Dudes’ Republic of China
The inhabitants of Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit seem to have developed a sudden crush on the authoritarian Chinese government. Why? Well, it seems that the lovable tyrants have decided to crack down on evil golddigger bitches. According to an article in The Telegraph, linked to in the subreddit,
In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China’s Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.
“Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much,” said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.
The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment.
Never mind that the lopsided demographics in China today — where young men greatly outnumber young women, making it harder for young men to find wives — are not the result of excess feminism, but the result of a toxic mixture of cultural misogyny and the authoritarian regime’s “one child” program. As William Saletan explains the logic in Slate:
Girls are culturally and economically devalued; the government uses powerful financial levers to prevent you from having another child; therefore, to make sure you can have a boy, you abort the girl you’re carrying.
The result? 16 million “missing girls” in China. Ironically, the skewed ratio of men to women gives young women considerable leverage in chosing whom to marry – and that’s what the Men’s Rightser’s seem to see as the real injustice here.
As Evil Pundit wrote, evidently speaking for many (given the numerous upvotes he got):
Wow. I’ve always disliked the authoritarian Chinese government, but for once, it’s done something good.
I may need to reconsider my attitude.
IncrediblyFatMan added:
China wants to become the next superpower and world leader. They aren’t going to do it by allowing the kinds of social decay that rot away at the competing nations.
Revorob joked:
If they brought that in over here, most women in Australia would be living on the street.
“Or,” Fondueguy quipped in response, “they could learn to work.”
At the moment, all the comments in the thread praising the Chinese government for this move (and there are many more) have net upvotes; the only comment in the negative? One suggesting that the Telegraph isn’t exactly a reliable source.
Speaking of which, here’s a more balanced look at the issue on China.org.cn that examines some of the consequences of the new ruling for Chinese women.
Let’s look at some of those. According to one Beijing lawyer quoted in the piece:
“[H]ousewives, especially those in the rural areas who have no job and are responsible for taking care of their families, will be affected most by this new change,” she said. “If their husbands want a divorce, they are likely to be kicked out of the house with nothing.”
Luo Huilan, a professor of women’s studies at China Women’s University in Beijing, agreed.
In rural areas, she said, men have the final say in family matters. All essential family assets, such as home, car and bank deposits, are registered in the men’s names, and women fill the roles of only wife, mother and farmworker.
“Their labor, though substantial, hardly gets recognition. Without a good education, they have to rely heavily on their husbands,” Luo said. “In case of divorce, a woman is driven out of her husband’s life, home and family, and finds herself an alien even in her parents’ home. No wonder the new interpretation of the Marriage Law has aroused concern among women.”
And no wonder it’s drawn cheers on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Posted on August 22, 2011, in $MONEY$, antifeminism, evil women, gloating, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, patriarchy, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 697 Comments.
@Rutee: I really don’t think it is idiotic to make the claim that if you are self-sufficient you have more power to make choices that you want (as opposed to someone making them for you). If I own a house, I don’t have to listen to an asshole landlord telling me what to do or that they are going to raise my rent…because I am my own landlord. The same is true with self-employment, a properly funded retirement account, etc… If you have more resources, you don’t have to beg and plead with others to get what you want or need.
@kristinmh: I am old enough. I am also a die hard realist. I realize the current legal situations surrounding marriage. My point being is 95+% of that “suite of legal rights” can be obtained without marriage. Then you just have to weight the other 5% and see if it is more important to you than the liabilities and sacrifices of marriage. In my mind, that 5% isn’t worth it.
@Rachel: 1) Parents can place their children on their healthcare policies regardless of marriage (at least in my state). 2) As long as marriage is legal, then everyone has the right regardless of sex, race, creed, etc… to get married. If straight couples can get married then gay’s should have that right too. 3) Immigration is probably the only sticking point with marriage. If I wanted to marry a foreigner, I would only have the option of marrying her in order for her to come into the country. This really is one of the very few benefits of marriage that doesn’t have a counterpart outside of marriage. 4) Humanity has been reproducing long before marriage and they will do it long after it. While I don’t have the answers to this question I would say people are crafty and adaptive…needless to say, no marriage doesn’t mean the species is going to die off.
@Kendra: Because as a man, if she decides to stay at home then if the marriage fails I am legally forced to continue to support her. If she took time off to have a child, then re-entered the workforce, it wouldn’t be as big of an issue. The divorce rate is pretty damn high, so I think it is naive to not think “what if this relationship ends”. If other people want to do this, that is fine. I am not going to tell others they should live the way I do. I might express my opinion, but I am not going to think badly if someone doesn’t take my advice. Marriage is also the most limiting relationship around. What about swingers, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, etc… .
People can make whatever choices they want with their partners, as long as both parties are agreeing to it. Marriage doesn’t prevent people from doing anything. Marriage is nothing more than the government seeing you, your partner and children (if any) as a business. And to make love, emotions and intimacy into a business is asinine and absurd. Business is business and love is love…the two should not mingle. Just like church and state.
Also, a marriage contract doesn’t prevent people from helping them financially when the times are difficult (e.g loss of job). There are countless relationships where people are helping to support others through difficult times.
@Pecunium: I never said it was easy. Also, I think you are seeing more work than it really is. When I was hired, I had to fill out the health benefits paperwork and my 401K paperwork. Both of these you can assign beneficiaries in case you die. It was as simple as writing in my parents names and signing and dating at the bottom. Voila! Legal contract.
No redlocker
It not logical to roll back shared parenting because so piece of advocacy research shows that some children fond it difficult.
Its logical and in the best interests of the child to leave shared parenting in place and deal with the children that are objecting on a case by case basis.
The argument being put forward by these women’s advocacy groups is just a pretext to roll back shared parenting. its not really about the best interests of the child at all.
“I take it from your stance you are against shared parenting and discussion of feminism obstructing it.”
I’m against mandatory shared parenting. I think taking away options that might be better in individual cases is always bad. And again, if you think I’m “against … discussion of feminism obstructing it,” I really have to wonder where you’re getting that idea. (Although I’d rephrase that as: discussion of feminism fighting against mandatory shared parenting rulings. But wev. I’ll just fix it for you, cuz I’m sweet like that.)
“This is an appeal to emotion. If shared parenting is having an adverse effect on a child, it should be dealt with. But rolling back shared parenting on the basis of that child or more accurately using that child as a pretext to roll back shared parenting and damaging many more children in the process is not a solution.”
Well, no. You seem to be arguing for a one-size-fits-all solution from the get-go, and saying, Well, if the child is harmed, we’ll deal with it later. I’m saying, Why not let the judge be a fucking judge who orders shared parenting when appropriate, and primary custody with visitation when that’s appropriate? Why would you want to force a one-size-fits-all solution on something as varied as human interaction and family dynamics … unless your case was fucking shit?
” I really don’t think it is idiotic to make the claim that if you are self-sufficient you have more power to make choices that you want (as opposed to someone making them for you). “
That only makes sense if you are living in a society that permits you to be self-sufficient without abiding by its norms, such as getting married. In countries like China, the social pressure to marry, on women especially, is fucking insane. And I realize your next response is probably “Well, ignore social pressure”, but that advice works only in places like the United States or Australia or Canada, where there is a niche and a social support network to be found for virtually everyone, along with strong anti-discrimination laws. But in traditional and homogeneous societies, like the Chinese one, the pressure to marry is institutionalized. For a woman to be unmarried in China is bad; to be unmarried and living with someone out of wedlock is unthinkable. First of all, dollars to doughnuts, a woman like that would be unemployable anyway. Her children would be ostracized and abused at school, possibly denied entry to college as well (I don’t know about China, but the Soviet system of university admission required all freshmen to come from conventional families of demonstrated “good moral character”). Local public officials will easily deny this family civil rights in the absence of laws that protect such people from discrimination.
It is the worst possible situation where society and its institutions goad women into marriage, require them to take time off for childcare and thereby suffer tremendous career setbacks and discriminate against women in the workplace — and then kick them to the curb if their marriages breaks down.
I am all in favor of former spouses walking away each with what he or she earned — provided the spouse who earned less wasn’t forced to take a pay cut by stringent social expectations. I am all in favor of shared parenting — provided men engage in shared parenting before the divorce, including shared diaper-changing, shared cooking, shared laundry and shared shit-cleaning, not just the more pleasant and glamorous aspects of parenting. But as long as the nature of marriage disadvantages one of the spouses by requiring her to do the bulk of the housework and the child care to the detriment of her self-sufficiency, courts should take that into account when they split up the assets.
What you don’t seem to understand, Brandon, is that it’s not “as a man.” If one person stays at home and the other works, and then they divorce, the second person has to pay the first person some money, because the courts make the reasonable assumption that (a) the first person helped the second in zir career by networking, doing all the housework, caring for the kids, etc. and (b) the first person’s career is harmed by several years out of the workforce. However, typically the person who says home is, in fact, female. Why might that be? (Spoiler alert: sexism.)
Catalogue: So you support shared parenting even when it isn’t in the best interests of the child? That’s… nice.
For the record, I support defaulting to giving physical custody of the child to the primary caregiver and legal custody to both parents, and I am in general a supporter of fathers’ rights issues although I differ with, say, Fathers & Families on strategies (I believe the first step to is encouraging more men to be the primary caregiver).
It’s interesting to see how compartmentalized a lot of the arguments are.
Men should get more custody of the children! (What in the best interest of the child? Which parent spends more time caring for the child?)
Using time spent with children is an unfair measure of parenting skills! (Why don’t men push for more time away from work to care for children? Why are women assumed the care givers?)
Men should get paternity leave! (What feminist is fighting against that?)
Women are allowed more time off from having to work for a living! (What do you mean by “allowed”? Why are women denied promotions more frequently than men “because they may have children”?)
Courts are biased against men! (When have women been able to write laws? Why are court positions still predominately filled by men?)
I see a lot of MRA’s screaming and lying and ignoring some really basic assumptions rather than admit there may be something wrong with the current system and it’s not that Teh Menz R oppressed!
“It not logical to roll back shared parenting because so piece of advocacy research shows that some children fond it difficult. ”
Advocacy research you can’t actually gainsay on its own merits. It sounds like feminists in Australia are opposing it being ordered in all cases, regardless of circumstances, which seems completely reasonable to me.
“Its logical and in the best interests of the child to leave shared parenting in place and deal with the children that are objecting on a case by case basis.”
You can’t do that if the law specifically mandates you always enact shared parenting.
“The argument being put forward by these women’s advocacy groups is just a pretext to roll back shared parenting. its not really about the best interests of the child at all.”
I can declare these things too; watch. “The argument to keep shared parenting in place is only put forward by men’s rights movements as a pretext to hurt women, it’s not really about the best interests of the child at all”.
Even if what you said were true, it matters not, as long as children were indeed better served by not mandating shared parenting, which it seems is the case. But you have no evidence that this is true, you’re just attempting to discredit your enemies.
“@Rutee: I really don’t think it is idiotic to make the claim that if you are self-sufficient you have more power to make choices that you want (as opposed to someone making them for you). If I own a house, I don’t have to listen to an asshole landlord telling me what to do or that they are going to raise my rent…because I am my own landlord. The same is true with self-employment, a properly funded retirement account, etc… If you have more resources, you don’t have to beg and plead with others to get what you want or need. ”
If you own a house, you have to pay the bank, and have to worry about them devaluing your investment needlessly. Self employment doesn’t free you from the woes of working; it only substitutes the woes of an owner in place of the woes of the peon; guess what, those woes are about their dependency on the customer base. A ‘properly funded retirement account’ is a luxury for most to begin with, and guess what: You’re relying on an investment person of some sort to successfully and accurately place the money.
It’s only barely feasible to be self sufficient, and then, not entirely, because you rely on societal and governmental structures that provide some baselines. I certainly do understand wanting to make sure a relationship is as equal as possible, but pretending you’re actually self sufficient is laughable.
“It not logical to roll back shared parenting because so piece of advocacy research shows that some children fond it difficult.
Its logical and in the best interests of the child to leave shared parenting in place and deal with the children that are objecting on a case by case basis.
The argument being put forward by these women’s advocacy groups is just a pretext to roll back shared parenting. its not really about the best interests of the child at all.”
So concerns for the safety of the child are just ploys to reduce shared parenting…just because? What evidence do you have that feminists are using children for their own advantage in this situation?
Bee
I think you misunderstand shared parenting, and no one is arguing for it to be mandatory – just something that can be applied for and awarded by the courts.
Brandon –
“1) Parents can place their children on their healthcare policies regardless of marriage (at least in my state).”
Who was talking about children? I am aware that you can put your children on your healthcare policy – the point is that without a legal marriage, you cannot claim your significant other as a dependent on your healthcare coverage.
“2) As long as marriage is legal, then everyone has the right regardless of sex, race, creed, etc… to get married. If straight couples can get married then gay’s should have that right too. ”
At what point was I talking about gay marriage?
“3) Immigration is probably the only sticking point with marriage. If I wanted to marry a foreigner, I would only have the option of marrying her in order for her to come into the country. This really is one of the very few benefits of marriage that doesn’t have a counterpart outside of marriage. ”
Glad you agree.
“4) Humanity has been reproducing long before marriage and they will do it long after it. While I don’t have the answers to this question I would say people are crafty and adaptive…needless to say, no marriage doesn’t mean the species is going to die off.”
Did you even read my comment, or are you responding to someone else? Considering I never said anything that even remotely translates into a concern that the species will “die off,” I am really concerned. The point is that the benefits or potential disadvantages that come along with a legal marriage are too complex to be boiled down into legal marriage is right or wrong in every situation. So, while I respect your decision to avoid it, you should also respect, rather than insult, the people who choose to enter into it (in my opinion. You are obviously free to think and say what you want), because you can have no idea why those people decided a legal marriage was the right option for their family situation.
“So concerns for the safety of the child are just ploys to reduce shared parenting…just because? What evidence do you have that feminists are using children for their own advantage in this situation?”
Yes that’s generally the method. Mothers are more likely to abuse the children (73% of parental child abuse in Aus is committed by mothers), so logically, if these women’s advocacy groups were all about the children they would be warning us about that. But they are not, quite the opposite in fact.
“Yes that’s generally the method. Mothers are more likely to abuse the children (73% of parental child abuse in Aus is committed by mothers), so logically, if these women’s advocacy groups were all about the children they would be warning us about that. But they are not, quite the opposite in fact.”
But where is the evidence? Where are the cases where a Woman’s Advocacy group or a feminist group covered up child abuse by mothers?
By the way, there are feminists that have written about child abuse by women, like Bell Hooks, for example. As far as I know, feminists are against child abuse in general, so what is the MRM doing about child abuse?
Okay, my bad. I’m not from Australia and don’t know anything about family law in Australia.
I should have said “presumed” or “default.” (Not “applied for.”)
The rest of my response remains the same.
Catalogue –
you said “Bee – I think you misunderstand shared parenting, and no one is arguing for it to be mandatory – just something that can be applied for and awarded by the courts.”
Your statement, by your own sources, is incorrect. You cited earlier to the Glen Sacks newsletter dealing with Michigan NOW’s objection to a shared parenting housebill (http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_28_06.htm). Well, if you actually take the time to read Glen Sacks own words you will see – “the bill instructs courts to order joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for his or her child.” Therefore, yes, this is something that would be mandatory unless the opposing parent can show by clear and convincing evidence (which isn’t as strong of a standard as beyond a reasonable doubt, but much stronger than the standard in other civil cases) that the parent is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for the child.
If what you want is just an option that can be awarded by the courts…well, in most states that option already exists. However, this law you are fighting for isn’t it.
Rachel, in Australia, shared parenting is something that has to be applied for through the courts but women’s advocacy groups want the option rolled back.
The presumption of joint custody as starting point unless there is a genuine problem,which women’s advocacy groups in the US are against, isn’t mandatory shared parenting or joint custody.
Catalogue, the “applied for” thing that you keep talking about … that isn’t quite true, though. Why are you trying to mislead? Are you trying to hide something?
From a fathers’ rights site:
“These new amendments introduce into court proceedings a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. In simple terms, this creates a starting point whereby both parents are considered to share equally the responsibilities and obligations of important decisions relating to the child/ren. … As a default, both parents are equally obligated and collectively responsible to participate and determine issues relating to the child’s long term welfare.”
Presumption. As a default. Not “applied for.”
Uh… but is it really in the best interest of the child to be shuttled between two families, possibly with parents who hate each other (since they couldn’t settle custody arrangements out of court), probably forgetting toys and homework, certainly spending a lot of time in transportation, having inconsistent rules between houses even though children thrive on consistency? Not to mention the headaches of coordinating doctors’ appointments, parent-teacher conferences, extracurricular activities…
Defaulting to “the primary caregiver has physical custody” seems sensible to me. Joint legal custody by default, however, I am 100% in support of.
Ok, shared parenting has changed since I applied for it in Aus. Its still not mandatory, its just a presumption and a starting point, which seems to me to be correct. So NOW and Aus fem groups are both opposing the same presumption and the women’s advocacy groups in both countries use fallacious arguments based on inaccurately stereotyping child abuse as something that fathers are more prone to commit order to advance their agenda, which is advocacy on behalf of women, regardless of the best interests of the child.
Given that mothers are more likely to abuse their children and the modern research shows that they are more likely to be violent towards their male partners, its counter intuitive of these feminist to be fighting against the presumption of joint custody, if it is really about the children, if anything fathers rights should be increased.
So back to the original point that was in dispute, I said that feminism was against shared parenting, and that seems to be true.
Catalogue –
You said, “The presumption of joint custody as a starting point unless there is a genuine problem, which women’s advocacy groups in the US are against, isn’t mandatory shared parenting or joing custody.”
I agree that a presumption of joint custody as a starting point is not mandatory shared parenting or joing custody. However, the law that you specifically cited to support your proposition that feminist organizations are trying to prevent men from having equal access to their children would, if enacted, require joint custody. Michigan HB 5267 says, “(1) In a custody dispute between parents, the court shall order joint custody unless either of the following applies:” and then gives two situations where the requirement of joint custody would not apply. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billintroduced/House/htm/2005-HIB-5267.htm
In the law, when the legislature write “shall,” that means this is what the court must do unless one of the exceptions is met.
So, unless you have other examples of feminist organizations fighting against a starting presumption of joint custody, rather than a requirement, your source doesn’t really support your proposition.
I am unfamiliar with Austrailian law, so I am not going to attempt to argue with you on that one.
“So NOW and Aus fem groups are both opposing the same presumption and the women’s advocacy groups in both countries use fallacious arguments based on inaccurately stereotyping child abuse as something that fathers are more prone to commit order to advance their agenda, which is advocacy on behalf of women, regardless of the best interests of the child.”
Evidence, please?
“Given that mothers are more likely to abuse their children…”
Aren’t mothers also more likely to be, you know, caring for their children and spending time with them? Putting aside the fact that these kinds of claims lump together abuse and neglect (which are two different things), I love it how MRA’s fail to correlate the percentage of time spent with the child with the likelihood of abuse. I suppose it’s very easy to never abuse a child that you don’t actually care for.
“the modern research shows that they are more likely to be violent towards their male partners …”
That research has been thoroughly debunked. Research that equates evasive action with aggression, and destruction of property with assault of the person is dishonest any way you cut it.
Catalogue:
Bee asked “In your perfect world, what would you tell the judge who’s forced to order shared parenting even when there’s ample evidence that shared parenting is having an adverse impact on the child? What would you tell the child?”
and you replied: This is an appeal to emotion. If shared parenting is having an adverse effect on a child, it should be dealt with. But rolling back shared parenting on the basis of that child or more accurately using that child as a pretext to roll back shared parenting and damaging many more children in the process is not a solution.
Which is wrong. She wasn’t making an appeal to emotion. She was asking why you favored a straight-jacketed approach.
Calif., for example, has a presumptively joint custody in divorce, but in a contested divorce, with children, the children get an independent advocate; court appointed, with no dog in the fight.
The overriding interest is that of the child.
But you choose to attempt an obfuscation, by accusing Bee of a fallacy; while not actually looking to the point: which would still exist as a valid one, even if the last sentence were an appeal to emotion, rather than a logical question of policy, i.e. what should one do about children in conflicted divorces.
You favor making it as difficult as possible to avoid a mandatory shared custody; by making it something which has to be done ex post facto. That, or your sentence saying, “it should be dealt with” actually means in the process of the divorce, in which case you aren’t actually in disagreement with Bee.
Brandon: @Kendra: Because as a man, if she decides to stay at home then if the marriage fails I am legally forced to continue to support her.
As a partner if one of us is becoming the stay at home parent, with all the affect that has on one’s future career/income, it isn’t something that, “x chooses” to do. It’s a joint decision.
At that point as a decent human being some level of ongoing obligation ought to continue. As a matter of present legal landscape the odd of alimony are slim, but the lack of marriage won’t prevent an egregious case from having an award of support (independent of child support). See: Palimony n. a substitute for alimony in cases in which the couple were not married but lived together for a long period and then terminated their relationship. The key issue is whether there was an agreement that one partner would support the other in return for the second making a home and performing other domestic duties beyond sexual pleasures. Written palimony contracts are rare, but the courts have found “implied” contracts, when a woman has given up her career, has managed the household, or assisted in the man’s business for a lengthy period of time.
And I am not making it more work than it legally is.
Have you drawn up a will?
Have you created a POA for your bank account (and did you know that those, apart from marital POAs, are irrevocable? You have to close the account to void the POA/Joint use of an account)?
Have you attempted to get, not a beneficiary, but rather add a second covered person to your health contract?
Who get your 401K when you die?
Are there survivor’s benefits to your SSA account?
Who has Medical POA? Who has the legal authority to allow someone other than the landlord into your house (repairmen, police, fire inspector, Animal Control Officer)? Who is allowed to let them into your bedroom, or personal office (these are important issues in the event of a question about searches)?
Who is, or isn’t, legally covered on your auto-insurance?
Who has the right to sue on your behalf in case of incapacity?
Who becomes your guardian ad litem, in the event of such incapacity?
Who is allowed to petition for guardianship in the event of mental incapacity?
That’s just the stuff which comes off the top of my head. Things which, once created, live on forever (unless you put a sunset on them, and then you have to remember to update them as they expire).
It’s a non-trivial problem. It’s taken hundreds of years for them to accrete, it’s not going to be one piece of paper to manufacture them as a set of private contracts; esp. as those private contracts have public implications.
That looks like a good bill because what it tells a disputing couple is “sort out the dispute or you will be ordered to do this”. More a deterrent for those that would obstruct a reasonable arrangement than anything else.
“and you replied: This is an appeal to emotion. If shared parenting is having an adverse effect on a child, it should be dealt with. But rolling back shared parenting on the basis of that child or more accurately using that child as a pretext to roll back shared parenting and damaging many more children in the process is not a solution.
Which is wrong. She wasn’t making an appeal to emotion. She was asking why you favored a straight-jacketed approach.”
I was actually arguing against the “straight-jacketed approach” argument put forward by the feminists groups in the australian article which Bee seemed to be making too … ie. – some shared parenting agreements are problematic therefore there shared parenting should be rolled back, which is clearly fallacious.
If that’s not what you were saying Bee I apologize.
Catalogue: I think you misunderstand shared parenting, and no one is arguing for it to be mandatory – just something that can be applied for and awarded by the courts.
That is the majority position here. It’s the actual postion of pretty much every feminist group I can think of.
Shared parenting is the default, but it’s not automatic. The interests of the child come first, and foremost.
EDIT – therefore shared parenting should be rolled back
My understanding is that MRAs and their allies in the US have been pushing for states to change the legal standards in custody to cases from “the best interests of the child” to “rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.” Feminist groups, particularly NOW, have raised objections to the presumption of shared parenting as a legal standard, for fear of how it would play out in practice. It does not necessarily follow that feminists are against shared parenting in principle, however. Most feminists I know (including myself, a feminist and a father) favor greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their children. The concern is primarily with the effect that this change in the law would have.
Pecunium, yes I understand that many average feminists would support shared parenting but average feminists have no political power, Its “governance feminism” or whatever we want to call it that does have political power, that is opposing it.
That’s where a lot of these conversations can get complicated
“Feminism is doing X!”
“No its not because I’m a feminist and I’m not doing X!”
“I was actually arguing against the “straight-jacketed approach” argument put forward by the feminists groups in the australian article which Bee seemed to be making too … ie. – some shared parenting agreements are problematic therefore shared parenting should be rolled back, which is clearly fallacious.
“If that’s not what you were saying Bee I apologize.”
Well, what I was saying was:
“Why not let the judge be a fucking judge who orders shared parenting when appropriate, and primary custody with visitation when that’s appropriate? Why would you want to force a one-size-fits-all solution on something as varied as human interaction and family dynamics … unless your case was fucking shit?”
In other words, in cases where shared parenting is the best option for the child, it should be granted. But the judge shouldn’t be forced into a situation where there are no options, or the bar for rebuttal of the presumed parental order is so high that there are no meaningful options. I think that it’s something that should be decided on a case-by-case basis — the exact opposite of a “straight-jacketed approach,” in fact.
Absolutely! And, might I add, that that includes shared parenting and greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their children while a cohabitating relationship with the mother is still intact. Why are most MRAs and FRAs only concerned about shared parenting when the relationship has broken down and the partners are going their separate ways?
Ozy – some of the divorced parents I know have a form of shared custody where the primary caregiver has the children most of the time and the other parent has them every Wednesday (or whatever weekday they choose, but for some reason it’s often Wednesday) and alternate weekends. So it’s actually not that hard in practice to juggle appointments and activities – either the non-primary parent does them on Wednesdays or the primary parent schedules them on the unaffected days. It seems to work better than alternating weeks, since the child is under one set of rules most of the time, and
Brandon – old enough for what? ;) Look, it may be theoretically possible to put together legal documents to duplicate all the rights and duties that come along with marriage. Or you could, you know, just get married. I’m not going to insist that people spend $10K and a lot of time in a lawyer’s office when they could spend $100 and 15 minutes at city hall to wind up with the same suite of rights. Especially not just because it offends Brandon’s sense of aesthetics. There’s a lot wrong with marriage, of course (I should know – I’m married), but saying “Just don’t get married!” is about as helpful as saying “Just get a better job!” to people suffering under unjust working conditions.
“Pecunium, yes I understand that many average feminists would support shared parenting but average feminists have no political power, Its “governance feminism” or whatever we want to call it that does have political power, that is opposing it.
That’s where a lot of these conversations can get complicated
“Feminism is doing X!”
“No its not because I’m a feminist and I’m not doing X!””
Why not do some activist work in the real world if there is “governance feminism” that makes the statements of the “average feminist” irrelevant? If we’re just “average feminists” who words and support of shared parenting don’t ultimately matter, why are WE the ones being challenged on this issue?
…first paragraph should continue:
and getting to and fro school etc. is mostly handled by the same parent.
Amused
“Aren’t mothers also more likely to be, you know, caring for their children and spending time with them?”
Yes mothers spend more time with children but I find that argument in bad taste.
“Putting aside the fact that these kinds of claims lump together abuse and neglect (which are two different things)”
No they are not, neglect is a form of abuse and in Australia mothers are more likely to commit all forms of abuse with the exception of sexual (which is 6% of the total, conformed cases show women commit 22% of it but that’s a whole other story as there is plenty of reason to to believe that much female sexual abuse flies under the radar because of various stereotypes.
“I love it how MRA’s fail to correlate the percentage of time spent with the child with the likelihood of abuse. I suppose it’s very easy to never abuse a child that you don’t actually care for.”
Women abuse children more, men are to blame.
“That research has been thoroughly debunked. Research that equates evasive action with aggression, and destruction of property with assault of the person is dishonest any way you cut it.”
They haven’t and there is no research instrument or study that equates evasive action with aggression, and destruction of property with assault of the person. The dishonesty here is coming from the sources that claim that all these DV experts, instruments and studies equate evasive action with aggression, and destruction of property with assault of the person. Its an absurd suggestion.
Well, we’ve been told now! Catalogue finds the argument in bad taste, so he will dismiss it! Argument won!
“Yes mothers spend more time with children but I find that argument in bad taste.”
It’s in bad taste? Uh-huh. Interesting. What exactly is in bad taste here — the fact that mothers do more parenting than fathers, or the fact that I mentioned it? You know what I find in bad taste? I find it in bad taste that mothers tend to spend more time with children than fathers, but according to you, that shouldn’t be a factor in evaluating the best interests of the child or the significance of child abuse numbers because, well, this simple fact of life offends your tender sensibilities. I find it in bad taste that MRA’s expect women to do most of the child care during the marriage, and most of the child care after the marriage, but to have, at most, equal rights with the father in legal custody. I find it in bad taste that MRA’s, as fathers, want to sit in on their asses and not do much of anything to raise their children, yet to be given legal authority to make decisions the consequences of which will have to be born by others. But you, apparently, find those arguments tasteful. N’est-pas?
They haven’t and there is no research instrument or study that equates evasive action with aggression, and destruction of property with assault of the person. The dishonesty here is coming from the sources that claim that all these DV experts, instruments and studies equate evasive action with aggression, and destruction of property with assault of the person. Its an absurd suggestion.
MRA’s rely entirely on Conflict Tactics Scales, not “all these DV experts” (though for the record, I don’t consider manosphere bloggers “DV experts”), and CTS does conflate data precisely as I described. CTS also, quite conveniently for male abusers, omits data on interspousal homicide and sexual abuse. It also ignores the intensity, context and consequences of individual actions, which would explain why women are far more likely than men to be injured by domestic violence. In fact, large-scale studies that aggregate data from multiple sources (not just self-reporting) conclusively show that female victims far outnumber male ones, and men assault female partners at appreciably greater rates than vice versa.
“Why not do some activist work in the real world if there is “governance feminism” that makes the statements of the “average feminist” irrelevant? If we’re just “average feminists” who words and support of shared parenting don’t ultimately matter, why are WE the ones being challenged on this issue?”
Well the mens movement does challenge governance feminism. We counter abuse misinformation which is feminism’s main tool and as you can see from Fathers and Families in your “boobz” list it is challenging feminist jurisprudence.
I guess average feminists get challenged because they are often perceived as supporting and lending credibility to feminist extremists and unknowingly spreading abuse misinformation on their behalf.
Amused
the cts does not conflate data as you describe that’s an unsupportable claim circulated by a certain group.
“”The physical assault scale, like all the CTS maltreatment scales, differentiates between less severe acts of violence, such as slapping and throwing things at a partner, and more severe acts such as punching, kicking, and choking, and the CTS provides the opportunity to weight the scores by the frequency of these behaviors.”[30] Strauss 2007
And MRA’s dont rely on CTS, the domestic violence research community does because its regarded as the best instrument available. Thats what its been used in 600+ studies. If the claims about it were true, instead of just being misinformation circulated by feminism, it wouldn’t be used at all and something else would be used in its place.
Can someone please tell me what “governance feminism” is?
From all evidence that’s been brought up this “governance feminism” is an attempt to redefine feminism to 100% reflect “Patriarchy.”
In America “neglect” can be as simple as working 8 hours a day. I’ve talked with social workers who frequently investigate and dismiss these cases, but they are still on record.
Are you making the case that a working mother neglects her children by simply working to support them?
First of all, Catalogue — could you please still enlighten me on that bad taste comment? Is it in bad taste that fathers parent less than mothers, or is it in bad taste to talk about it? Thanks, much obliged.
Second: Even assuming Strauss is correct — and I note, you are picking one DV expert’s argument while ignoring multiple others, without any explanation as to what your selection criteria are, other than that it supports your argument — even assuming he is correct, how is throwing a newspaper at someone the same level of severity as slapping? When you say that women commit more DV then men, are you saying that women commit more DV in every single category — that is to say, women punch more, kick more and choke more — or are you saying that between a woman who throws a newspaper twice and a man who who punches her hard enough to fracture her skull, she is the more violent one? What is the point of distinguishing between less severe acts of violence and more severe ones if you ignore that distinction anyway by claiming women commit more total acts than men? Where are arguments addressing the fact that CTS excludes spousal homicide, rape, and the likelihood of injury? Is it that you can only conclude that women are more violent if you ignore murder, rape and the fact that more women than men are injured by DV? Or is mentioning the fact that more women are injured by men than vice versa “in bad taste”?
From the Australian Institute of Family Services:
“Findings from the ABS Personal Safety Survey (2005) indicated that of participants who had experienced physical abuse before the age of 15, 55.6% experienced abuse from their father/stepfather and 25.9% experienced abuse from their mother/stepmother.”
“A British retrospective prevalence study of 2,869 young adults aged 18-24 (May-Chahal & Cawson, 2005) found that mothers were more likely than fathers to be responsible for physical abuse (49% of incidents compared to 40%). However, part of the difference may be explained by the greater time children spend with their mothers than fathers. Violence was also reported to be perpetrated by stepmothers (3%) or stepfathers (5%), grandparents (3%) and other relatives (1%).”
“Evidence also suggests that mothers are more likely than fathers to be held responsible for child neglect. In a large representative study that examined the characteristics of perpetrators in substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect in the United States, neglect was the main type of abuse in 66% of cases involving a female caregiver, compared to 36% of cases involving a male caregiver (US DHHS, 2005). This finding is consistent with the fact that mothers tend to be the primary caregiver and are usually held accountable for ensuring the safety of children even in two-parent families. In light of societal views on gender roles, it has been argued that this may constitute unreasonable ‘mother blaming’.”
“Research focusing on perpetrators of child sexual abuse is extensive compared to other forms of abuse. Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by males (ABS, 2005; McCloskey & Raphael, 2005; Peter, 2009). In a US study examining the characteristics of perpetrators in substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect (US DHHS, 2005), 26% of all cases involving male perpetrators were associated with sexual abuse compared to just 2% of cases involving female perpetrators.”
“Of these incidences of emotional abuse, 60% were perpetrated by males and 50% by females (these figures exceed 100% as in some instances both males and females were involved in emotional abuse).”
“Violence between intimate partners with children is overwhelmingly a gendered issue with the vast majority of incidents involving a female victim and male perpetrator (ABS, 2005; Holt et al., 2008; Mulroney, 2003). The ABS Personal Safety Survey (2005) found that of the women who had experienced physical assault since the age of 15, 31% said they had been assaulted by their current or previous partner compared to 14.3% of men who had been assaulted by their previous or current partner.”
“Yampolskaya, Greenbaum and Berson (2009), in a study examining 126 profiles of perpetrators of fatal assault in United States, found that males were three times more likely to fatally assault their children.”
God, I’m just a woman, so numbers confuse me. Catalogue, can you help me out and show me what part of these studies shows that mothers abuse children so much more? Thanks.
“And MRA’s dont rely on CTS, the domestic violence research community does because its regarded as the best instrument available. Thats what its been used in 600+ studies. If the claims about it were true, instead of just being misinformation circulated by feminism, it wouldn’t be used at all and something else would be used in its place.”
Regarded by whom? I am not aware of it being well-regarded at all in the context in which MRA’s use it. And just because it’s cited in studies doesn’t mean that it’s held up as the gold standard.
Bee
“Mothers are more likely than fathers to neglect and emotionally and physically abuse their children, information obtained under freedom of information laws reveals.
But figures from the WA Department for Child Protection show substantiated cases of child sexual abuse against fathers still far outnumber those against mothers.
The data shows that parents were the perpetrators in almost 39 per cent of the 1505 substantiated cases of child abuse in 2007-08. Of the 582 cases of abuse by parents, mothers were responsible for 73 per cent, while fathers committed 27 per cent.
Mothers were more than 17 times more likely than fathers to neglect their children, while fathers were responsible for 85 per cent of sex abuse cases against children.
Mothers carried out almost 68 per cent of cases of emotional and psychological abuse committed by parents, about 53 per cent of physical abuse and more than 94 per cent of neglect cases.
Cases of substantiated abuse jumped from 960 in 2005-06 to 1505 in 2007-08. In 2005-06, mothers committed 312 cases, while fathers were responsible for 165.
In 2005-06, mothers were responsible for 161 neglect, 72 emotional and psychological, 76 physical and three sexual abuse cases against their children. In the same financial year, fathers were responsible for 37 neglect, 41 emotional and psychological, 65 physical and 22 sexual abuse cases against their children.
A DCP spokesman said figures between years were not comparable because measuring methodologies may have changed.
Of the total substantiated cases of abuse in 2007-08, including by parents and where the gender of the perpetrator was determined, 463 were carried out by women and 353 by men.
University of Western Sydney academic Micheal Woods said yesterday that the statistics debunked the myth that fathers posed the greatest risk to their children.
Mr Woods, co-director of the university’s Men’s Health Information and Resource Centre, said if similar data was available in other States it would show similar trends.
Adults Surviving Child Abuse WA spokeswoman Michelle Stubbs said an initial look at the data did not present a clear explanation and other factors had to be considered.
She said it was important to keep in mind that mothers were often the primary caregivers for children and also may be held more responsible by the department in neglect cases.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6089613/mum-not-dad-more-likely-to-neglect-kids/
Amused
The CTS is best instrument available, its what feminist researchers use too, they just modify it not to ask men the same questions as women.
Bee
Here US figures, your studies might be feminist advocacy research, designed to generate a certain outcome.
http://breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.php
Catalogue – “That looks like a good bill because what it tells a disputing couple is ‘sort out the dispute or you will be ordered to do this’. More a deterrent for those that would obstruct a reasonable arrangement than anything else.”
Unless the person who is obstructing a reasonable arrangement is a parent who is disinterested in their child but would use forced shared custody as a way to punish the other parent for leaving them. Or, you know, in various other situations where people leave a marriage on less then stellar terms and are unable to come to a mutually agreeable decision about child custody, but where shared child custody is still in no way in the best interests of the child.
Also, originally you said that the law does not require shared custody and all you want is a presumption of shared custody for the court to consider…but now that the law would require shared custody, that is what you think is best? You are very inconsistent.
Okay, so … it looks like the WA Department for Child Protection and the Australian Institute of Family Services have wildly divergent figures. Hell, the WA Department for Child Protection figures even conflict with themselves!
“Of the 582 cases of abuse by parents, mothers were responsible for 73 per cent, while fathers committed 27 per cent” versus “Of the total substantiated cases of abuse in 2007-08, including by parents and where the gender of the perpetrator was determined, 463 were carried out by women and 353 by men.”
I find myself … unconvinced. Sorry.
Unconvinced because of prejudice perhaps.
And here Bee. This paper explains how DV stats are manipulated by feminist academics.
GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE:
THE EVIDENCE, THE DENIAL, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR
PRIMARY PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
1
Murray A. Straus
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V70%20version%20N3.pdf
“Unconvinced because of prejudice perhaps.”
Or, you know … unconvinced because there are two hugely divergent reports from two different sources, both of which I’m pretty unfamiliar with, so I can’t really judge their merit on which is more credible. The Australian Institute of Family Services web site certainly looks pretty official, cites its sources, and seems to cover the entire country. On the other hand, you’ve linked to a newspaper article that references studies done in one Australian state, with wildly varying results from year to year.
But yeah, prejudice — that’s a really good guess, Catalogue.
Hey, you’re from Australia, right? Why don’t you tell me why the Australian Institute of Family Services isn’t to be trusted?
It’s not what Bee was saying. What Bee was saying (because this has been round on the playlist lots of times) is the presumptive state should be, “best interests of the child”.
The thing you aren’t seeming to notice is that the courts aren’t involved until/unless the parents are in dispute, so the “deterrent nature” of mandatory sharing isn’t useful, since it’s already past that point before it comes to it.
The assertion of, “average feminists” being different from “governance” feminists is… I don’t know, absurd comes to mind.
First, you are discussing two different systems (at the macro level) in that you are in Oz, and we are, by and large, in the states. NOW/NARAL, etc. can lobby for what they like. They do it with the funding they get from, “average” feminists. When they differ, those average feminists move their money to other support groups (NARAL, for example, lost me when they supported Lieberman over Lamont in 2006).
Where the conversation gets off the rails is when you, rather than saying, “X group is doing Y” say, “Feminists are against X because Group Y is doing Z”
Which is the reverse of the claim you make. We (or at least I) am not saying there aren’t feminists who are opposed to shared custody, I am rebutting your assertion that all feminists are against it.
Well the mens movement does challenge governance feminism. We counter abuse misinformation which is feminism’s main tool and as you can see from Fathers and Families in your “boobz” list it is challenging feminist jurisprudence.
I guess average feminists get challenged because they are often perceived as supporting and lending credibility to feminist extremists and unknowingly spreading abuse misinformation on their behalf.
If by counter you mean the sorts of “that’s in bad taste, I don’t want to talk about it” in response to people challenging your claims, color me unimpressed.
“Average feminists” get challenged because (as shown above) the MRM doesn’t really care about nuance, unless it’s aimed at them (so they can claim that only the “bad things” are being, “cherry picked” and there are, “really lots of moderate MRAs out there, you just ignore them”.
But when someone says, “perhaps it would be a good idea to norm the statistics to see what the ratio is when compared to the amount of time a parent spends with the child,” that’s not something to be talked about.
Double standards are bollocks.
“Hey, you’re from Australia, right? Why don’t you tell me why the Australian Institute of Family Services isn’t to be trusted?”
Gov Feminist sources cannot be trusted on abuse figures.
Ombudsman finds domestic violence campaign ‘misleading
A national men’s group is claiming victory over what it calls a feminist agenda on domestic violence.
An independent investigation has upheld the group’s complaint about a public awareness campaign in South Australia.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry found parts of the $870,000 campaign contained errors.
The Don’t Cross The Line campaign has been running in newspapers, on television and radio and on a website.
The Ombudsman in South Australia found some statistics initially published on the site were false and misleading.
Advocacy group Men’s Health Australia made a complaint against the Office of the Status of Women over 10 matters on the website.
The Ombudsman’s final report substantiates seven of them and another two in part.
The Government had said one in 17 women was a victim of domestic violence annually, but the figure related to violence generally.
Michael Woods is one of the men’s group’s supporters and is from the Men’s Health Information and Research Centre at the University of Western Sydney.
“It is a shame that a government department is unable, despite being notified a year ago, to address its own shortcomings and it required this sort of action,” he said.
The ideological commitment of people in that department must be so strong that they would reject scientific data in favour of their own biases.”
The SA minister responsible for the campaign, Gail Gago, says the statistical errors were innocent ones.
“There were I think problems with individuals that were transferring information from one source to another and the degree of diligence that should have occurred simply didn’t,” she said.
She rejected the group’s claim of an agenda within her department.
“Our anti-violence campaign is not a contest about who’s the biggest victim,” the Minister for the Status of Women said.
Ms Gago says the Government has corrected the errors and there was no reason to end the campaign.
Domestic violence experts say the case highlights a tussle between men’s and women’s groups.
Men’s Health Australia has also complained of incorrect statistics in the New South Wales Domestic Violence and Family Action Plan.
But the NSW Ombudsman so far has found no reason to investigate.
Dr Michael Flood is a domestic violence researcher from the University of Wollongong.
He says the men’s group is muddying the debate.
“The group’s complaint is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victims of violence. I think that it’s motivated more by political agendas,” he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-09-02/ombudsman-finds-domestic-violence-campaign/2245608
A couple of substantive posts by Rutee got held in moderation. One is on the previous page of comments; the other on this page.
Links:
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-1/#comment-53198
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-2/#comment-53221
“Gov Feminist sources cannot be trusted on abuse figures.”
All of this time you have been claiming that feminists somehow fudge the numbers of actual surveys and stats just to forward their agenda. You have yet to actually substantiate those claims, and at best you have only provided variations of, “Well, those studies counteract my view, therefore they’re feminist biased.” without showing how it all happens.
If I tell people that the moon orbits around the Earth because an invisible cyclops pulls it by rope, if I don’t show official scientific peer journals or research that proves that, people are under no obligation to believe me. People are under no obligation to believe me if I argue the opposite and provide facts to prove it, either, but if one makes a factual statement, one has to provide evidence for it.
Really, man, this circular game you’re playing is getting old.
Redlocker
” but if one makes a factual statement, one has to provide evidence for it.”
Right, that’s why I’ve been posing studies and articles as opposed to just making claims.
I know that we’ve moved on from this point, but I was struck by the ‘we should be self-sufficient’ thing. Seriously – self-sufficiency, unless you live alone on a farm and grow all your own food and get your water from a rainwater tank that you built yourself from materials that you yourself mined from the ground, just isn’t possible. Human beings work together to survive – we are interdependent creatures even though we like to THINK that we are self-sufficient. OK, sure, you might be in a position to make enough money to look after your own needs for periods of your life, but for other periods you must rely on others to look after you. As a baby, as a child, as an older person, if you get injured, if you have a disibility… This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do your best to contribute to maintaining your own life and that of the people around you, but no-one is freaking self-sufficient for their whole life.
To make out like it’s the worst thing in the world to be co-dependent ignores the fact that we are all dependent on others to a degree. I guess I agree that marriage and how it’s constructed in our culture (I do not think this is inherent to marriage) fosters a sense that men and women in a heterosexual couple should be the only people looking after themselves and each other and that this is problematic because what is needed is a wider approach* which acknowledges the contributions of friends and other family members (if you’re lucky enough to have them) to your continued survival and comfort. It’s easy to think that women are more dependent because, when they have babies, they do require support. But this ignores the fact that men were all babies once and, if their mothers hadn’t been helped in some way, they wouldn’t be around.**
*Also, the emphasis on a heterosexual couple working together to look after one another etc. marginalises other gendered pairings which is totally uncool.
**one of my friends just had a baby – I just learned that the whole breastfeeding every three hours is timed from the start of each feed…and some babies spend about two hours feeding when they’re new. So, that’s two hours of feeding, one hour break, two hours feeding, one hour break. How the hell is anyone supposed to do that and work, or sleep or do any of the other necessary bits and pieces? Note too, that this is not about women being not self-sufficient, which is the fiction, but that babies and hence all people, are not self sufficient for some time and require lots of looking after. Too bad we can’t all just lay eggs and abandon our young…
Nooooo, but redlocker, you don’t understand. Catalogue thinks that mothers are more likely to abuse their children than fathers, plus he has all these links to newspaper articles. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES!!! Those are never flawed or biased. Some of them don’t even say anything substantive about the topic under discussion — they talk about different government departments that are completely unrelated to the department Catalogue was being asked about!
I haz been baffled with bullshit, I tells you!
“Nooooo, but redlocker, you don’t understand. Catalogue thinks that mothers are more likely to abuse their children than fathers, plus he has all these links to newspaper articles. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES!!! Those are never flawed or biased. Some of them don’t even say anything substantive about the topic under discussion — they talk about different government departments that are completely unrelated to the department Catalogue was being asked about!”
Yeah, I was going to address how he has been linking to newspaper articles as opposed to actual studies, but I digress.
Bee.
Your own governments stats demonstrate mothers are more likely to abuse children than fathers.
http://breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.php
And feminist academics and feminists in the Aus. and UK gov. have an observable track record of covering up female abuse. I’m going to leave you to it now because watching feminists deny abuse is one thing but when you make a game out of denying child abuse as is happening here my patience gets a little tested.
And feminist academics and feminists in the Aus. and UK gov. have an observable track record of covering up female abuse.
Citation needed please
feminist advocacy research, designed to generate a certain outcome.
why would you admit to thinking something like this? you obviously want to have some sort of discussion, so why would you go around announcing that you intend to handwave away any evidence that disagrees with your position because you think its wrongthink? why would anyone make the effort of engaging with someone whose entire argument is couched in that sort of childish arrogance (seriously, people engaging with this chump- i dont get why youre bothering)
and dude, do you have any idea what a massive hypocrite you sound like. you dont get to prance in here and declare that your the high priest of objectivity and any contradictory evidence is tainted by bias. that makes you the prejudiced asshole operating from a foregone conclusion.
look youve got your pile of links and your here to unmask whatever sinister feminist conspiracy against fathers youve decided has to exists. congrats. i can find ctrl c and v on my keyboard too, but i dont try to pass it off as analysis. thats just lazy.
@Ozy: Most alimony is paid by men to women. Yes, I realize most of it is because women are predominately the ones that stay home with the kids. But I have very little faith in the legal system to award me alimony if the roles were reversed and I was the stay at home dad. I am not going to put my trust into the system that rarely if ever awards men alimony (it’s like 3% of the time last I checked). So being a man, I can say with a 97% certainty that I am leaving divorce paying alimony. I don’t like the state dictating what I have to do which is yet another reason why I won’t be getting married. I follow the law and I don’t need to subject myself to divorce and family court systems with more stipulations, regulations and restrictions.
@Rutee: Again, if you value being self-sufficient then you will make more decisions that work towards being more self-sufficient. Your examples only prove my point even further. I might have a mortgage with a bank that demands that I pay them every month (which I agreed to) but the bank can only tell me that I have to pay the mortgage. They can’t tell me I can’t paint the walls or create a sun porch off the back of the house. Employment goes from being held responsible to a small group of managers (probably one) to hundreds of customers. If one customer doesn’t like me, than tough shit…I have thousands more. It’s about minimizing risk and not creating a single point of failure (I am in IT so pardon the jargon).
Self-sufficiency can never truly be achieved but their is a large difference between a homeless man or woman begging for money and scraps of food to a middle class homeowner with his or her house paid off. We are all forced to live by the government to a certain extent, but I prefer the least amount possible.
@Rachel: If she is my equal then she has her own job with her own health insurance. Hence she doesn’t need to be placed on mine. Also, I am not insulting people that are getting married…I am criticizing the institution of marriage itself. I don’t look down on people that get married, but I do express my opinion as to the reasons why I think it is a bad choice. Most women I have met try there hardest to defend it while men often take pause and think of the benefits AND consequences of marriage.
@Pecunium: Most of those questions you put forth can be solved with a Power of Attorney and a Medical Proxy….so instead of one step (marriage license) I take 2-3 steps…but I completely avoid ALL the future liabilities of marriage and divorce courts. Seems like a no brainer. And Social Security benefits, ha I am not even 30 yet…I doubt I will even get SSI when I retire (which is why I funnel a lot of money into my 401K)
@kristinmh: You asked how old I was. My response was “old enough”. Your analogy between marriage and employment makes no sense. Most people are required to work, marriage is completely voluntary and no real damage happens to you if you decide not to get married. Lastly, it isn’t “theoretically possible”, it actually is possible. If I get a will, power of attorney and medical proxy, I have covered practically every benefit of getting married without opening myself up to the risk of divorce.
Just like women and feminists have changed the landscape for women to enter the workforce and do more than just be a stay at home mothers, I think men need to shake off the whole “provider/breadwinner role”. Marriage is the antithesis of this.
“(seriously, people engaging with this chump- i dont get why youre bothering)”
Meh, I just thought that maybe, just maybe, he would say something of substance.
That, and I’m bored and I’m still waiting for my copy of “The Room” to arrive in the mail so I can have The Room/Troll 2 doublebill at my house.
I haven’t read all the posts, but here is the law on shared parenting: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008C00441
John Howard brought it in thanks to the Abusers’ Lobby.
You’d be amazed how much damage an abusive parent can continue to do in 1/2 hour supervised visit each month.
“Just like women and feminists have changed the landscape for women to enter the workforce and do more than just be a stay at home mothers, I think men need to shake off the whole “provider/breadwinner role”. Marriage is the antithesis of this.”
Wait, all marriage? Even the ones that all sides have voluntarily entered into, understanding the costs and adjustments that will have to be made as a result?
I know you answered earlier that people are free to marry as they choose and that you have no problem with it, but here you once again stated that all marriage is bad, ignoring any nuance or situations to the contrary.
I think Bee quoted from the Institute of Family Services study, which was commissioned to see how things were going under the law, five years on.
The institute is not part of the government.
If he wants news articles, remeber Darcey Freeman?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-10-07/daughter-thrown-off-bridge-on-first-day-of-school/1093894
“Yes mothers spend more time with children but I find that argument in bad taste.”
I noticed you find fact-based arguments to be in bad taste, yes.
Both parents at home full-time. Mother judged to be primary carer:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-10-02/starved-girls-mother-gets-life-sentence/1088990
Magpie, you are being totally unfair by using his own tactics against him by posting news articles!
Lol Elizabeth :) Seriously, though, I wish the news articles would always include a link to the studies.
Here is a more positive link: http://www.theline.gov.au/
This is the ‘crossing the line’ campaign that Catalogue referred to earlier. It’s pretty tame, really, but it gives kids the chance to talk about it, and work it out themselves.