A startling new development on the frontiers of anti-male oppression. According to the loquacious lady MRA known as girlwriteswhat on Reddit, men are being oppressed by evil feminist dudes cruelly clamping down on their right to bitch about ladies in the bathroom. In a recent comment she writes:
No space is allowed to be male-only, or male-viewpoint-only, but women insist on female-only or female-viewpoint-only spaces all the time.
The only male safe space left on the planet is the men’s bathroom, ffs. And even then, there will be feminist-leaning men policing what is said. It’s very frustrating.
As a dude feminist who is a regular user of men’s restrooms, I should note that dudes do not actually talk in restrooms.
Happily, this does not prevent me, as a dude feminist, from policing the non-existent speech of other dudes in said restrooms.
Here is the complete transcript of a restroom discussion I recently policed:
Dude One: [silently urinates]
Dude Two: [silently urinates]
Dude Three: [silently poops]
Me: Goddessdamnit, keep it down with all your lady-bashing! Men are bad!
Always glad to help.
HT to Shit Reddit Says, which has just ended its month-long moratorium on r/mensrights posts, for pointing me to girlwriteswhat’s observation.
‘Don’t confuse common cultural myths with the reality of the courts. Men fare well in disputed custody cases, despite the high rates of male abusers and molesters among those cases.’
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf
Women receive custody in about 84% of child custody cases.
In the spring of 2002, an estimated 13.4 million parents had custody of 21.5 million children under 21 years of age whose other parent lived somewhere else. About 5 of every 6 custodial parents were mothers (84.4 percent) and 1in 6 were fathers (15.6 percent), proportions statistically unchanged since 1994
‘Compiled by F.M. Christensen, Ph.D.
… It was found that when both parents were emotionally, socially and morally fit, the mother received custody l00% of the time. A career woman was not less likely to become the custodian than a traditional mother….
…In a survey of judges given various hypothetical child-custody cases, a significant bias favoring the mothers was found. Mothers were more likely than fathers to receive sole custody awards by a ratio of 3:2….
…Of the 12 judges who chose between the parents, 6 would have awarded custody to the mother under all circumstances, 4 appeared to lean toward the mother and only two showed a preference for the father….
4. Solomon’s Children, Glynnis Walker, New York, 1986. In a survey of adults who had been children when their parents divorced, only l0% of fathers had received custody. 39% said they had felt closer to their father than to their mother, but were never given the right to choose which parent would keep them.
5. Information from the Joint Custody Association, Los Angeles, Mar. 6, 1985. In a survey sample of 882 children in 527 families, 48% of the mothers and 6.5% of the fathers were granted sole custody. 37% of the cases resulted in joint legal custody, but in all of those, primary physical custody went to the mother. Five percent, or 30 of the cases, were decided in a contested custody trial. 17 of these cases resulted in sole custody to the mother and 7 resulted in joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the mother.
6. “The myth of maternal preference in child custody cases”, Jean McBean in Equality and Judicial Neutrality, S.L. Martin and K.E. Mahoney (eds.), Carswell, 1987. In an unpublished study by the Alberta Attorney General’s Department, a review was conducted of l500 Alberta court files between 1979 and 1985 where an amicus curiae was appointed. It was found that the amicus curiae recommended in favor of the father in 31% of the cases, the mother in 51%, divided custody in 3%, placement with a guardian in 8% and joint custody in 8% of the cases. Thirteen percent of these cases went to trial, where the recommendation of the amicus curiae was accepted in 92 % of them. Of the 13 cases where the court ignored the recommendations, the father received custody in seven, the mother in six. (In spite of this article’s title, its data still suggest the reality of mother-preference. Given the statistics elsewhere, however, having court officials assess disputed custody cases–back when that was being done in Alberta–appears to have reduced the bias considerably.)
7. Evaluation of the Divorce Act, Department of Justice for Canada, 1990. In a sampling of divorce cases from various Canadian jurisdictions in the late 1980’s, government researchers used both court records and interviews with those divorced to ascertain custody statistics. According to both sources, in those cases where sole custody was awarded to one parent by a trial court, mothers were the ones receiving it 90% of the time (Tables 4.21 and 4.23). In a small percentage of contested cases, joint custody was awarded. (In the huge majority of contested cases resulting in joint custody in Canada, the sort of joint custody awarded is very little different from sole custody: one parent still gets “primary care and control” and the other parent gets little time with the children. Unfortunately, this source did not provide a gender breakdown on receipt of such “joint custody”. From common observation, however, the percentages by gender could not differ much from those for sole custody.) The large majority of custody decisions are decided outside of court, generally with the advice of lawyers or other negotiators. The authors summarise this overall situation thus: “Where sole custody was to the mother, this was usually the result of taken for granted notions ‘that children need their mothers’. In turn, where fathers were granted sole custody, this was almost invariably because the mother did not want or could not cope with custody of the children rather than the outcome of a contested custody issue.”
N.B.: US and Canadian statistics showing equal or greater percentages of father custody in contested cases are sometimes claimed. In every such case to date, examination of the original source has found the claim to result from distorting data.’
Tldr: Studies showing there is no bias are a result of distorted data according to F.M. Christensen, Ph.D.
http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm
When parents go to evaluation or trial ie disputed custody.
‘Sole possession to mother 44%
Sole possession to father 11%’
Still no bias etc…
Probably best to look at more recent data, when it is available:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf
(Please read carefully/thoughtfully. Statistics are difficult!)
By that, I mean that the data doesn’t tell you very clearly whether or not any of these situations were disputed. Some of the women were widows, some were divorced/separated, and for some the father was never in the picture. Statistics don’t (usually) lie, but they don’t always tell the whole truth!
‘About 1 in 6 custodial parents were fathers (17.8 percent).’
with my ‘About 5 of every 6 custodial parents were mothers’
‘An estimated 13.7 million parents had custody of 22.0 million children under 21 years of age’
With 2001 ‘an estimated 13.4 million parents had custody of 21.5 million children under 21 years of age’
‘The majority of custodial parents
were mothers (82.2 percent),
proportions which were not
statistically different from 1994.8’
There is nothing in your report with regards to disputed child custody bias and all the data is remarkably similar to 2001’s stats.
Irrelevant to claims regarding contested custody suits.
Irrelevant to claims regarding contested custody suits.
Claim not supported by sourced data.
Claim not supported by sourced data.
Claim not supported by sourced data. I’m beginning to notice a problem.
Why don’t you link to where this numbered bullet list actually comes from, rather than hiding it under a Census bureau report and hoping we won’t actually fact check you?
http://deltabravo.net/custody/bias_essay.php
http://www.electromagnet.sm.demon.co.uk/08094.htm.
For the F.M .Christensen And I addressed the bias in dispute cases with the divorce site. I thought an overall view of the bias against fathers was appropriate, rather than face later claims that only a small % of custody is disputed.
http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm
The reason I left the first studies on sourced was to reduce the length of my post which still ended up huge.
Hmm I cannot post? Check check
It means you have too many links. Break them up.
Can’t even post a comment with a single link in it. Try googling FM christensen.
When I post with the links I get
‘Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!’
@Ullere: As you admit, “There is nothing in your report with regards to disputed child custody bias.” So why don’t you provide some data to support that, because you have failed to do that so far…
‘Sole possession to mother 44%
Sole possession to father 11%’
Still no bias etc…’
http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm
When parents go to evaluation or trial ie disputed custody.
‘Sole possession to mother 44%
Sole possession to father 11%’
Still no bias etc…
You conveniently omit that, according to your own source, 40% of contested cases result in joint custody. You also omit that contested cases (evaluation or trial) are more, not less, likely to result in joint custody or custody for the father than those that go to mediation. Far from being biased against fathers, it appears that judges and evaluators are more favorably inclined towards fathers than are mediators.
To reiterate, fully 51% of contested cases result in either joint custody or sole custody for the father (40% joint, 11% to father). These are figures from the source you provided.
Moreover, according, again, to your source, the vast majority (80%) come to an agreement on custody without the involvement of any third party at all. Contested cases only represent 9% of overall divorces, of which 4% go to litigation and only 1.5% complete litigation.
This really doesn’t look like the dire picture for fathers that the MRM likes to paint.
@Captain Bathrobe well ok then
fully 84% of contested cases lead to full or joint custody for the mother to your 51% for the father… Which still shows a bias.
‘Don’t confuse common cultural myths with the reality of the courts. Men fare well in disputed custody cases, despite the high rates of male abusers and molesters among those cases.’’
just over half the time you can still see you kids! thats faring well?
‘Moreover, according, again, to your source, the vast majority (80%) come to an agreement on custody without the involvement of any third party at all. Contested cases only represent 9% of overall divorces, of which 4% go to litigation and only 1.5% complete litigation.
This really doesn’t look like the dire picture for fathers that the MRM likes to paint.’
I’d love to say not relevant to disputed cases.
fathers make up 1/6th of custodians, that is a dire picture for fathers.
I don;t think it’ll let me post links but lets try.
http://deltabravo.net/custody/bias_essay.php
5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of school
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
9 times more likely to end up in a state operated institution
20 times more likely to end up in prison
Fatherless home children.
Again a dire picture indeed…
I cannot post links so I;m out for a bit, hard to source more information. If you are saying 84% vs 51% for any custody and 44% vs 11% for a monopoly of custody shows no bias then alrighty.
Of course, you could have just linked in your original post, instead of trying to sneak this shit in as census claims. I sincerely hope this isn’t the idiot the Father’s Right’s movement tried to pretend knew what he was talking I encountered last, because his papers were a fucking mess of shit that’d get me thrown out of any science course.
Oh wow, christ, the studies you’re leaning on are themselves 20 years old. So that makes two father’s rights idiots who’d be thrown out of a science course. Well, never let it be said I won’t let someone be hung by their own petard.
1: Can’t even see abstract of supporting study; No further comment.
2: Can’t even see abstract of supporting study; No further comment.
3: Can’t even see abstract of supporting study; First study to have tracked citations.
4: Book. No further comment
5: Unsourced by Christiansen.
6: Can’t even see abstract of supporting study; No further comment
7: This is so old even Canada’s DoJ isn’t keeping it around.
I’m just gonna go ahead and say it; the reason that shit isn’t available on the net is that it’s *so fucking old it’s irrelevant*. Even if your boy was absolutely right about every claim, it would *still* be irrelevant because the youngest study is more than two decades old.
You do realize this is an assertion, not, you know, a sourced claim, right?
fathers make up 1/6th of custodians, that is a dire picture for fathers.
Not buying it. Disputed cases make up only a tiny minority of total divorces. The fable that the MRM likes to push, that fathers are routinely and arbitrarily cut off from contact with their kids during divorce, is simply false. By any measure, the vast majority of fathers have substantial contact with their kids after a divorce, and a large portion have at least joint custody.
As for disputed cases, the outcome for mothers and fathers is not equal, but inequality of outcome is not necessarily evidence of bias in the system. That would be like saying that the vast majority of criminal trials result in a conviction, so trials must be biased against defendants. The question is rather whether or not these proceedings are conducted fairly, with the facts of the case carrying the day rather than the gender of the litigants.
Pretty sure I can’t post links but i’ll try again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095671/Childs-right-absent-father-Law-help-millions-broken-homes.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
‘Figures show one in five children lose contact with a parent after separation
The move is designed to ensure that the parent who leaves the family home – most commonly the father – cannot be cut out of their children’s lives following an acrimonious separation.
‘The fable that the MRM likes to push, that fathers are routinely and arbitrarily cut off from contact with their kids during divorce, is simply false.’
‘40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the father’s visitation to punish their ex-spouse.’
–See “Frequency of Visitation….” by Stanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
So a fifth of all children from divorced homes lose contact with the parent who doesn’t get custody, 84% of the time thats the father. (from previous links)
‘By any measure, the vast majority of fathers have substantial contact with their kids after a divorce’
‘As for disputed cases, the outcome for mothers and fathers is not equal, but inequality of outcome is not necessarily evidence of bias in the system’
The system is stating that mothers are 4 times more suitable for sole custody and the previous FM christensen cited studies shows the judges bias, when everything is equal the judges awarded mothers custody 100% of the time
‘It was found that when both parents were emotionally, socially and morally fit, the mother received custody l00% of the time’
But you aren’t buying it. Ho hum.
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel and linking the Daily Fail. There’s a reason we’re not buying it.
No, assuming everything is correct in them, and they’re so old they can’t be fact checked easily, then that was true 25 years ago, and isn’t necessarily now (And you have done fuck all to respond to either of DSC’s sources directly).
Can we make it a rule that nobody can cite the Daily Fail as a legitimate news source? It should be like trying to cite Wikipedia on an academic paper – just not done.
I cannot post links so I;m out for a bit, hard to source more information. If you are saying 84% vs 51% for any custody and 44% vs 11% for a monopoly of custody shows no bias then alrighty.
It shows inequality of outcome for the tiny minority of cases that are contested. What it does not show is bias in the process–that the claims of fathers are not given equal weight as the claims of mothers, based on the facts of the cases in question. Relying on equality of outcome as a measure of bias assumes that parents in disputed custody situations have, on balance, equally valid claims to being the better parent. This is a rather large assumption on which to base a claim of bias.
FWIW, I’m not saying there’s never bias, just that I’m not convinced that it’s as widespread, systematic, or unjustified as the MRM likes to make out. I’m also not convinced that this inequality of outcome (again, in the tiny minority of cases that are contested), is necessarily contrary to the best interests of the child. Whether the father feels that he’s being short-changed may not have any bearing on what’s right for the child, especially since it is rare for even a non-custodial parent to be completely denied contact with their kids. Again, I think the MRM overstates the case here.
Ullere, I don’t know why your comments got snagged by the spam filter. I let them through, without the duplicates; they’re on the previous page of comments for anyone involved in the debate to check.
Quackers, I guess it’s “post weird crap about David Futrelle day” in the MRM.
Here’s something else I ran across. I’m assuming it’s from an MRA spreading misinfo. Either that or someone with extremely poor reading comprehension who really doesn’t understand the notion of sarcasm.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120201164454AA2zE1F
If we really hate the daily mail here is the telegraphs version.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9058018/Children-win-legal-right-to-see-both-parents-after-divorce.html
If there is no problem and the MRM are perpetuating fables why are the UK government taking steps to solve an issue that doesn’t exist?
‘According to the Office for National Statistics, one in three children, equivalent to 3.8 million, lives without their father.’
‘Eight per cent of single parents in Britain are fathers. ‘
‘One official said the Government wanted to remove any “inbuilt legal bias against the father or the mother” in the law.’ Bias? eh?