can anyone say which is worse when you can’t ever know the other? Why can’t they both be bad?
This comment was written by Drake.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
The annual British Crime Survey (Samples size: 22,463) does - and the dv stats still show women are overwhelmingly the victims, overwhelmingly those injured, overwhelmingly psychologically affected - and even the majority of those killed.
For example:
Similar findings occur all over Europe - either your data is incorrect or American women are unusually violent. What explanation do you have for this discrepancy?
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
Is he using that study that Amp did a piece about MRAs misusing?
I suspect that Americna women are not unusually violent. One has to ask, though, if the police are unusually enthusiastic about arresting them. I think Amp once linked to some studies that discussed domestic violence in the police force and armed services. I can only imagine what would happen if one were being beaten by one’s spouse and the person who showed up to intervene was another wife-beater….
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Due to anti-feminist agitation, many police forces automatically arrest the victim for domestic violence when the police are summoned unless she’s been completely beat down and has not resisted her abuse at all. Raise a hand in self-defense and you’re going to jail, too. A woman who is close to me was shoved into the wall by her husband and she called the cops and he, in his self-regret, injured himself, and the cops had her in cuffs and in the car before her husband convinced them that she was completely innocent.
It’s really scary. If a man is hitting you and you lash out to escape, you’re getting charged in many communities. For all we know, this is skewing the stats to make it look like more women are abusers than there are.
This comment was written by Amanda Marcotte.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
So you think rape is worse for women? How can anyone say which is worse when you can’t ever know the other? Why can’t they both be bad?
Didn’t say that. Don’t put words in my mouth. Unless of course you yourself think that if rape hurts one sex, it must be a walk in the park for the other, then there’s no way to contort what I said. However, I would say that rape of women is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more common. And a couple more fars in there, in case you didn’t get the point. Oh, and before you whine, most male victims of rape were raped by other men.
This comment was written by Amanda Marcotte.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
FTR - I believe that yes, it’s Drake’s data that is wrong.
And the problens Ginmar cites regarding the use of police data is what’s so great about the British Crime Survey - it doesn’t look at reported crime - simply takes a large but representative sample of the population and asks for their experiences of crime. Whilst not without it’s flaws in assessing some kinds of data, it at least negates the usual claims that all these thousands of battered men are somehow missing because of the methodology / sampling employed.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
Yep, Drake’s data is wrong.
Also, as for the who’s likely to get arrested idea, was talking to my father at length about this after reading a great deal of information about VAWA and the threads that have popped up lately. My dad is a retired state police officer that eventually became a police chief for three different posts and has worked with community domestic violence programs at extensive length, so I was curious about his ‘take’ on the situation, from the perspective of a police officer. His direct observations were this:
- The person who makes the call is least likely to be arrested. The law as it’s set up focuses the initial investigation on the party that is being complained about.
- Women often are arrested simply due to the laws at hand because upon the arrival of the police the situation sinks in and they feel safer to express their outrage. Men often will shut up at this point, which creates a false impression of who the aggressor was in the situation.
- Women are the victim of DV at least 8 out of 10 of the times the police are called.
- Women sustain the harshest wounds in domestic violence. Frequently close fisted hits to the face, torso, stomach and arms. Men generally sustain scratches from women, forearms, hands, occassionally face.
Most of what he said seems to support the statistics that the government gives, and the suppositions that feminists give instead of MRA’s. Interesting that as a republican man that has been a first responder to DV for decades, he sides squarely with women on this one. It leads me to very much believe that MRA’s are either willfully misinterpreting and misrepresenting statistics, or deluding themselves about them so the scenario they have built up can remain in tact.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Kim, how many of the scratches, etc. on men would your dad say the men sustained as the women were fighting back and/or trying to escape?
This comment was written by Amanda Marcotte.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
No idea, Amanda. He said that women were more likely to slap or scratch, and men more likely to grab and punch.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
outside of rape, males are more like to be the victims of violent crimes.
Violent crimes, yes, that’s a well known statistic Drake. What we’re talking about here, however, is domestic violence, which in fact is FAR MORE LIKELY to be men abusing women. Nobody denies the fact that occassionally women do abuse men, and occassionally women do fight back in the domestic violence situations, but more often than not…
(for amanda, actually, as it pertains to the prior question) the reason behind domestic violence cited by men was that the woman ‘went too far’ in what she was saying. IE: She said something that pissed the guy off.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
Course I don’t mind being called Amp. As for how familiar I am with the US legal system, let’s just see how our conversation goes, and readers can judge for themselves which one of us knows what we’re talking about.
Let’s go back to your original claim, Drake. You wrote:
You claimed, using the present tense, that most state’s (sic) rape laws say you have to be female to be raped, and that sodomy laws imply that both parties were willing participants.
When I challenged you to back up your claims with evidence, however, suddenly you changed your claim, and pretended that you were talking about what sodomy laws used to say.
Yes, they were written that way - past tense. But, as everyone knows (and the link you yourself provided confirms), those laws have all been overturned, thanks to Laurence vs. Texas. They don’t exist in the present tense.
Those sodomy laws that still exist, like Alabama’s “Sodomy in the first degree” law, require “forcible compulsion” to be a crime - which means that they obviously do not assume that both sides consented.
If you want to admit that your previous claim about sodomy was wrong, and change your claim to one about what laws used to say, that’s fine. But that doesn’t change the fact that your original claim - the one that I objected to - was completely wrong.
Gee, a free online legal dictionary - one so lame that it doesn’t even have a listing for the term “sexual assault,” even though dozens of states use that term. You don’t seriously think that’s authoritative, do you?
I asked you to provide me with an example of “a state” in which “rape laws say you have to be female to be raped.” That shouldn’t be hard for you to do, since according to you this is what they “say” (present tense) in “most” states. Please do so now - quote me the current state law which says that men can’t be victims of rape or sexual assault.
Since you failed to look at actual state laws, I decided to take a quick look. Here’s the text of the relevant laws in the first ten states listed alphabetically (strictly speaking, it’s nine states plus the District of Columbia).
As you’ll see, in every state I checked, the law against rape is written in sex-neutral language. (The only exception is Alabama, where apparently female-female rape has not been outlawed. That’s wrong, but it doesn’t support your claim that in most states men can’t be raped.)
There is absolutely no support for your claim that most states have rape laws which exclude men as victims. Every state code I’ve read has gender-neutral laws. Speaking of which:
That’s a really strange thing for you and your father to be doing. Because I looked it up, and Illinois already has gender-neutral laws against sexual assault. Here’s what the Illinois criminal code says:
(Isn’t it curious that your father is working to make a law that’s already gender neutral, gender neutral? I mean, you’d think - what with him being a big-shot lawyer with friends who are connected to the Illinois Supreme Court - that he’d already know that. Very odd, don’t you think? Oh, well. The good news is, you can now tell your Dad that he can stop working on this issue; that should save him some time. Maybe he can work on emancipating the slaves next.)
So, again, I ask you: Can you provide a single example of a state in which men cannot legally be victims of sexual assault or rape? This should be easy for you to do, since according to you “most” states do not legally recognize male victims of s.a. or rape, and those that do have modified them “only in court,” not by rewriting or revising the code.
And I also ask you: Clearly, you were wrong when you said your Dad is currently working to change Illinois state law to be gender-neutral, since it’s already gender-neutral. So why should we take your word regarding anything else (for instance, that you’ve done work to support women’s shelters?) Since you lied about your Dad’s activism in Illinois, it seems plausible that you’ll lie about other things, too.
By the way, most state rape laws were changed to gender-neutral mostly because of the activism of liberal feminists over the past 10-25 years - years before the IWF and most men’s rights activist groups even existed. If I’m wrong, prove it: provide a link to a MRA or IWF press release describing their recent victories changing rape and sexual assault laws. (The IWF puts out a press release whenever they sneeze; it’s not credible that they’d ever actually have a legislative victory and not announce it.)
As for the rest of your post, most of it consisted of you attempting to be condescending (you really should cut that out), and showing that you think of feminists in stupid, stereotypical terms (we find the idea of helping men scarey, etc etc).
May I offer you two pieces of advice?
First of all, throw out your stereotypes about feminists. Stereotypes are something stupid people do because they’re too lazy to use actual thought. If you don’t want to come across as a stupid person, then stop using stereotypes.
Second of all, next time, for your own sake, do some basic research before pretending that you know something.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
So why should we take your word regarding anything else (for instance, that you’ve done work to support women’s shelters?)
Actually, he worded it oddly Amp. He stated:
I spent last summer fighting with the City of Chicago to get more funding to several women’s shelters on the West Side where my aunts and sisters live. And I spent that time making sure that no boys or men would be turned away without being given info on male-friendly therapists in the area. It’s scary, I know, suggesting that something should be done to help men.
One part implies he was fund raising, the other that he spent his time going to shelters and making sure they had a protocol for dealing with men in crisis. He then went on with another off-the-cuff ad hominem.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Read parts of the British survey. It matches what I said earlier. It only studied acts of violence against intimate partners. That means they only looked at numbers for people assaulted by their lovers, grilfriends/boyfriends, or spouses. And that’s what I said earlier. One statement out of the study stuck out though.
“While three-quarters of women who had been victims of domestic violence since 16, according to a definition more restrictive than that of the Home Office, that is, non-sexual domestic threat or force, which does not include emotional or financial abuse, agreed that they would call it domestic violence, one quarter did not. Among men, only 41 per cent would call it domestic violence, and the majority, 59 per cent would not.”
That would play a part in higher stats. Men are also less likely to report assaults, attacks, or even injuries than women, and that’s outside of DV.
Kim, my father’s a lawyer. I’ve met lots of judges, and you know what’s funny? Not one of them ever says the same thing about crime. One guy’s like, “Urban kids are just so violent” and another guy’s like, “I keep seeing more violent women” and this one woman’s like, “The laws tie my hands so much I can’t even judge.” So maybe your father had one experience, and dozens of other people have had different ones. Feminists twist the facts just as much as any men’s groups I’ve seen. More so since you guys already have people’s ears.
Amanda, I’d like to see some info on cops arresting female victims of DV and not the guys. Because that flies in the face of info I heard a police conference earlier this year in New York. New DV laws in lots of states make it so that the aggressor, according to the call-in, is automatically arrested. I already know male victims are arrested, so if female victims are being arrested when it’s obvious they’re victims, send me the info, and I’ll get it to my dad. He can make a bigger fuss than I can.
As for the whole “women are far more+infinity likely to be raped”, there’s no way you can prove that. I hate stuff like that because that’s just bunk. Most victims never report it, and males are less likely to report it than females. So not only you not possibly know how many people are raped, you can’t even give a reasonable estimate who it happens to more. It sounds like you’re bathing in a logical fallacy. Kind of like the one a few decades back that said, “Since there ain’t that many reported incidents of rape, it must not happen all that much.” And anyway, I was respond to ginmar’s comment, not you. I do think that you think that rape isn’t that bad for men and boys. Maybe that it’s not bad at all. You should check out http://www.malesurvivor.org and tell those guys they’re just whining.
Current stats for male rape is 1 in 5. Current stat for female rape is 1 in 4. In my book, that’s not that big of a difference. And this ain’t some sort of contest. I don’t care who rapes who. I care that it was done. Maybe you’re different. Maybe you think it’s funny that men and boys are raped. I don’t. I take it VERY seriously. Especially after my son was born. I don’t want anything happening to my son, my godson, my nephews, my cousins, or any inmate in prison, guy at a bar, or someone guy just to humilate them in the EXACT SAME WAY I don’t want it done to my sisters, my step mom, my fiance, my aunts, my cousins, or any woman. I don’t nitpick genders.
This comment was written by Drake.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Is Drake trying to convert people to a religion or something? I don’t know, maybe it’s my bad english but I didn’t quite get that. Sounds like some cult, all the talk about no borders or boundaries and anything being possible. Not convinced.
Come on, even anti-feminists ought to concede this point to feminists, as grass-root activism (as feminism) originally brought the revolutionary idea that women aren’t property, and deserve rights. Even married women. But no, let’s just blame everything bad that happens to us men on feminists, and give all credit for good things to non-feminist judges and men supporting them.
And domestic violence is usually (but certainly not always) male as the aggressor, woman as a victim. That should not be argued over and over after seeing the recent statistics dv in almost any country. And there is no dilemma whether one should worry more about spousal abuse or child abuse, both are wrong and largely stem from position of power or fear of losing that position, as perceived by the abuser.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Correction: Feminists do indeed push laws that recognize sexual assault on men too, not just fighting for exclusively women’s rights. However, I do have a problem with anti-feminists who expect feminists to suddenly have the power to change all bad things in the world simultaneously.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
Hey Amp, I didn’t backtrack on anything. I said: “Lots of states have modified their laws under pressure from child abuse groups, prison right activists, and a ton of male victims and their families and supporters like the women from the Independant Women’s Forum. Now when I say modified, most of the time it’s only in court. The law isn’t rewritten or revised. It’s just applied to other people. Some states do have gender neutral rape laws, but a lot don’t.”
So here’ what you should do. Go and check out current state laws and read what the rape laws state. Like I said, some states have modified the laws, but a lot of them haven’t. Check it instead of saying it’s not true.
Same with the sodomy laws. I stated: “Or like how sodomy laws exactly imply that both parties were willing participants.”
And you said: I’d be interested in a link to such a law. Do you know how many states have such a law? What are men’s rights activists doing to change these laws?”
So, do the sodomy laws imply that parties are willing participants? According to the link, yep. I didn’t backtrack on that or even say that sodomy laws are still used. Really, dude, don’t just jump down my throat because you disagree with me. Address what I said, not what you think I said.
The Illinois law has been modified several times, Amp. Once back in 1970’s and again in 1992. Here’s a little history on that: http://www.nvaw.org/research/sa.shtml
Let’s look at what I said: “Some states do have gender neutral rape laws, but a lot don’t. I’m doing something about. So is my dad and some of his close friends with connections to the Illinois Supreme Court.”
Did I say he was working to change the Illinois law? No. I said he and his friends with CONNECTIONS (meaning people listen when they drop those names) to the Illinois Supreme Court. There are still states with laws, like Texas, Iowa, and Maine which rape laws that state that victims are females. But those are statutory rape laws, so that’s my mistake. Lot of them were changed recently. While I was checking out current laws, I found a lot of foreign states still define rape as only male-female. So on that one, my mistake. However, the changes did not happen as a result of feminists trying to include males as victims. That’s clear from the link. It happened again as a result of the acknowledgement of victims and the actions of men and their supporters. If you can show me where feminists have argued for the inclusicion of males in rape laws, I’d be glad to see it.
And before you offer advice, take it yourself. Drop your stereotypes about anyone who is critical of feminism and stop twisting their statements to what you think they said. It makes it sound like you think you’re smarter than everybody, and you end up coming off like people who deny there was a Holocaust.
And you should re-read whatever you’re going to tear apart. You would have caught the info on the sodomy laws if yo’d taken it seriously.
This comment was written by Drake.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
Thomas, I think feminism did a lot to get the ball rolling. It’s because of feminism that the psychological community even exists (even though they trashed it when Freud really got started). It’s because they brought awareness to female victims of DV and rape that some people take abuse against men and boys seriously.
But they rarely acknowledge male victims, like you’re seeing on this thread. And saying anything about that usually gets the “you’re a mysognist” treatment. The feminists of “back-in-the-day” ain’t the feminists of today.
You’re right about one thing. This is all about power. One group is trying to shift the power to their side. A small faction is trying to stop them and throw things back 100 years. Another group is trying create equality. And folks like me think we should just scrap it and start over. And all the folks caught in the middle are the ones who suffer. The first group only cares about their gender. The second, I’m not even what they even want. The third is trying to pick up the first’s slack, but have to deal with being called sexist for it. And the latter is like, “You know, we could fit everybody if we just used the van.”
Thomas, I think you missed the point of the quote. People are afraid of change. So are feminists. Lots of folks will listen to men and take them seriously. Lots of judges will try to work around biased laws to make them fair. Lots of women and pro-male feminists actually think there are some legitimate problems men face. Lots of people want to help everyone, not just one gender. And they’re willing to start with everyone, not just one gender. And a lot of feminists are afraid because the more people you listen to men, the less that listen to them. The more equal it really gets. Not just with laws, but in actions. And it’s a scary thought to think that your ideology won’t be needed anymore.
This comment was written by Drake.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
Tuomas, that bit was a paraphrase from the final lines of The Matrix, the first one.
I’ve met men who’ve been victims of sexual abuse when they were young, and I’m inclined to believe it may be underreported. I’m inclined to believe that there are instances when men are treated unfairly in custody settlements. But when someone makes those claims, and then starts attacking feminism, as if feminism was somehow the dominant ideology, I have a hard time trusting those claims.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 10:50 pm
Drake wrote:
Drake, although it’s obvious that you won’t admit it, you claimed earlier this thread that MOST states had rape laws in which men could not be raped. You later allowed that maybe some changes had been made, but according to you this was mainly in the courts, not in the text of the laws themselves.
I’ve checked out the text of the laws in twelve states laws so far, and not one of them was as you described. You’ve backtracked even in this most recent post, giving three examples of statutory rape laws that (you claim, without offering evidence) are not gender neutral (and if that’s the case, then I agree they should be changed) - but you weren’t talking about statutory rape laws in your original claim.
What I’m seeing is a lot of backtracking from your original lie, Drake, and not a single bit of actual evidence supporting your claim. Let’s make this easy.
Here’s your choice, Drake:
1) You can admit you were absolutely wrong to claim that “most state’s rape laws say you have to be female to be raped.” Admit that this claim was false, admit that you made a mistake, and we’ll move on. No big deal - everyone makes mistakes now and then.
2) Provide evidence that most states rape laws say you have to be female to be raped. This evidence should consist of links to current state criminal codes, or quotes from current state criminal codes, supporting your claim. Let’s say, from five states - since according to you, at least 26 states have such codes, finding five examples should not be hard.
Hell, you don’t even have to provide the quotes - name the five states, and I’ll do the work of looking them up.
3) Be banned from posting in this forum.
Note that you’re not being banned for having contrary opinions - there are lots of people who I very much disagree with who post here, who’d I never even think of banning. The truth is, I love debate, almost more than anything, which makes me value people who can disagree with me intelligently and with civility very highly.
If you are banned, it’s not because you’ve disagreed with me. It’s because you’re a condescending liar who doesn’t even have the intellectual integrity - or guts - to admit when he’s made a clear-cut factual error.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Drake, I really don’t know what to say to you, being that you’re pretty oblivious to how shakey if not outright erroneous your arguments are.
So here are a few thoughts on what I’ve gathered from and about you:
One - you seem to believe that your associations with folks are somehow more valid and legitimate than those posting on this board. You have repeatedly attempted to use the fact that your father is a lawyer to imply authority on a subject in some vague way. You haven’t even stated what kind of law your father practices. I responded to that and another comment made by Amanda by bringing up a relatively interesting conversation I had with my own father this past weekend that involved 20 years of personal experience with the police and DV situations, and gave what I believe to be a better accounting of his veracity on the subject, and was able to establish how I concluded that the statistics and my fathers perceptions seem to correspond with each other. You on the other hand haven’t shown anything, other than a propensity to assume authority on subjects based on association that isn’t even established as reasonable expertise on a subject.
You do realise, of course, that several of the people posting on Alas, and even in this conversation are lawyers and folks who have worked within the social work trenches, so to speak, right? Or had you assumed you came to a forum with a bunch of illiterates that have no understanding of laws, statistics and debate?
Secondly, you seem to want to toss away others mentionings of statistics as meaningless, because well, facts can be misconstrued - but then want others to take at face value the statistics you present, or your own ‘twisting’ (your word) of them as the reality of the situation, despite it being debunked quite thoroughly.
You also seem to want to argue that there is perhaps an equal amount or just less than amount of men raped as women. It’s truly absurd. While I don’t think anyone would fail to concede that men may be less likely to report a rape, the idea that the number is even close to women is just plain bullshit. I have gathered what I could about this supposed 1 in 5 men, 1 in 4 women statistic and haven’t found crap, but I did find these facts:
- There were approximately 4,890 rapes of males age 12 and over in the United States in 1994. The rate for rapes of males was .8 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).- In 1985, the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in The Crime of Rape that there were 123,000 male rapes over a ten-year period. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985).
- In 2003, there were 198,850 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
- Only about 40% of rapes sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement in 2003.
- One out of every six American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape). [Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey, National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998.]
- In 2003, nine out of every ten rape victims were female. [NCVS 2003]
- About three percent of American men …- a total of 2.78 million men…have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. [Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women 1998.]
- Approximately 70% of female rape victims and 74% of male rape victims know their assailant. [2003 NCVS.]
- Approximately 50% of female victims and 44% of male victims are raped by a friend or acquaintance; 30% of female victims and 26% of male victims by a stranger; 12% of female victims and 30% of male victims by an intimate; 8% of female victims and less than 1% of male victims by another relative; but in less than 1% of cases the relationship is unknown. [2003 NCVS.]
*NCVS: National Crime Victim Survey
Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
So here’ what you should do. Go and check out current state laws and read what the rape laws state.
Dude: YOU made the claim. YOU back it up. If you have been around law your whole life, you’d know that’s how you prove a point.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
Drake, I have just one question here:
If are 1 in 5 likely to be raped (which i find odd, could you please link me? I don’t disbelieve you, I just haven’t heard that before) and women are 1 in 4 times likely to be raped, who exactly is doing the raping? That’s a LOT of rapists. And before you start accusing me of misandry, I want to know if there are just as many women as men raping someone else. Because if there are roving bands of women raping other people, in equal numbers as men, that means we have a problem as a whole society. But if we have more men than women going out and raping, then we have a problem with the patriarchy.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
Oh. It was from The Matrix! (It did sound somewhat familiar, but the exact words didn’t ring a bell. You know, finnish subtitles and damned illogical and incomprehensible english pronounciation ;) ). Thanks Brian. And I quite agree with you (and Drake) on male sexual abuse cases being a problem too.
Drake:
(First of all, there is a Thomas commentor here (not me) and my name is Tuomas - no typo there).
I think your solution to problems is admirable, as in let’s start all over again. However, I also think it is utopistical, unrealistic and unattainable, at least by quick fix. Gender roles exist. We cannot just one day as a species declare them null and void, and live by that. People wont do that overnight en masse Therefore I side with the group trying to create equality, whether that group happens feminist group (as it currently, in many issues seems to be), father’s rights group or whatever. And blanket statements about feminists aren’t really helping you to make your point, and saying that men (as a group) getting their wishes heard instead of feminists -> equality, isn’t realistic. Many men resisted the revoking of the spousal rape exemption, that the feminists endorsed, for example. And I still think it’s easier in most ways to be a man than a woman (BUT gender roles aren’t great for men either) in modern society, so i’m not very conserned about men having less power than women any day soon (and I haven’t met feminists who advocated for matriarchy or getting the right to vote away from men, but plenty of opposite from anti-feminists, so I don’t think they are fair comparisons).
Also, your “gender-blindness” is admirable. But what is the point of your “most victims of violent crimes are male” stuff then? I suspect it is the classic case of wanting to focus on men when discussing something that men mostly face, but wanting to get gender-neutral instantly when discussing crimes that mostly women face. And I’m not buying the argument that you are only doing it to balance the feminists.
And this crap
, just drop that. I don’t think anyone here thinks rape is funny in any way. Yeah, and lot of feminists and pro-feminists think men have legitimate problems. You said it yourself. Then why on earth do you still make these “feminists want to tilt the power to favor women over men” claims? And also, you could try to refute Amp’s, Kim’s, ginmar’s and Amanda’s claims, because I fear were getting nit-picky and off-topic here, you arguing against the classic straw man of feminism and me trying to set things straight (I’m sure you can find a better source on feminism than a debate with me).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 11:37 pm
bold? (what am I doing wrong to get it?)
[For some reason, if you don't put a blank line both before and after blockquotes, things end up going bold. CSS is weird. -Amp]
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
I mean feminists were the ones who fought to revoke the spousal rape exemption. And that wasn’t before Freud, but quite recently. Coffee…
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 12:51 am
Clearly you didn’t get as far as chapter 4.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 4:36 am
Maybe he can emancipate the slaves next.
And this doesn’t sound nearly as snarky as it should in view of Drake’s attempt to pass off dialogue from The Matrix as his own views. Cree-pee.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 8:45 am
[For some reason, if you don't put a blank line both before and after blockquotes, things end up going bold. CSS is weird. -Amp]
Okay. I’ll try to keep that in mind. Thanks for fixing my post again!
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Cheryl….
Still waiting for directions to credible information that would suggest that battering one’s wife, beating one’s child, raping ones wife, is or was the prevailing social norm in our society.
Anyone…..?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 11:18 am
So you read the links Cheryl posted, the one I posted, the one Kim posted, and don’t find any of them credible ? Plus, you aparently don’t understand how google works ?
Amp, can I sing the Troll song now ?
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Hey, don’t forget the one I posted.
*sulk*
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 11:24 am
Sorry. :o You can join us in our collective invisibility, mythago. No sweat. :/
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 11:33 am
Y’all are having a disagreement about what is a prevailing social norm, versus what is legally permissible, I suspect.
In Republican Rome, children were the property of the father. (Paterfamilias.) He could kill them if they disobeyed him. He could kill them if he suspected they were not biologically his. Heck, he could kill them on a whim.
However, that was what was legally permissible. It was not the social norm to kill disobedient children. Someone who did would be looked askance at.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Quite true, Robert. However, I think laws very much mold what is the social norm, and social norms very much affect laws via elected representatives. It might be “egg or chicken” disagreement really.
And about Rome, I don’t think a man who punished severely (even killing) a very disobedient child would be looked very much askance. Same thing about legal wife-beating and spousal rape, if it was “justified” enough, people tend not to have a problem with it (as long as they keep electing officials that don’t want to change the law, that is).
Some people even today don’t have a problem about illegal wife-beating or illegal rape when “she was asking for it” (of course I don’t group you with them, I’ve come to know your opinions better than that).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
It’s kind of funny (not in a ha-ha way) to read Robert’s comment in conjunction with the thread about the kid whose been shipped off to the anti-gay camp. What those parents are doing is legal, and it IS a reinforcement of three social norms in modern American culture: The norm of heterosexuality, the norm of Christianity, and the norm of children as the property of their parents.
I think Robert is seeing a schism where none necessarily exists. Also, it’s not enough to notice that someone might “look askance” at such practices. Clearly a number of folk on the net and even in this kid’s home state are not pleased with what’s happening to him. That doesn’t make them the majority and it doesn’t empower them with the ability to change to laws.
Social norms feed and reinforce the law, and the reverse is also true.
Furthermore, how does Robert KNOW who would have looked askance at who in ancient Rome ? Was he there ?
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
“Look askance” is another way to say “condone.” That is, it’s a fault that isn’t considered worth punishing.
Our society is entirely too at ease with torture. Sending young people off to be tortured deserves more than a “look askance.”
(By the way, speaking of collective invisibility, Alsis, would you mind dropping me an email? I’ve been wanting to send some political stuff your way.)
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Robert’s analysis works with “marriage rape” laws too.
This in no way says that such laws are not addressing an existing social evil. However “Until the passage of marriage rape laws, the prevailing social norm was that men could rape their wives” doesn’t appear to be supportable.
For example (to bring up a prior thread): “Until the passage of laws that specifically prohibited a custodial parent from spending support money on cigarettes, it was the prevailing social norm.”
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
However “Until the passage of marriage rape laws, the prevailing social norm was that men could rape their wives”? doesn’t appear to be supportable.
I think it’s entirely supportable. I don’t think too many women or girls ever wanted to have sex with men they were sold off to be married to or with men they were otherwise forced to marry without their consent. I think the sex men had with these women who were chattel was rape. And I think the norm that was established thereby was that men could rape their wives in that wives were viewed as the property of men.
And the links I posted were more than thoroughly responsive to David’s questions.
Heart
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
David, that is a straw man. There are laws for child neglect, and if a parent neglects a child he/she will be charged with these. Oh, and rape is equivalent to buying cigarettes. Sure…
And previously, men could rape their wives. Did you miss the point about people electing officials to represent laws AND social norms they want be in effect? How the hell (almost) no one, or at least majority didn’t think about changing the law earlier if they condoned spousal rape etc. so strongly?
Of course, you don’t have an answer, so you’ll just pretend that arguments like this (and others that have been posted) don’t exist. Mythago, alsis, can I join your invisibility club?
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
I meant not condone, but to not condone, or judge, whatever the best word is for that.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
spam, but the word I searched is condemn.
Thats how I meant it.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
But for the hell of it, let’s just post some of what was in those links which evidences that men beating their wives and children and raping their wives were prevailing social norms.
****
753 B.C. During the reign of Romulus in Rome, wife beating is accepted and condoned under The Laws of Chastisement. Under these laws, the husband has absolute rights to physically discipline his wife. Since by law, a husband is held liable for crimes committed by his wife, this law was designed to protect the husband from harm caused by the wife’s actions. These laws permit the husband to beat his wife with a rod or switch as long as its circumference is no greater than the girth of the base of the man’s right thumb, hence “The Rule of Thumb.” The tradition of these laws is perpetuated in English Common Law and throughout most of Europe. 3
202 B.C. At the end of the Punic Wars, the family structure changes giving women more freedoms, including property rights and the right to sue their husbands for unjustified beatings. 3
c. 300 A.D. The Church fathers re-establish the husband’s patriarchal authority and the patriarchal values of Roman and Jewish law. The Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, has his wife burned alive when she is no longer of use to him. 3
Middle Ages (900-1300) In Europe, squires and noblemen beat their wives as regularly as they beat their serfs; the peasants faithfully followed their lords’ example. The Church sanctions the subjection of women. Priests advise abused wives to win their husbands’ good will through increased devotion and obedience. The habit of looking upon women as a species apart, without the same feelings and capacity for suffering which men possess, becomes inbred during the Middle Ages. In a Medieval theological manual, a man is given permission to “castigate his wife and beat her for correction…”. 4
Note from Heart: Not long ago I read an article about a certain priest in the Middle Ages who regularly begged his parishioners to stop beating their wives. He cajoled them by saying things like that they didn’t beat their livestock and so they shouldn’t beat their wives. The husbands beat their wives for reasons like that if they beat them really hard when they first woke up in the morning, they’d be happy to go out and work in the fields because it was better than being beaten.
1400’s The Christian church vacillates between support of wife beating and encouraging husbands to be more compassionate and using moderation in their punishments of their wives. A medieval Christian scholar, Friar Cherbubino of Siena, writes Rules of Marriage, in support of wife beating. 3
1405 Christine de Pizan writes in The Book of the City of Ladies about women’s basic humanity and better education and treatment in marriage for women. She accuses men of cruelty and beating their wives. 1
1427 Bernard of Siena suggests that his male parishioners “exercise a little restraint and treat their wives with as much mercy as they would their hens and pigs.” 4
1500’s Lord Hale, an English Jurist, sets the tradition of non-recognition of marital rape. He states that when women married, they “gave themselves to their husbands” in contract, and could not withdraw that consent until they divorced. “The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent a [sic] contract with wife hath given herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.” This is the basis of the “contractual consent” theory. Lord Hale burned women at the stake as witches and has been characterized as a misogynist. 3
Early settlers in America base their laws on old English common-law that explicitly permits wife-beating for correctional purposes. However, the trend in the young states is towards declaring wife-beating illegal. One step towards that end is to allow the husband to whip his wife only with a switch no bigger than his thumb. 5
Late 1500’s During the reign of Ivan the Terrible in Russia, the State Church sanctions the oppression of women by issuing a Household Ordinance that describes when and how a man might most effectively beat his wife. He is allowed to kill a wife or serf for disciplinary purposes. A half a century later, many Russian women fight back. When they kill their husbands for all the injustices they have been forced to endure, their punishment is to be buried alive with only their heads above the ground, and left to die. It is not against the law for a husband to kill his wife. 4
In England, “the Golden Age of the Rod” is used against women and children who are taught that it is their sacred duty to obey the man of the house. Violence against wives is encouraged throughout this time. 4
1857 A Massachusetts court is the first to recognize the spousal rape exemption. The court in Commonwealth v. Fogerty, relies solely on Lord Hale’s staement (1500’s) in recognizing in dictum that marriage to the victim was a defense to rape. 3
1866 The Amerian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is formed. It predates the founding of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, established in 1875. Both predate any organization aimed at preventing cruelty to women. 3
1867 A man in North Carolina is acquitted of giving his wife three licks with a switch about the size of one of his fingers, but smaller than his thumb. The reviewing appellate court later upheld the acquittal on the grounds that the court should “not interfere with family government in trifling cases.” 4
1878 Francis Power Cobbe publishes Wife Torture in England. She denounces the treatment of wives in Liverpool’s “Kicking District.” She documents 6,000 of the most brutal assaults on women over a 3 year period who had been maimed, blinded, trampled, burned and murdered. Cobbe presents a theory that abuse continues because of the belief that a man’s wife is his property. 3, 5 Her concerns are moved forward by male parliamentarians and the Matrimonial Causes Act is passed. The Act allows victims of violence to obtain a legal separation from the husband; entitles them custody of the children; and to retain earnings and property secured during the separation. Such a separation order can only be obtained if the husband has been convicted of aggravated assault and the court considers her in grave danger. 1
1880’s In England, the law is changed to allow a wife who had been habitually beaten by her husband to the point of “endangering her life” to separate from him, but cannot divorce him. 3
1882 Maryland is the first state to pass a law that makes wife-beating a crime, punishable by 40 lashes, or a year in jail. 3
1886 A lower court in North Carolina, as a result of the 1874 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling, declares that a criminal indictment cannot be brought against a husband unless the battery is so great as to result in permanent injury, endanger life and limb, or be malicious beyond all reasonable bounds. 4
Late 1800’s Courts begin to show signs that they might hold husbands responsible and found guilty of marital rape. In 1899, a Louisiana court in State v. Dowell condemns a husband’s participation in the rape of his wife by a third party. 3
With Queen Victoria’s ascension to the English throne, lawmakers begin enacting reforms regarding women. Wives can no longer be kept under lock and key, life threatening beatings are considered grounds for divorce, and wives and daughters can not longer be sold into prostitution. 3
1905 In Texas, Frazier v. State, a husband is convicted of assault with the intent to commit rape. The appellate court overturns the conviction by essentially restating Lord Hale’s rule of immunity (1500’s). 3
1911 The first family court is created in Buffalo, NY. In 1914, the first adult psychiatric clinic is directly linked to a court in Chicago. Professionals believe that domestic relations courts will better solve family problems in a setting of discussion and reconciliation engineered by social service intervention. This is the beginning of the systematic offical diversion and exclusion of violence against wives from the criminal justice system. 1
1924 A French court rules that a husband does not have the right to beat his wife. Prior to this, the Napoleonic Code is dominant, suggesting that “Women, like walnut trees, should be beaten every day.” 4
1920’s & 1930’s Psychoanalysis develps a myth of female masochism into its conception of the normal female psychology. It is argued that women derive sexual gratification from the violence they experience. 1
1945 A California statute states, “Any husband who willfully inflicts upon his wife corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, and any person who willfully inflicts upon any child any cruel and inhumane corporal punishments or injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years or in the county jail for not more than 1 year.” A San Jose Superior Court Judge, Eugene Premo, dismisses murder charges against a husband accused of murdering his wife. The judge rules that the California wife-abuse law discriminates on the basis of sex by only making mention of husbands, and is unconstitutional. 4
1950’s &1960’s The civil rights, anti-war and black liberation movements challenge the country, laying a foundation for the feminist movement. 5
Women being killed by abusive husbands is rarely recognized for what it is. Headlines often read “Husband Goes Berserk and Shoots Estranged Wife.” 4
1962 In New York, domestic violence cases are transferred from Criminal Court to Family Court where only civil procedures apply. The husband never faces the harsher penalties he would suffer if found guilty in Criminal Court for assaulting a stranger. 4
1966 Beating, as cruel and inhumane treatment, becomes grounds for divorce in New York, but the plaintiff must establish that a “sufficient” number of beatings have taken place. 4
A study in Chicago reveals that from September 1965 to March 1966, 46.1% of the major crimes perpetrated against women took place in the home. It also found that police response to domestic disturbance calls exceeded total response for murder, rape, aggravated assault, and other service crimes. 4
1968 The Harris poll interviews 1,176 American adults in October. They find that 1/5 approve of slapping one’s spouse on “appropriate occasions.” 4
Late 1960’s The killing of a wife, sister, or mother by a man upholding his “male honor” is made a serious offense in Italy. 5
1970 The index of the Journal of Marriage and the Family includes a reference to “violence.” None existed from 1939 to present. 5
Approximately 1/3 of female homicide victims in California are killed by their husbands. 4
James Bannon, Commander of the Detroit police department, describes how 4,600 battered women’s cases “disappeared” as they moved through the criminal justice system in Detroit. Only 300 cases went to trial. 5
The July issue of Ms. Magazine reports in the “No Comment” section an ad for a bowling alley in Michigan, which reads “Have some fun. Beat your wife tonight. Then celebrate with some good food and drink with your friends.” 4
From 1968 to 1973, the crime of rape increased 62% nationwide. 4
Interval House, Toronto’s first refuge house, opens. Transition House, Vancouver’s first refuge house, opens in January 1974. 4
1973-1974 Of the several thousand domestic violence cases proceeding through the Bureau of Family Relations of the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, only 8 lead to a formal complaint and prosecution. 4
Al-Anon members who are battered women organize a shelter in Harrisburg, PA. 5
In San Francisco, 25% of all murders involve legally married or cohabitating mates. 4
In Boston, police respond to 11,081 family disturbance calls, most involving physical violence. At the end of the first quarter of 1975, 5,589 such calls were received, half of the previous year’s figure for that period. Boston City Hospital reports that 70% of the assault victims received in the ER were known to be women attacked in homes by husbands and lovers. 4
Eisaku Sato, former prime minister of Japan, is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Prior to his nomination, Sato’s wife accused him publicly of beating her. Sato’s popularity soars after his wife reveals that “Yes, he’s a good husband, he only beats me once a week.” Apparently, the committee did not consider wife-beating a breach of peace. 4
The December issue of Vogue magazine carries a fashion layout depicting a couple alternately fighting and caressing each other. One photograph shows the female with her face twisted in pain after the male model hit her. The caption merely notes that her jumpsuit could “really take the heat.” 4
Most U.S. states allow wives to bring criminal action against a husband who inflicts injury upon her. 4
After seven years of debate, a new family law goes into effect in Italy. It explicitly does away with the ancient Rome concept of patris potestas, which vested sole authority in the father. Wife-beating is also abolished. 4
In Kinghorn, Scotland, the Magistrate George MacKay, fines a husband $11.50 for hitting his wife in the face. The magistrate told the husband, “it is a well known fact that you can strike your wife’s bottom if you wish, but you must not strike her on the face.” 4
Brazil passes a penal code that prohibits husbands from selling, renting, or gambling away their wives. 4
An old town ordinance is still on the books in Pennsylvania stating that no husband shall beat his wife after ten o’clock at night or on Sundays. 2
A study by Stark e al. reveals that 73% of the battered women seeking emergency medical attention for injuries do so after leaving the batterer. 3
1983 The U.S. Department of Justice states that 3/4 of domestic assaults reported to law enforcement agencies may have happened after the couple separates. 3
National attention is focused on male violence after a gang rape of a woman in a bar in Bedford, MA. Four men are convicted of aggravated assault and given prison sentenses. The attack on the woman’s character is subject of the film The Accused, starring Jodie Foster. 2
People v. Liberta, New York. An ex-husband convicted of (non-marital) rape asserts a violation of his right to Equal Protection, i.e. if his wife had not obtained a restraining order, thereby causing a separation, his rape of her would not have been a crime. The appellate court agreed with him and struck down the marital rape exemption in the state statute. 3
1985 Tracey Thurman wins her suit against a Conneticut police department for negligence and violation of her civil rights. Her husband receives a 15-year sentence for attacking her, stabbing her and repeatedly kicking her in the head during 1983. 2
1989 The U.S. has 1,200 battered women programs which shelter 300,000 women and children per year. 1
England has approximately 100 shelter programs. Wales has 32 refuges serving nearly 5,000 women and about an equal number of children. Scotland has 37 groups with 32 refuges serving 12,000 women and children. 1
Brooklyn Supreme Court justice Edward Pincus sentences Chinese immigrant Dong Lu Chen to 5 years probation for using a claw hammer to smash the skull of his wife. Pincus concludes, that traditional Chinese values about adultery and loss of manhood drove Chen to kill his wife. Pincus justifies Chen’s probationary sentence by stating that Chen was just as much a victim as his wife due to extenuating circumstances. The Chen decision sent a message to battered immigrant women that they had no recourse against domestic violence. 3
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) begins to recognize domestic violence as grounds for asylum in the U.S. A judge rules that the wife and children of a prominent Jordanian may be given asylum in the U.S. and that the batterer be excluded from entering the U.S. The judge’s belief that the batter would carry out his threats to kill them, his influence in Jordan and the threats of abuse justified the asylum. 3
1990 Studies show that 1 out of 7 wives report being raped by their husband; 2/3 of the rapes occured more than once. 3
1992 The U.S. Surgeon General ranks abuse by husbands to be the leading cause of injuries to women aged 15 to 44. 7
The FBI reports that 1,431 women were killed by husbands or boyfriends. 7
1993 The United Nations recognizes domestic violence as an international human rights issue and issues a Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. A similar resolution is issued by the Organization of American States. 3
1996 There are over 1,200 battered women’s shelters across the United States sponsored by approximately 1,800 domestic violence agencies. 3
There are an estimated 120 to 125 shelters in California. 7
To date, only 11 states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia have completely repudiated the marital rape exemption. Seven states (Lousiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah) recognize marital rape exemption unless the parties are separated. Illinois and Mississippi retain total exemptions for marital rape. In California, a husband can be prosecuted for aggravated or first degree rape, but still retains immunity from prosectuion for “lesser” attacks. 3
References
1. Dobash, R. and Dobash, R. (1992). Women, violence and social change.New York: Routledge.
2. Heinemann, Sue (1996). Timelines of American women’s history.New York: A Roundtable Press Book/Perigee Book.
3. Lemon, Nancy (1996). Domestic violence law: A comprehensive overview of cases and sources.San Francisco, CA: Austin and Winfield.
4. Martin, Del (1976). Battered wives.New York: Pocket Books.
5. Schechter, Susan (1982). Women and male violence.Boston, MA: South End Press.
6. Slaughter, Ruth (year unknown). While Ruth was at Haven House.Pasadena, CA.
7. Sproul, Kate (1996). California’s response to domestic violence.California Legislature, CA: Senate Office of Research.
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Tuomas: “Oh, and rape is equivalent to buying cigarettes.”
You seem reasonably well-spoken so I’m sure you can figure out why this statement relies on a fallacy.
I think you missed much previous discussion which was about making broad unsupportable assumptions and presenting it as proof of your conclusion… so I’ll cut you some slack…
However, you’ll note that men and women can still rape their spouses, parents can still abuse their children. Does that mean that it is still, or ever was, the prevailing socially norm?
Additionally, establishing a mechanism to punish what we find unacceptable behavior does not mean (logically) that any unpunished behavior is acceptable. That’s a logical fallacy. Let me try and simplify a bit. That all poodles are dogs does not make all dogs poodles.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Fair enough. I admit my previous post was a bit hyperbole. Oh, and I really don’t much care whether you cut me some slack or not, or set me up as a reasonable commentor as opposed to some others. Simplify things for me with poodles and dogs? Hah. Now…
Can you answer this?
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Heart just completely demolished David’s argument, and he just keeps going as if she hadn’t said anything.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
^ I second that.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
Cheryl, that was impressive. That’s better than most of the papers I write (research wise, at least). Did you track all that down yourself?
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Even before Cheryl’s impressive post, saying something like “Certainly not denying the [wife-beating] behaviour exists, simply that it is not, nor has it been the widely accept norm since the dawn of civilization, if ever” seemed to me quite a naive, ignorant statement to make.
Great job, Cheryl.
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Hey, thanks, Antigone and Ann, but no, I didn’t put all that together– it’s excerpted from one of the links I posted way up there somewhere in response to David’s questions:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html
There’s much more than what I excerpted; well worth saving off.
Heart
This comment was written by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
That’s our David. Great job, Heart.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators