Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA paul elam the spearhead whaaaaa?

The Spearhead: Paul Elam's dickishness is the fault of feminism

This picture makes more sense than WF Price's argument
This picture makes more sense than WF Price’s argument

So this is an … interesting reaction to that Buzzfeed piece about Paul Elam. And by “interesting” I mean “WTF?”

Over on The Spearhead — remember The Spearhead, home to some of the crankiest misogynists on the Internet? — our old friend WF Price offers a rather unique analysis of Elam’s life story.

Price admits right off the bat that Elam is indeed as much of an “asshole” as the Buzzfeed article makes him out to be, snarkily commenting that this fact “isn’t exactly news to anyone who has dealt with him personally, or read his articles.” And then he goes on to blame Elam’s assholery on feminism.

Wat.

Well, as Price sees it, Elam hasn’t exactly suffered for being an asshole. The fact that he basically got away with abandoning his daughter proves

that telling your wife and kids to screw off when your marriage goes bad is a better strategy if you’re concerned about yourself than trying to be a niceguy. What could be a more damning indictment of feminism than that?

Um, do you really want an answer to that?

Meanwhile, Price argues, the fact that Elam has had three failed marriages shows that ladies just love assholes. No, really. According to Price, Elam’s life story

proves that being an asshole doesn’t torpedo one’s prospects with women. Quite the opposite, in fact: Paul’s many walks down the aisle are testament to the fact that there’s something about the guy that contemporary women find appealing. Elam’s a major hit with women to this day.

Checkmate, feminism!

Price then works me into the  equation, for some reason.

And I don’t write this out of envy; on the contrary, I think his popularity with women has probably been his biggest problem in life (Futrelle wouldn’t understand).

Price concludes with this, er, zinger:

So if feminists were to say to me that Paul Elam proves that MRAs are terrible people, I’d respond by saying “he’s the product of your philosophy, not mine.”

It will take someone more versed in formal logic to explain exactly what logical fallacies Price is committing here, or if he’s somehow come up with a new logical fallacy all his own.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

260 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ceebarks
ceebarks
6 years ago

Fathers (and quite a few mothers) who’ve delegated/ ignored or neglected/ rejected the down and dirty tasks of child raising can be at a disadvantage in these proceedings. But that disadvantage is (usually) largely of their own making.

In some ways, that’s not quite fair, imo. This is one of the very, very, VERY few areas I could ever see making common cause with MRAs over, in the extremely remote event that they ever pull their heads out of their butts for five minutes. For a lot of families, it really is hard to put together the same kind of income and quality of life on two totally equal, moderate-hour jobs. Scheduling becomes a nightmare, and the career ladder really rewards people who will put in 80+ hour weeks. People who do their 40 and go home on time are clearly not serious. So… couples tend to divide energies, with one going full-in on the big career and the other basically trailing behind to provide support and stability. You can get further that way, as there is like zero real support for genuine equality, esp. when there are little kids in the mix. The US provides shockingly little real assistance for families in that stage, imo.

what cheeses me off about the MRAs, as I mentioned before, is that they don’t respect the “trailing” spouse’s efforts and sacrifices, because it’s mostly icky women who do that stuff and anything women do is obviously not actually important.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
6 years ago

Price, remember that you’re actually speaking to real-life feminists now. If you have questions about what those strange, otherworldly beings think about a topic, you need only ask. Rolling in with “feminists believe XYZ” ain’t gonna fly.

totallyalphadudebro
totallyalphadudebro
6 years ago

“Elam’s a major hit with women to this day.”
Is that some serious unintentional irony or a perverse wink-wink? Because “Elam,” “hit,” and “women” do belong in the same sentence (if his posts are anything to go by).

I really don’t follow Price’s argument other than it amounts to “women/ feminists are the root of all my problems.” But maybe it just my mangina addled brain.

katz
6 years ago

I’m so glad WTF Price showed up to tell us what feminism’s goals are. I’d been really confused before now.

Bill Price
Bill Price
6 years ago

Are you talking about just straight-up disappearing one day, then being hauled back to court 5 years later and asking for visitation rights? I was talking about a guy’s behavior during divorce proceedings when there is a custody battle, so already you’ve jumped to something different.

If I’m right about what you’re talking about, though, apparently courts can limit visitation if the non-custodial parent has been absent for a long period of time or otherwise failed to form a relationship with the child/ren. So if you just said “screw it” and popped off for 5 years, that’d be an excellent reason to not grant visitation.

No, I’m not talking about “being hauled back to court,” because an American court would never, ever haul a man to court for not taking care of his kids. I’m talking about making a request for a visitation schedule. Any man who is not a serious danger to his kids will get one. Even convicted felons in prison get visitation rights.

It all depends on the circumstance though. Perhaps if you came back sorry you left, and wanted to do the work to form a relationship, both the court and your spouse might be more ammenable to joint custody/visitation. If you are an asshole, that could only serve to turn the court against you.

That’s kind of funny. The court doesn’t recognize the category of “asshole.” If it did, most of the officers of the court would have it stamped on their record.

If you do this often enough, and your ex wants to address it in court, your truency could be fodder for reducing your visitation rights. It doesn’t exactly show that you are doing what you can for the child’s welfare, which is the most important thing in custody disputes.

Maybe, maybe not. In these matters it’s he said she said. Men get a lot of latitude for skipping out on the kids, because they’re expected to use their time to make money and pay it to their exes, and feminists 100% support this in lobbying for family law policy. If you deny that’s what feminism is all about, you haven’t spent much time in committee, I dare say.

So far you’ve been arguing that being an asshole was the best way to avoid responsibilities while still retaining access to your abandoned kids.

Eh, I know Dave accused me of a logical fallacy here, but I certainly didn’t make that one. I said that the current structure of American family law rewards men for (physically) abandoning their kids, and doesn’t punish them for it.

So far you’ve pretty much ignored how the law actually works.

Sigh…

I wish I could ignore how the law actually works. Sadly, I do not have that luxury.

As for feminists fixating soley on money and time, the hell? The only feminists that I’ve heard fixating on child support and the like is the straw feminists that MRAs concoct. Actual feminists (well, actual women) express frustration at the guys who vanish, avoid due child support that would help enormously in providing care for their children, then come back years later feeling entitled to the children they abandoned.

Often (maybe usually, but I don’t have the stats on this one), accusations of abandonment are retconning. In a lot of cases, women want their children’s father the hell out of their lives so they can move on. It isn’t so much a behavioral or “good father” issue as a biological imperative. Young women have needs just like young men. They want to find another man, or to build a new life with that option. The kids’ father just gets in the way of that, so they want him to go away. Very much so.

I would think that women with child custody would want, in rough order of desirability:

1. A father that stays around and helps raise the kids, like a normal couple.
2. A father that stays involved with the kids through the divorce, and is generally helpful.
3. A father that at least follows the court orders (which may or may not include child support payments) and at least avoids being an extra burden on top of single parenthood.
4. A father that stays gone and lets her raise the children in peace.

This is thinking from a rational middle-aged perspective. Most divorces occur among the relatively young — male early 30s female late 20s. Things get messy easily at that point in life. A lot of pople work it out later, but you can’t expect young divorcées to be such enlightened rational actors most of the time.

But that’s just for the particular case of mothers with custody. Feminists want what’s best for the children in any situation, which may mean the father gets custody (and wouldn’t get it if the court continues to be sexist in automatically granting the mother custody).

Don’t embarrass yourself here. Since when has an American feminist of any standing ever proposed a law to make child custody gender equal?

No no, the people who fixate on money and time costs at the expense of all else is the MRAs, the ones who are afraid of sperm-jacking and being roped into child support payments for ever and ever amen hail satan. Also, you, when you argue that being an asshole is best because you get visitation without needing to spend money or time raising the kids.

But you blame me, and I haven’t done that. I’m someone who didn’t take the low road, and I paid dearly for it.

And BTW, I have no use for MRAs, and I made that clear. I think they’re the mirror image of feminists, so where did I contradict myself?

isidore13
isidore13
6 years ago

Dude, where’s my citations pls?

mildlymagnificent
6 years ago

This is one of the very, very, VERY few areas I could ever see making common cause with MRAs over, in the extremely remote event that they ever pull their heads out of their butts for five minutes. For a lot of families, it really is hard to put together the same kind of income and quality of life on two totally equal, moderate-hour jobs.

I realise that the US can be a hellhole on these issues. I was thinking primarily of people whose jobs get in the way. Defence forces, FIFO and similarly time-disrupting mining industry type jobs, fishing and other jobs that take people away for weeks or months at a time. In this country cops, emergency and hospital shift workers actually have decent offsets with rostered days off and the like, so they’re quite capable of reasonable workarounds regardless of continuing marriage or after separation. I expect it varies a lot more across the various US states.

As for others who are expected to put in more than standard hours, that’s very much up to each employer, worker and their arrangements. Both my husband and I used to put in extra hours. I did it mainly by bringing work home a few times a week in busy times. Husband, being a manager type person, managed to score himself keys (and security clearance) to use the office at weekends when he needed to. I might add that husband used to cop a fair amount of flak for insisting on using flexible/ offset/ leave provisions to do his part with doctor/ school/ other childcare obligations. Other men might not find a way to do that, or might not be willing to put their career advancement at risk, whether it’s just for the time being or in any circumstances, ever. Others again may not have any way to do it at all unless they change jobs or industries.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
6 years ago

No, I’m not talking about “being hauled back to court,” because an American court would never, ever haul a man to court for not taking care of his kids.

Maybe, maybe not. In these matters it’s he said she said. Men get a lot of latitude for skipping out on the kids, because they’re expected to use their time to make money and pay it to their exes, and feminists 100% support this in lobbying for family law policy. If you deny that’s what feminism is all about, you haven’t spent much time in committee, I dare say.

What… What world do you live in? Because it isn’t mine. I can’t even argue with you. How often can I be expected to say “no, that’s wrong, that’s not how it works, what are you even talking about?”

This is thinking from a rational middle-aged perspective. Most divorces occur among the relatively young — male early 30s female late 20s. Things get messy easily at that point in life. A lot of pople work it out later, but you can’t expect young divorcées to be such enlightened rational actors most of the time.

I say this as a 25-year-old guy thinking mainly of young single mothers. The motivation is very straightforward… either be helpful or go away. What exactly makes this so out of reach of young parents?

Don’t embarrass yourself here. Since when has an American feminist of any standing ever proposed a law to make child custody gender equal?

Child custody is gender neuteral under the law. It just is. But courts are made of people who have to make judgement calls (which is why I’m so flummuxed at your denial that being an asshole could ever affect your court case… A judge is sitting there trying to accurately decide if you are fit for joint custody or visitation, how could your actions not affect the outcome?). Those people have historically been raised to believe that the woman’s role as mother is child care, so they have historically favored giving custody to the mother.

Feminists, in addressing and combatting those gender roles, act to make court outcomes more fair by getting rid of that bias.

But you blame me, and I haven’t done that. I’m someone who didn’t take the low road, and I paid dearly for it.

Ok… and how does this counter my statement that you argue that being an asshole is rewarded by the American legal system (correction noted) by fixating only on monetary and temporal concerns?

And BTW, I have no use for MRAs, and I made that clear. I think they’re the mirror image of feminists, so where did I contradict myself?

“And you” isn’t directly implying that you are an MRA. It in fact puts you in a different category. And the text you’re responding to isn’t accusing you of being contradictory. So… huh?

Catalpa
Catalpa
6 years ago

The thing that annoys me most about misogynists in general is that you cannot pin them down about how they view the role of women in their ideal society. They can’t even coherently state the role they think women *should* have in a way that is reasonably achievable. Sorry, that’s sort of random, but it does drive me fucking crazy.

Near as I can make out, from hearing them whine about women leaching off their husbands and eating bonbons all day, stealing jobs from men and then not even pulling their weight, or having the audacity to be single and collect wellfare/unemployment, MRAs want women to simply cease to exist except when they want someone to cook them dinner, do their laundry, and satisfy any and all sexual desires the MRA may have.

Bill Price
Bill Price
6 years ago

Price, remember that you’re actually speaking to real-life feminists now. If you have questions about what those strange, otherworldly beings think about a topic, you need only ask. Rolling in with “feminists believe XYZ” ain’t gonna fly.

-kirbywarp

What makes you think I don’t know how to speak to “real-life feminists?” I’m from Seattle, for Chrissake. Probably 75% of the girls I’ve known identify as feminists (although I typically choose to not believe them, because they are generally decent people). Hell, even my sister calls herself a feminist, but I still love the little tow-headed scamp. 🙂

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
6 years ago

No, I’m not talking about “being hauled back to court,” because an American court would never, ever haul a man to court for not taking care of his kids. I’m talking about making a request for a visitation schedule. Any man who is not a serious danger to his kids will get one. Even convicted felons in prison get visitation rights.

Visitation schedules are schedules decided by the involved parties and mediated by the court. So yeah, there’s quite a bit of leeway. The court may not guarantee some form of visitation in all cases, though. It doesn’t have to be serious danger either; it could be neglect, being absent for long periods of time, and so on, as I said before.

Being an asshole will make your spouse less amenable to your visitation schedule, and it’ll make the court less likely to judge you fit for a form of visitation, especially in the case of your absence. Visitation is not a “right.”

Feh, not sure why I’m bothering. We’re barely speaking the same language here. For instance, I honestly don’t know what you mean by “not taking care of his kids,” nor what divorce situation you’re using as your model. You’ve given me no reason to believe you have any idea how divorce works in the real world, or any indication that you’re interested in anything beyond your own strongly-held beliefs.

Go have fun doing… whatever it is you do. I’m done.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Bill,
So, what you’re essentially saying is that if you don’t like a woman, she’s a feminist. If she does something you perceive to be wrong, it’s a feminist act. But if you like a woman and think she’s a good person, she’s not a feminist. Even if she explicitly identifies as one.

That’s a really silly way to look at things. Apparently, you don’t know what feminism is, you just know that you don’t like it and it’s responsible for lots of very bad things. You don’t need any evidence. You just need truthiness!

But seriously, it’s not up to you whether or not a woman is claiming the title of feminist. Stop acting like it is.

Bill Price
Bill Price
6 years ago

What… What world do you live in? Because it isn’t mine. I can’t even argue with you. How often can I be expected to say “no, that’s wrong, that’s not how it works, what are you even talking about?”

Kirby, you should be glad it isn’t your world. I hope it never is. But at the risk of being caustic, I have to tell you that your experience is lacking. You don’t know how it works.

I always tell people who don’t know about these things to spend some time in family court. I don’t know if you have the time to do so, but if you really want to know how things work go ahead and do it. Court is open to the public. I’d recommend a few sessions to get a feel for it. Go from morning until lunch, or lunch until afternoon, for three sessions. You won’t come out of it knowing everything, but you’ll get an idea. Oh, don’t forget to check the ex parte and DV diversion programs. It’s a good way to get your feet wet.

BTW, please for the sake of your everlasting soul don’t ever become a family law attorney. You seem like a righteous young man, and that job will just suck it all out of you.

I say this as a 25-year-old guy thinking mainly of young single mothers. The motivation is very straightforward… either be helpful or go away. What exactly makes this so out of reach of young parents?

Emotions are as rational as our conscious minds, but they work in different ways, so perhaps I framed my comment poorly. The reason these seemingly rational prescriptions you set forth don’t work is that they are simplistic, and they don’t take all the variables of human aspiration and desire into account.

Child custody is gender neuteral under the law. It just is. But courts are made of people who have to make judgement calls (which is why I’m so flummuxed at your denial that being an asshole could ever affect your court case… A judge is sitting there trying to accurately decide if you are fit for joint custody or visitation, how could your actions not affect the outcome?). Those people have historically been raised to believe that the woman’s role as mother is child care, so they have historically favored giving custody to the mother.

OK, first, you’re bright enough to know that equality by the letter of the law does not mean equal opportunity or outcome. It can’t, because that’s impossible (I’ve been harping on this lately). Next, you fail to qualify asshole. An asshole by normal people’s standards who works as a lawyer, makes a couple hundred grand a year and wages war against his ex to keep his child support snd parental obligations to a minimum is admired by his colleagues for his success and tenacity. On the other hand, some poor, sentimental sap with a shitty job who cries because he misses his kids and can’t keep up with his child support is seen as a contemptible loser, and will be punished severely for his weakness. So who’s the asshole according to the court?

It isn’t because people were raised this way or that way — it’s the entire culture of their occupation and system which has been created to rip off people who are “dumb” enough to believe in the quaint notions of right and wrong.

Feminists, in addressing and combatting those gender roles, act to make court outcomes more fair by getting rid of that bias.

Hoo boy…

This is fairy tale feminism. Where the rubber hits the road, it’s a different story. Like I said, spend some time in family court. See for yourself.

Ok… and how does this counter my statement that you argue that being an asshole is rewarded by the American legal system (correction noted) by fixating only on monetary and temporal concerns?

It doesn’t. But you suggest that my condemnation of these tactics is equivalent to feminists’ and MRAs’ use of them, and that’s wrong.

GrumpyOldMan
6 years ago

“Probably 75% of the girls I’ve known identify as feminists (although I typically choose to not believe them, because they are generally decent people). Hell, even my sister calls herself a feminist, but I still love the little tow-headed scamp”

So a woman can’t be a feminist unless she’s some sort of evil hellhound you’ve cooked up in your bitter brain. Poor wittle Bill and his wounded fee-fees. What does that make Kirby and me — he’s a young feminist, I’m an old feminist, so we can’t really qualify as harpies.

Or maybe it’s time for you to grow the fuck up and get rid of your ludicrous ideas about feminists.

Yes the court system sucks — and I say that as both a son-of-a-lawyer and as a guy who went to prison as a Vietnam-era draft resister. Get lawyers involved inm a custody case and you will wish to hell you hadn’t. That’s why however much it hurts you need to sit down with your ex and act like two adults if you can and work something out on your own so the court won’t have to. I managed it myself in spite of the fact that my ex was mentally ill and my former in-laws believed I had deliberated driven her to insanity. You played a significant role in creating those kid(s) and now your job is to stop whining and do your best for them

M.
M.
6 years ago

I genuinely wonder what makes certain MRAs more popular in their little bubble of babble than the average troll. They sure as hell don’t say anything new or different, just the same broken record of eyeroll-worthy talking points as any other. If they didn’t have different names, I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference… And sometimes I still can’t.

ParadoxicalIntention
6 years ago

suffrajitsu

And doesn’t Christian Grey have a fully fleshed out tragic backstory, replete with Freudian excuses explaining his behavior? Cuz that’s literally the opposite of objectifying someone.

His “backstory” boils down to: “I was a child who had a ‘crackwhore’ (his words) for a mother, and then I was adopted by this nice rich white family when I was four, and then I got into BDSM when I was a teenager because a domme coerced me into having a relationship with her when I was too young to comprehend what was going on. So, now I like beating women who look like my mother the crackwhore (who Ana supposedly looks like) and I’m ’50 shades of fucked up’ (again, his words).”

None of which makes any damn sense to me, nor does it excuse any of his shit behavior.

(Also I had to stop reading a sporking at chapter sixteen because Grey literally breaks into Ana and Kate’s apartment to rape Ana into submission. I was shaking and crying through the whole thing and I had to stop due to flashbacks.)

wordsp1nner

All this “I’m perfectly willing to screw up my bond with my children in order not to pay a single cent more than absolutely necessary” is not really selling you as a good father.

No kidding. “I don’t want to pay so much child support, so I’m going to deny my own children so their mother, the harpy, reduces the payments out of stress and need for cash to raise the children I won’t lift a finger to help! Ha! That’ll teach her what a loving father to our kids I am!”

ceebarks

Most women who drop out of the workforce to SAH aren’t doing it because it’s their dream to stay home with kids for years on end while careers dry up and (some) husbands learn to take them quite for granted.

Yeah, a lot of women do do the Stay-At-Home-Mom thing because it’s a necessity when the kids are younger, though it makes it harder for them to get back into the workforce when the kids are old enough to attend school during the day and she might want to go back to work. It’s definitely not without problems. (Especially when men like Paulie will tell her what a leech she is because she’s not earning her own wages, then turn around and get upset that she’s working all the time to earn wages and not staying at home with the kids and rubbing her husband’s feet when he gets home from work.)

However, if a mother or wife chooses to be a Stay-At-Home-Lady, that’s her choice, and that’s fine. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its own battery of problems as well.

Glorious thing, choices are.

isidore13

The thing that annoys me most about misogynists in general is that you cannot pin them down about how they view the role of women in their ideal society. They can’t even coherently state the role they think women *should* have in a way that is reasonably achievable. Sorry, that’s sort of random, but it does drive me fucking crazy.

Yeah, it’s like one day they’re saying that it’s not fair that women don’t work and stay at home and take care of kids, and then the next, they’re mad that women aren’t staying home and taking care of the kids.

We’re really damned if we do, and damned if we don’t when it comes to MRAs.

@Bill: I’m going to echo WWTH on something: You don’t get to decide who is and isn’t a feminist based on whether you like them or not. That is seriously the most reality-starved idea I’ve ever heard, and quite frankly, sounds gross coming from a man. I really don’t like it when men come in and step on women’s toes like that with their mansplaining bullshit. You don’t get to decide my labels, or anyone else’s for that matter. You only get to decide yours, and I only get to decide mine. Get off my tootsies.

It’s like you can’t fathom the idea of a feminist being a good person. The idea that someone believes in equal rights for all genders is NOT separate from being a decent human being, whether you like feminism or not.

Case in point: I think you’re being an asshole. That doesn’t make you a MRA simply because I don’t like them and think they’re assholes.

The only reason I would think you’re an MRA is because you’re regurgitating a lot of their talking points.

GrumpyOldMan
6 years ago

Bill, the basic problem you have is one of definition. It’s as if when you were young someone showed you a picture of a unicorn and told you it was a horse. So then whenever you see a horse, you say it can’t be a horse because it doesn’t have a horn in the middle of its forehead.
You say that the feminists you meet can’t be feminists because somehow you think feminists are evil harpies but then the actual feminists you meet aren’t evil harpies. But your definition of feminist can’t be wrong, oh no, it’s that all these women are wrong about being feminists. A little out of touch with reality is my diagnosis.

ceebarks
ceebarks
6 years ago

As I understand, most divorce cases never make it to court, so when you go to family court… you are seeing a pretty dysfunctional slice of the population to start with. Not surprising it’s depressing.

I’m not going to lie, you guys; I don’t really understand what Price wants here. Granted, it’s late and I’m slap happy. ELI5

Make child support a voluntary thing?
Stop dads Price thinks are bad from having visitation?
Make women stop referring to themselves as feminists unless they fit his 15 point checklist? Change the focus of judges from “welfare of the child” to “don’t stress Dad out, or he might freak out/bail?”

I’m thinking none of those things are going to work out.

Ah well.

josh
josh
6 years ago

“fairy tale feminism?” so, what’s your definition of “real, gritty feminism?” bill price? please, keep it a sentence short, because verbosity does not equal nuance, and i’m a dum-dum.

and how exactly will family court teach young, inexperienced, ignorant men like myself about feminism? are there court-appointed feminists that whisper nefarious secrets into the judge’s ear? because during my cousin’s custody hearing, i didn’t see one. he ended up living with my uncle, by the way, not with my aunt. not that this proves or disproves anything, but as someone whose family member went through that ordeal, i just don’t see the link between feminism and the courts’ supposed bias towards fathers in general, and the way you’ve been spinning it doesn’t coincide with what my family experienced.

granted, this is just one of many cases (which happened in canada. i’m not sure about american family law, if you do live in america), and you could say we’re very fortunate. still, that does’t really prove that feminism, in some way, is responsible for some of the injustices that fathers everywhere supposedly suffer. because if it is, then, by your arguments, my uncle was just a bit more feminist than his wife, and as a cable splicer who immigrated from the philippines, i’m not sure he had the time or the money to spend on gender studies before he came here to the great white north. he’s not a lawyer, he ain’t a rich guy. he’s the poor, worthless strawman sap you’ve been blathering about in the past few comment.

is he a mangina, by default, because the system sided with him?

mcgingersnap
mcgingersnap
6 years ago

Yeah, that “They can’t really be feminists because they’re decent people” line was very telling, and GrumpyOldMan hit the nail on the head.

Bill, either your understanding of feminism is flawed, or all your feminist-identified friends are wrong about what they believe. Are you really arrogant enough to believe the latter?

Kakanian
Kakanian
6 years ago

Often (maybe usually, but I don’t have the stats on this one), accusations of abandonment are retconning. In a lot of cases, women want their children’s father the hell out of their lives so they can move on. It isn’t so much a behavioral or “good father” issue as a biological imperative. Young women have needs just like young men. They want to find another man, or to build a new life with that option. The kids’ father just gets in the way of that, so they want him to go away. Very much so.

Now if there really was a mechanism that’d keep women from having sex as long as their child’s father is around, no family would ever have more than one kid. But I guess that’s playing out cold logic vs Biotruth.

suffrajitsu
suffrajitsu
6 years ago

@ParadoxicalIntention: I’m certainly not saying the backstory is a legit justification of his behavior, or even well fleshed out. I was responding to that Telegraph piece claiming Christian Grey was an example of how men were more objectified than women and pointing out that the fact that the author gave him a backstory and went out of her way to explain his behavior makes FSoG a weak example of male objectification, since he’s clearly meant to be a fully human character.

Hypothesis: “Feminists are horrible people.”
Data: “Most women I know in real life say they’re feminists. They are decent people.”
Conclusion: “The actual women I know who say they’re feminists must be lying.”

Masterful logic is assuming 75% of women I know must all be lying (for…reasons?) because it wouldn’t fit into my narrow worldview. Cuz when in doubt, throw out all data that doesn’t confirm your hypothesis.

Spindrift
Spindrift
6 years ago

Sounds like another case of “the only real feminists are the straw feminist illuminati in my head who secretly run the courts and the government and the tides and the phases of the moon. You’re not a real feminist cause you don’t match up to the ones I made up in my head.”

NicolaLuna
NicolaLuna
6 years ago

Thanks for the welcome package katz!

And as for the nonsense this Price guy is blabbering… I’m currently going through the courts as my ex wants full custody. I want shared custody. I can promise you now that the judges don’t give a crap about my feelings or what is fair to me. They don’t give a crap about my ex’s feelings or what is fair to him. They are only concerned with my son’s feelings and his best interests because, and I can’t stress this enough, A CHILD IS NOT PROPERTY!

Holy shitfuck, stop talking about kids like they are property that people own, Price.

And yes, family courts tend to maintain the status quo. If a father is the primary carer he is way more likely to do better in court than the mother. But in so many families the mother is the primary carer, hence the most frequent outcome.

proxieme
proxieme
6 years ago

Now of course MRA types will say that, notwithstanding that, they get a worse deal under the law because of its applicability in the real world.

http://imgur.com/cafSrU0

But with feminism, if by feminism you mean “equal pay for equal work” and “equality under the law”.

ParadoxicalIntention
6 years ago

@ParadoxicalIntention: I’m certainly not saying the backstory is a legit justification of his behavior, or even well fleshed out. I was responding to that Telegraph piece claiming Christian Grey was an example of how men were more objectified than women and pointing out that the fact that the author gave him a backstory and went out of her way to explain his behavior makes FSoG a weak example of male objectification, since he’s clearly meant to be a fully human character.

I didn’t mean to imply you were, sorry. : (

I was just stating his backstory for those that didn’t know, and insisting to cover my own ass that his overall very nice childhood with a few episodes of abuse didn’t excuse his actions.

proxieme
proxieme
6 years ago

If you do this often enough, and your ex wants to address it in court, your truency could be fodder for reducing your visitation rights. It doesn’t exactly show that you are doing what you can for the child’s welfare, which is the most important thing in custody disputes.

Hell, my brother-in-law’s ex kept doing this (except that they alternates every other weekend and shared weekdays – same town, same school system) – he’d have their daughter for great swaths of time and every weekend (or all weekend but one day).
He brought it to court said that the unpredictability was disrupting their daughter’s life (it was), and won primary custody (the ex-wife now has every other weekend…which she apparently frequently skips).

I will not argue with a straight face that you won’t run into biased judges, because you will (either and every way); but most of the time I’ve seen it play out the court bends over backwards to keep a competent and non-abusive parent in the picture.

proxieme
proxieme
6 years ago

Bill, the basic problem you have is one of definition. It’s as if when you were young someone showed you a picture of a unicorn and told you it was a horse. So then whenever you see a horse, you say it can’t be a horse because it doesn’t have a horn in the middle of its forehead.
You say that the feminists you meet can’t be feminists because somehow you think feminists are evil harpies but then the actual feminists you meet aren’t evil harpies. But your definition of feminist can’t be wrong, oh no, it’s that all these women are wrong about being feminists. A little out of touch with reality is my diagnosis.

QFT.

I know you sometimes get batted around on here, GOM (and sometimes…well, you do mansplain your way into it), but Iiiiiiii like ya.

Mike, dude – You said that you’re going to walk away from conversations like this.
Do.
You seem like a decent enough (if, in my opinion, horrifically ill-informed with bass-ackward thinking) guy.
Archive the Spearhead, close the computer (or device, whatever), spend time with your new baby.

I’ll offer one final anecdote to (maybe?) fuel some congnitive dissonance:

I consider myself a feminist.

My ex decided during a deployment that marriage was no longer “where his head was at” (I later discovered that his was because it was firmly turned towards a female contractor).
Many military spouses that I knew recommended that I take a scorched earth approach – clean out our accounts (which I had painstakingly built up), charge everything to cards in his name and then not pay them, etc.
The people who recommended this were decidedly and vocally not feminists.

I, being a person who both understands how joint credit works and who is (I like to think) not a vindictive weirdo, secured a place to live back at our historic home area (where our sets of parents lived and where there were plenty of jobs to be had), networked my way into a job through some old friends, divided our physical assets* – he got most of the furniture, fwiw, because I knew that I’d be moving into a single wide “modular home”, put /his/ stuff into climate-controlled storage (by myself while singing to and otherwise entertaining a with a toddler and infant – it’s amazing how quickly hard and fast military friends can slough away when your husband leaves…it’s like your a leper with a particularly virulent strain), cleared contracted military housing WITH NO CHARGES (in caps for those of you who know), and moved all during the second part of his deployment.

*He announced his intent to end the marriage over the phone while deployed, made it clear that it was going to “stick” during his leave, and then went back.

We went through mediation because DAYUM divorce court. I’d calculated what I’d need to support our children and asked for that. Even our JOINT MEDIATOR said that I needed more, but I just wanted it to be done.
I made it work.
He’s gotten promotions, moved (both to change duty station and in with/away from various women), I’ve gotten remarried, had another child, began staying home (again) because childcare costs with three children’ll take a bite out of even a decent paycheque.
We’ve adjusted fire on child support ourselves, without the courts – always down, always because he said that he needed it and because we could absorb it.
He recently found out that he’s getting discharged from the military and asked to halve support (compared to the amount on paper) to help him adjust while he finds a new job.
We could do it (*laughs nervously while eyeing budget spreadsheet*)…ish…so we did (and so he doesn’t get screwed by the courts later if something *does* come up, he’s always paid the full amount and we’ve then “refunded” him the difference).

While we technically have joint custody, he lives several states over and only sees the children several times a year.
Whenever he asks for visitation, he gets it. My family gets pretty upset over this – they’re with him (while he’s in the area visiting) for both Thanksgiving and Christmas – but I figure that we can make our own holidays at any other time. They’re just dates, as they’re important to him and his parents (who our children see several times a month, by the way).

I’m a feminist, and I don’t breathe fire and I’m not trying to “twist” the court to punish my ex or suit my own ends.

I’m a feminist, and I recognize that, while he’s engaged in some pretty hurtful actions, my ex is a person, not an archetype or a target; and he deserves every reasonable chance to have a relationship with our children – as they deserve every reasonable chance to have a relationship with their father.

I’m a feminist, not a boogeyman.

Er, boogywoman.

ALTHOUGH I AM THE QUEEN OF TEAL DEERS ????

Misha
Misha
6 years ago

But at the risk of being caustic, I have to tell you that your experience is lacking. You don’t know how it works.

I always tell people who don’t know about these things to spend some time in family court. I don’t know if you have the time to do so, but if you really want to know how things work go ahead and do it.

If you’re addressing this to the thread, don’t be so patronizing sweetie. If you’re addressing this to kirbywarp, that still stands. Many of us here do have personal or professional vocations that require court visitation. I myself am due in court tomorrow.

On the other hand, some poor, sentimental sap with a shitty job who cries because he misses his kids and can’t keep up with his child support is seen as a contemptible loser, and will be punished severely for his weakness.

You spin a good story, Price. To anyone who does not care to take this scenario one step further and consider the subsequent devastating impact the lack of child support payment would have upon the mother (assuming she is the custodial parent in the Poor Menz picture you try to paint) and child/children. While he wallows in his bad feels, she is the one who must struggle to compensate for the financial obligations he will not or cannot meet (and very, very few single parents can hold down full-time employment that pays a living wage whilst meeting the vast responsibilities of child care, especially if the child/children are young and there is more than one). It is always, ultimately, the children who suffer. I assume you’re referring to sanctions for non-payment of CSA when you say “punished” for failing to meet child support costs. These are put in place to prevent negative financial impact on the CHILD. Reasons, they exist. Lord.

The welfare of the child is of tantamount importance, and is not something that seems to be reflected at all in your understanding of family courts. It’s clear that when parents seperate the best model for the good of the child is one in which the primary caregiver (often the mother) who has been meeting the larger share of the child’s emotional and developmental needs stays with the child, and one in which the non resident parent is obligated to support the child’s financial needs by paying regular maintenance, usually because they are in a much better position to do so. Again, this is stressful on both the primary care provider (in many cases the mother who must sacrifice her career and future earning ability) and the non resident parent (in many cases the father who must part with financial resources), but it is the model that currently best prioritizes the needs of the child *

Yet instead of tackling one of the root problems of “equality by the letter of the law does not mean equal opportunity or outcome” in this specific discussion (bias of family courts and the divvying up of parental responsibilities) by addressing the culture which normalizes a deeply gendered nature of parental roles (the mother as emotional caretaker, the father as traditional breadwinner), you propose .. what?

You could focus on increasing the opportunities for men to eventually be in a position to claim primary care provider in family courts by, for a start, increasing paid paternity leave so they can spend more time with their children, particularly during the key developmental years (in the UK the maximum employers are required to pay is two weeks, a particular bug bear of mine), or push for parenting educational classes in the current curriculum which promotes the idea of men, not just women, as primary child care providers. To start.

But no. You blame feminists. You actually, genuinely blame feminists.

(FYI the ones who are advocating for the above).

*Sorry for the generic ‘splainathon y’all. The consistent selfish focus on teh feels of teh menz when it comes to child maintenance, completely ignoring the potentially devastating impact on the child’s welfare if this was not put in place, makes me exhausted.

proxieme
proxieme
6 years ago

http://imgur.com/gSJngS0

And, per usual, please excuse typis and confusing autocorrects.

I look at this site on my phone because I’m like, “I’m just browsing! I won’t write any long replies!” and then I do.

And now it’s time to wake up some stinky kids and feed them oatmeal!

proxieme
proxieme
6 years ago

*s eyes at self*

Bill.

That was to Bill, not Mike.

It’s a pain to look at other posts on my phone and “Mike” stuck in my head for some reason.

isidore13
isidore13
6 years ago

Bill, you still have yet to back up any of your assertions with any kind of evidence. Your thinking these things doesn’t make them so. Where is your data that fathers who bother to fight for custody don’t get it? What sctions did feminists take to make the family court system allow fathers to be physically but not financially neglectful (as you see it)? When did feminists demand money as punishment for decency (specific instances)?

Nequam
Nequam
6 years ago

It’s still here, huh?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
6 years ago

If you’re addressing this to the thread, don’t be so patronizing sweetie. If you’re addressing this to kirbywarp, that still stands. Many of us here do have personal or professional vocations that require court visitation. I myself am due in court tomorrow.

I don’t have personal experience in court, but i have done some research and satatistics look-ups. I’ve also had my parents recently go through divorce. Luckily us children are old enough to have custody not be a thing. Unluckily, it was a situation where my dad was such an asshole, both during the marriage and during the divorce, that my mom wanted to settle as quickly as possible just so it’d be over, even though her lawyer said she settled for far too little.

It still dragged on forever. My dad was the wage earner and he had the money to afford a nice lawyer. He had the personality to make practically every step of the divorce a living hell for my mom, even without meaning to be malicious, from making every conversation about moving stuff around to the split properties tortuous to threatening all sorts of drastic legal actions.

They’d been married for 20-30 years and my mom had been retired for a while now (at my dad’s urging, which is a whole other story), so they basically split their assets down the middle (although I believe the minority went to my mom). My dad is still angry that she walked away with so much of his money (which is not how a marriage works). My mom is afraid she won’t be able to live unless she gets some sort of income soon, and she’s afraid she can’t get a job due to medical issues and a long period of inexperience.

As you can see, the idea that you should be as much of an asshole as possible hits kind of close to home for me. Too much and the court will notice, but if you can put on a nice mask in public being an asshole makes the divorce even more of a living hell than it needs to be.

No, I don’t have experiences with the worst of how divorce court works. I’m sure there are cases where men can screwed over, just as I’m sure there are cases where women get screwed over (I’ve lived one of those). I can’t say every individual case works out to the ideal, but what I can say is that statistics and lawyer-driven advice sites that fail to mention gender dynamics show that Price’s (and MRA’s) conception of a super skewed divorce court is faulty. They need to start getting stories of divorces from outside their self-selected bubble, or at least do a little objective research.

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

I guess it’s technically true. If you just abandon your kids after the divorce, you don’t have to work out custody arrangements. If you burn down your house, that’s the last time you’ll have to mow your lawn. And one way to deal with the hassle of sending Mother’s Day cards is to kill your parents.

Just like feminists wanted it all along! /s

Lea
Lea
6 years ago

Bill is going to write a book titled: “Being Cruel to Your Children for Fun and Profit and How You Can Blame It on Feminism”.

I’m sure it will be a hit with selfish, neglectful asshats everywhere.

Lea
Lea
6 years ago

Bill has met actual feminists you guys! Shut up and let him tell you what you think because he is an authority on icky ladies and their ball busting ways.
/s

75% of the girls

…girls…

*sigh*
OMG, Bill. What is happening in your brain? You are ridiculous.

We’re just children who should be left to raise “men’s” children on our own if raising them should be too much of a hassle for those men.

Raising kids is so easy that even girls can do it, but it is even easier to dump them like a sack of garbage.

If those children grow to resent their absent fathers, clearly we girls brainwashed them.

Really?

lith
lith
6 years ago

@Bill:

Men get a lot of latitude for skipping out on the kids, because they’re expected to use their time to make money and pay it to their exes, and feminists 100% support this in lobbying for family law policy. If you deny that’s what feminism is all about, you haven’t spent much time in committee, I dare say.

This would be the classic ‘telling people what they believe’ tactic.
I don’t think there’s anyone on here that feels like that, I’ve never seen views even close to that expressed – in fact I’ve seen the exact opposite expressed on many occasions.
How does that affect your 100%?

I was going to explain to you what feminism actually is but you’re already making it clear you couldn’t care less so I’ll save my breath.

Tina
Tina
6 years ago

Bill, exactly what kinds of “needs” or “biological imperative” (is that what you said?!) do you think women have in spades that they just want the father out of the picture so they can “find another man”? Do you have any idea what the hell you are talking about?

Picture this: I got told to my face by my boyfriend when I told him I was pregnant “I don’t want it. We have to get rid of it”. Pretty straightforward, don’t cha think? WHY would I have wanted this jerk in my life after this? What kind of care and nurturing do you think he would have possibly provided to me during the pregnancy after this? OF COURSE I LET HIM GO. WHY WOULD I HAVE WANTED HIM TO STICK AROUND. HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WANTING ANOTHER MAN. Would you want an asshole like that in the picture?

So, citation needed about the BS you spewed. Biological needs, my ass. He offered and provided nothing. Good riddance. The best damn decision I ever made. He “went his own way”, got a better paying job and picked up where he never left off with his ex-girlfriend. And as for wanting another man? Ha! You know, we single moms do support and talk to each other. Best damned advice I was ever given: forget about men, focus on the little family you created. And that’s precisely what I fucking did.

So up yours, drop dead, forget you, screw you and go pet a cactus.

To the others here, sorry if this is off topic. I just couldn’t believe what I read from this conceited person who thinks he knows what single moms want and our reasons for wanting the partner out of the picture.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Tina,
For one thing, you’re completely on topic. For another thing, if you weren’t on topic, we wouldn’t mind.
We’ve been nicer to Price than he deserves so rant if you want!

lith
lith
6 years ago

@Misha:

Yet instead of tackling one of the root problems of “equality by the letter of the law does not mean equal opportunity or outcome” in this specific discussion (bias of family courts and the divvying up of parental responsibilities) by addressing the culture which normalizes a deeply gendered nature of parental roles (the mother as emotional caretaker, the father as traditional breadwinner), you propose .. what?

And that’s where it all falls down – they never suggest anything constructive, him or any of the other mrightsers. It’s always with the patronising, the complaining, the whining about how unfair it all is and then… absolutely nothing about how we might fix things. Unless you count returning to some mythical golden era of women as slaves/sex-toys/punch-bags, they’re all over that.

@Bill:

You know what, if you had a genuine complaint and could point out where the system is unfair and what we might do about it most people here would probably support you, as it would bring us closer to equality and is good for everyone.
But that’s not what you’re doing, you’re just complaining about how good the womenz have it and woe is you and all men everywhere. Apparently you can’t see how good you’ve got it because it’s so easy to think something just isn’t a problem if it’s not your problem.
As Misha says, women want to be in a position where they could maybe be the main breadwinner and not necessarily the main child raiser. Men also want to be in a position where they could maybe be the main child raiser. But until those are fixed, custody will most likely go to the mother.
So if you want the court system to award custody to fathers as often as they do to mothers, help us to help you.

lith
lith
6 years ago

@Tina:

What WWTH says, you’re totally entitled to that rant.

DL
DL
6 years ago

Three unsuccessful marriages. Because when women are attracted to you they obviously want to divorce your ass and have nothing to do with you. Quantity over Quality at the mra kingdom.

Not sure if this works since I’ve never embedded videos before but it’s the only thing that’s cheering me up right now
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eAjzA_XUds&w=560&h=315%5D

GrumpyOldMan
6 years ago

Thanks, Tina. The Myth of the Horny Single Mother is a hot one in the manosphere, but I decided I was not the right person to debunk it. In fact, I believe that for most single moms — while they might prefer being coupled — the last thing they need is another very large child to compete for their physical and emotional energy.

I also noticed that his feminists were “girls” — he does patronize quite a bit — but I figured someone else would pick up that one. I was mostly amused/dismayed by the Dudelogik(TM) that most self-identified feminists can’t be feminists because they aren’t screaming harpies. It’s like a right-wingernut saying that most self-identified liberals he meets aren’t really liberals because they aren’t America-hating communists. When almost every X you meet is an exception to your X-definition, then just maybe your X-definition is wrong.

suffrajitsu
suffrajitsu
6 years ago

ParadoxicalIntention: No worries. My bad if my reply came across as defensive or snappy, it wasn’t supposed to.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
6 years ago

An asshole by normal people’s standards who works as a lawyer, makes a couple hundred grand a year and wages war against his ex to keep his child support snd parental obligations to a minimum is admired by his colleagues for his success and tenacity. On the other hand, some poor, sentimental sap with a shitty job who cries because he misses his kids and can’t keep up with his child support is seen as a contemptible loser, and will be punished severely for his weakness. So who’s the asshole according to the court?

That’s a class issue, not a gender issue. The lawyer has the resources, funds, and knowledge to work the system to his advantage. The working stiff isn’t being punished for being a sap who follows the rules; he just doesn’t have the means to get around them.

Yes, that sucks and it isn’t fair, but it isn’t part of some nefarious plot by feminists to reward assholery and leave single moms stuck with the burden of raising kids all on their own. Why would feminists even do that? That would be self-defeating.

GrumpyOldMan
6 years ago

Over thirty years ago, when I realized that my wife’s parents weren’t going to let her come back to live with me and I was going to have to move on, I went to a seminar for recently separated and divorced people sponsored by the local hospital. I was the only man in the group — there were three women.
In each of their cases:their husbands had left them for another woman.
In each case their husbands had left a previous woman to be with them (i.e., he terminated an existing relationship rather than having been free at the time). That seemed like a pattern to me — that is, rather than thinking that they’d lost a man who was truly committed to relationships, they might observe that serial monogamy seemed to be his style.
But what interested me most was that their biggest regret was not that they had lost their partner, but that somehow by failing to hold him they had deprived their children of the presence of their father. It started me looking around — I already regarded myself as a feminist, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy for a man to see life from a woman’s point of view — and I began to look around and notice that in a very large number of cases men tend to think of themselves first while women tend to think of their children first. Naturally there are plenty of exceptions, but as a general thing …

I would cut Bill a bit of slack — break-ups hurt, and it’s natural to feel a bit bitter afterward — except that he is far too concerned with his own situation rather than his kid(s). (Several others here have pointed that out here.) He seems to have little capacity to see things from his ex’s point of view, but then if he had had that capacity he might well still be married to her. He can blame feminism, but in fact it was surely his own behavior that caused the split — his whole spiel reeks of male privileged thought — at most feminism made it possible for her to dispense with him.

Bill Price
Bill Price
6 years ago

I will not argue with a straight face that you won’t run into biased judges, because you will (either and every way); but most of the time I’ve seen it play out the court bends over backwards to keep a competent and non-abusive parent in the picture.

-Proxieme

Yes, and that’s partly what I was getting at. If you’re a guy who doesn’t abuse his kids and/or have a severe mental problem, you’re going to get some visitation whether or not you split from the picture for a few years. This will probably be on the order of every other weekend, one weekday per week and half of vacation time, if you put a little effort into it. That works out to just under 35%, which is, incidentally, the point above which one can ask for a reduction in child support due to custodial time. See how things work here? The #1 priority is designating an obligor and an obligee. Not the kids’ best interests. Guys get what they want up to that magical point at which the custodial status becomes an issue, because that threatens the court and state’s bread and butter.

Truancy doesn’t apply to noncustodial parents, because they have the right to choose whether or not they want to exercise visitation. Sure, the court would look askance at someone who repeatedly failed to show up for a pickup, but if you inform the NCP in advance there’s no truancy. Not taking care of your kids is a right. It’s really the only right noncustodial parents have, because the court can technically deny visitation (although this is rare).

@lith

I do suggest a solution. Implement the Nordic model and take the profit motive out of divorce proceedings. Make an assumption of shared parenting responsibility, which is most fair after all, and don’t give people a financial incentive to challenge it. People often say men don’t do their share, but when the kid’s with them they have to, and the large majority of them can handle it. And also, wouldn’t this give women more opportunity to advance in their career? I mean, having dad take care of the kid half the time takes a big load off her shoulders, right?

In fact, I’m taking care of a baby all alone right now. He’s a little fussy because he’s teething and weaning, but he’ll be perfectly safe until mama comes home from her doctor’s appointment. And when she starts working, we’ll be trading off on childcare. Grownups can handle it, male or female. Actually, if you consider how many women died in childbirth in the old days, the human race would have been in a pretty precarious position if fathers were incapable of taking care of kids.

Maggi
Maggi
6 years ago

I love this website, and seriously, keep on doing a great job and making me laugh (and cry from the incredible lack of… composure of some people, to say it nicely) please =D

Bill Price
Bill Price
6 years ago

“fairy tale feminism?” so, what’s your definition of “real, gritty feminism?” bill price? please, keep it a sentence short, because verbosity does not equal nuance, and i’m a dum-dum.

Hmmm… How to keep it short? Real, gritty feminism is power feminism. The feminist on the bench or in the prosecutor’s office, who can wreck your life with a signature.

and how exactly will family court teach young, inexperienced, ignorant men like myself about feminism?

It will teach you about how an entire profession profits from human weakness and misery, and uses a convenient ideology to justify doing so.

are there court-appointed feminists that whisper nefarious secrets into the judge’s ear?

Yes. In chambers. Where I live they are called Court Appointed Special Advocates.

because during my cousin’s custody hearing, i didn’t see one. he ended up living with my uncle, by the way, not with my aunt. not that this proves or disproves anything, but as someone whose family member went through that ordeal, i just don’t see the link between feminism and the courts’ supposed bias towards fathers in general, and the way you’ve been spinning it doesn’t coincide with what my family experienced.</blockquote.

I was in King County, which is one of the more ideologically-influenced courts in the US. There's a lot of regional variation. Sometimes conservative courts can be worse in some ways (summary jailings of poor fathers, for example). Where you live makes a difference.

granted, this is just one of many cases (which happened in canada. i’m not sure about american family law, if you do live in america), and you could say we’re very fortunate. still, that does’t really prove that feminism, in some way, is responsible for some of the injustices that fathers everywhere supposedly suffer. because if it is, then, by your arguments, my uncle was just a bit more feminist than his wife, and as a cable splicer who immigrated from the philippines, i’m not sure he had the time or the money to spend on gender studies before he came here to the great white north. he’s not a lawyer, he ain’t a rich guy. he’s the poor, worthless strawman sap you’ve been blathering about in the past few comment.

is he a mangina, by default, because the system sided with him?

I have no idea about your uncle. If he’s like most Philippinos I know he’s a nice, Catholic family man. Anecdotally, I did know one Philippino guy who was going through a divorce not too long ago. He was my mailman, and I’d chat with him. He saw all the letters from court and lawyers so he asked me what it was like. I told him it was terrible stuff, expensive and mostly a waste of time and life. So somehow he and his wife worked things out between themselves and agreed to share parenting. Maybe my example helped convince them it was a better idea.