Is there sexism towards men in america?

[Jocabia]

I gotta say I'm a bit bored with this.

You're fighting against a bias that is proven to be the opposite of what actually occurs.
Complaining about what NOW would oppose if what they are actually opposed to weren't totally reasonable.
Complaining about NOW's opposition to using a debunked psychiatric disorder to try and weasel custody out of the court.
Complaining about NOW's opposition to legislation that is been proven time and again to be bad for children.

I'm not sure at what point I was supposed to stop taking this seriously but that point is right there => .

[Jocabia]

I made the mistake of giving you the respect of reading your posts. And I'll do so again, because I think it's a fair way to argue. This, of course, drives me to correct you, yet again.

You're right there is a selection bias. A bias I pointed out. According to the studies I linked and the analysis of them I also linked, the selection bias is toward men who are abusive. And it still favors them.

I also pointed out that when you look at the men who had the best case, in 29% of the cases men were the primary caregiver. Those are the strongest possible cases. And in 29% of the cases men were awarded sole custody. Coincidence? Nope. Now, compare that to the 71% of the time where women had the better case. They got sole custody 7% of the time.

So accounting for the selection bias points out the bias is even worse than at first glance.

Now, as for your point about forced joint custody legislation, you're right, if the purpose was to make it as fair as possible for fathers and mothers. It isn't, however. The goal is to create the best possible environment for children and study after study proves that it doesn't accomplish that. In the cases that go to court, judges are already giving out joint custody 64% of the time. Existing legislation already respects the roles of mothers and fathers in most cases. In fact, it appears that in court, 93% of fathers end up with some form of custody.

The amusing bit is that you claim that these are the strongest possible cases. That means in the absolute strongest cases, which according to you is what was selected for, men are only the primary caregiver less than half as often as women are.

I hope that doesn't concern you too much, though. Thanks to feminism hopefully one day that number will get closer to 50/50 across all families.

(Hey, don't let the evidence sway you at all. Keep beating that drum the bias against men in the court system must end. I mean, just because studies show that this false perception is part of the reason for men not pursuing their custody rights shouldn't stop you. Keep being the problem. Because as long as you do, you'll make the case for supporting feminism all that much stronger. Thanks for that.)

[Jocabia]

By the by, several of the articles I linked, or the studies they are based on, or your linked articles or their foundations, covered the issue of the selection bias. The bias is that for the most part, people tend to want what is best for their children. It takes a lot of anger or fear for a couple to end up in a custody battle. So courts are much more likely to see cases where one parent or the other is abusive or a danger to their children. As you say, it's more likely that women will pursue than men because of the perceived bias (one you help propagate, thanks for that.) As such, what we should see is a bias toward women. We don't. Which makes the outcomes that much more of a problem. Even with that selection bias, we still joint custody in most cases.

See, that's the funny bit. When men have the better case, they tend to win. When women have the better case, they win 10% of the time.

You make the claim that courts already do well at sorting it out when there is an issue with abuse, but everything that's been linked says otherwise. Everything that's been linked says that the courts side on the side of joint custody in the most contentious cases (the ones that end up in court).

And in the fact of all that evidence against your claims of bias, what is your reply. You push forth a solution that will make it worse. And then you complain that groups that actually give a crap about how the outcomes affect children don't support you. Complain away. You revealed your bias when you complained that women's groups are railing against men's groups that are promoting a debunked (yes, debunked) psychological diagnosis that is completely unscientific and has no medical evidence.

[Jocabia]

By the by, several of the articles I linked, or the studies they are based on, or your linked articles or their foundations, covered the issue of the selection bias. The bias is that for the most part, people tend to want what is best for their children. It takes a lot of anger or fear for a couple to end up in a custody battle. So courts are much more likely to see cases where one parent or the other is abusive or a danger to their children.

Actually, let's flatly look at this.

1.) Women will nearly always make a claim for custody, because we will think badly of them if they don't. That's the social norm.
2.) Men will nearly always not make a claim for custody that disagrees with a woman's claim, because of that social norm.

We should expect female abusers to make up a disproportionately large population of contested custody cases.

This is the selection effect you need to rule out to know that men are actually favored by the courts.

When only a vanishingly small fraction of cases are contested, we can have extremely large selection effects.

5% of cases is not vanishingly small. There is a selection effect, of course. Every single article either of us has presented addresses that selection (actual selection effects, not the ones you guessed at). However, I'm willing to be fair. Let's assume the most positive scenario we can find the for the claim of selection bias you're making.

The absolute best case scenario for your argument is that men are entering a courtroom and telling a judge that the primary caregiver they selected is an abuser in every case. We won't assume it's true or false, because it doesn't matter. We're only going to assume that the men enter the courtroom believing it to be true. That's the best case. Even if 100% of the time women are accused of abuse. The judge is awarding sole custody in every single case where the father is the primary caregiver. So in the best case, the judge gives justice for all 29% of the time. And the other 71% of the time, the guy has to stand before a judge and tell him or her that he just decided that the woman should no longer be the primary caregiver. The judge, being a reasonable person doesn't deny custody to a woman who the father was comfortable with being the primary caregiver up until the point of divorce. So, in the perfect world for your argument, the judge is only wrong 7% of the time. That's if every single time the woman is being accused of abuse. And, remember, you already said that in every case where there is actual evidence of abuse, the judge already does what he needs to. That's your claim. So we can only assume the rest of these cases are where there isn't enough evidence and STILL we're seeing outcomes that are absolutely favorable to men.

In the real world, judges almost never take custody away from the primary caregiver, because it's bad for children. Primary caregivers become primary caregivers because during the marriage, both parents allowed it to happen. Judges rarely allow parents to suddenly upend the world of a child simply because a divorce is occurring absent substantial evidence. So even in a world where the only cases that go to court are cases of accused abuse, you're getting a good outcome.

So, in the best scenario that we can possibly make up, you still don't have any evidence that courts are biased against men. And, absent that evidence, you still just go on blindly claiming it's occurring.

Now, are there isolated cases of bias in the real world? Sure. Absolutely. However, what you complained about is that NOW doesn't support changing the law to address that isolated bias. And the fact is that the evidence for broad abuse of men in the system simply does not exist. Not even if we make assumptions that are completely unsupportable.

NOW gave clear reasons for why they oppose that law. You can't make an argument why they should support. However, given your confirmation bias, it's evidence they don't support men being involved with their children.

NOW gave clear reasons why they don't support court rooms allowing fake diagnoses to keep women from their children. Fake diagnoses. And you listed that as more evidence of bias. The hilarious part of that is that I'm not changing that at all. To you, NOW opposing a fake diagnosis is part of their bias against men. Seriously. I mean, honestly, step away from the argument for a minute and try and imagine how your credibility looks after arguing that NOW is biased for that opposition. Ask yourself if, in any other argument, you would think a person reasonable who gets upset about such a thing.

You've demonstrated that your bias is against reason and toward selecting for ANY evidence you think supports your case, even when it doesn't. When challenged, your reply is "well, hey, if we fantasize that the diagnosis is not fake, then this would be really good evidence of their bias, right? RIGHT?" When looking at the evidence that comes from actual courtrooms that goes completely against what you claim is the bias, you just blithely trudge forward continuing to claim that the bias exists, even when evidence suggests the biggest challenge men face when it comes to custody is finding a way to ignore people like you.

So, now, in the real world. In the actual world, where we look at actual courtrooms and actual outcomes, what is your evidence of this widespread bias against men that you claim feminism refuses to correct? Go ahead. Now, I'll add... Real evidence... Widespread... Pervasive. Not speculation of what could happen or what might be the case or what doesn't happen. Show that when a married couple stands before a judge and asks that judge to determine custody that in even a large percentage of cases judges unfairly rule against men. And absent that kind of bias actually occurring, the best thing we can do, in cases where men are not getting a fair shake elsewhere, is encourage fathers who wish to have joint custody to appear before the court, where they're getting at least partial custody in 22% more of the cases than women. And, clearly, ending false claims of bias and the pervasiveness of anecdotal evidence will go much further in doing that then legislation seeking to fix a problem that most people don't agree exists.

[Jocabia]

@Jocabia: I haven't seen you link to much studies yet you keep claiming that your studies prove something. Maybe you can provide us with some of these or at least give a hint as to which ones you are actually talking about.

Unless you are quoting yourself.

And I have to agree, you have yet to prove how feminism is in ANY way contributing towards men, at least politically. They might be doing it via side effects, like breaking gender roles, but I don't see feminism actually helping men break those roles. It is more of helping women break the roles thus making it easier for men to, but no direct feminism lawsuit against male discrimination or anything.

So if you don't mind, can you please start linking to quotes and studies so that we all can read what you are talking about?

Did you actually read my posts? The articles I linked to were sourced articles. In other words, every study they used were actually sourced in the articles. Another of my link was a study of studies, also sourced. TJHairball's sources weren't actually sourced (as they were just position statements from NOW), but they did give you enough information to look at the source studies if you are so inclined. That's why throughout I've been referencing those studies that are referenced by both his sources and mine (or in my case the study of studies which you can get to the original studies for if you like). This would be considered more than adequate sourcing if I were writing a paper or if I were submitting for peer review. TJHairball doesn't appear to be having any issue following it, so I'm not sure why you'd be struggling. Everything I've quoted or directly reference is written in my primary sources.

For the tl;dr, I actually both linked to the studies I'm referencing and explicitly quote them. If you don't see that, then you didn't read back far enough.

As far as your misunderstanding of feminism, let me clarify something. Feminism is a movement. Like civil rights, the political organizations are an off-shoot. They are not definitional. Many things that civil rights or feminism are concerned with cannot be addressed through legislation. You can't just ignore those things simply because no one is trying to legislate them. The removal of gender roles, for example, isn't a side effect. It's a direct and explicit goal of feminism. And you cannot only focus on gender roles of one gender despite the claims to the contrary. It's impossible. It's like claiming that you can pick up a coin and only take the tail side with you. Gender roles in the way our society defines them are binary. Changing one by nature changes the other. And this isn't something completely unacknowledged or outside of the concern of feminists.

It's actually kind of amusing really, because so far feminist after feminist comes in here and says they are concerned about the bias that exists against men due to gender roles and would like to change it. You guys keeping acting like this in the exception, but as of yet, not one single feminist has showed up and actually said they don't care. However, there are tons of so-called "masculists" or "anti-feminists" or whatever silly term is being thrown around that have clearly demonstrated their bias against women. We've heard lots of standard arguments about feminazis or man-haters or the like, but we've also gotten some new ones like claiming that women who don't believe that fake diagnoses should be admissible in court must hate men or such silly arguments.

If feminism is so biased against men and for women, then where are all these feminists? Why is that every feminist we can actually find to reply to you, in fact, isn't? And why is it that no matter how many of us there are, you act like we don't exist?

[Jocabia]

Fathers who are not involved should not automatically get shared custody just because they happen to be divorced from the mother. In the event of a divorce, the child should have as normal and stable transition as possible. This means that both parents should continue to see the child as often as they did prior to the divorce. That is what's best for the child, and thus, that is what the law should be.

And, in most cases, it is what the law is. This is what masculists are trying to change. They want judges to order their family to change simply because they are getting divorced.

Unfortunately, being an involved parent is much harder and happens after a so much longer period of time than just claiming it in court. Who has that kind of time? Why, oh, why can't I just show up to court claim I'm gonna be involved and be granted custody?

[Jocabia]

NOW gave clear reasons why they don't support court rooms allowing fake diagnoses to keep women from their children.

The "clear reasons" being:

• Father's rights groups support it.
• More fathers may gain some measure of physical custody if it is passed.
• Fathers who want custody are abusive, so preventing this prevents abuse.

I think we don't need to go further than this. There couldn't be clearer evidence of your bias. The diagnosis is fake. You seriously see their opposing the usage of a disorder that doesn't exist as bias.

It's fake. That's their reason. They are pointing out that father's rights groups support it as evidence of the bias of those groups. They are pointing out that it is primarily used in cases where the claimed symptoms will cover up trauma in children, something that has been agreed to by the APA among other groups. And, yes, fathers who use this diagnosis to cover up this trauma are doing so because it hides the symptoms of abuse.

Now, because I oppose it and because I made the same points they did do I believe that all fathers who want custody are abusive, or only that fathers who propose a non-existent disorder that covers up the symptoms of abuse are likely to be abusive. And, guess what, I don't want these fathers to have custody of their children either.

Am I just crazy or what? Perhaps you should make up a disorder for me, too. IDWAFTHCOCBCMHDTDE. That can be the acronym. It's a mouthful.

Here are the symptoms of IDWAFTHCOCBCMHDTDE:
*Doesn't want people to accuse other people, in a court of law, of having disorders that do not exist
*Finds it concerning that the made up disorder happens to manifest itself with the exact same symptoms we would see if the accuser was abusing the child
*Finds it unsurprising and yet concerning that this disorder is used by abusers to cover up abuse
*Finds it alarming that this claim actually works and puts children in the hands of abusers
*opposes the usage of a non-existent disorder to make it more difficult to discern when abuse occurs

Now, I'm sure you'll miss the fact that despite all those things, I don't believe that men who seek custody are abusers. I do, however, believe that men who seek custody using a disorder that doesn't exist to cover up the symptoms of abuse ARE abusers. I'm sure that difference will be lost on you, but there ya go.

[Jocabia]

I think we don't need to go further than this. There couldn't be clearer evidence of your bias.

I'm flatly right. Observe:

(0) "Over the years, hundreds of women have contacted National Organization for Women chapters looking for assistance in their efforts to protect minor children in family court custody proceedings. Often these women have been accused of a phony psychiatric condition, termed Parental Alienation Disorder (PAD). "
(0) is devoid of any argumentative content, this is an introduction and a statement of NOW's claim.

(A) "The "disorder" has been proposed by so-called father's rights (men's custody) activists to be added to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostics and Statistics Manual - V to give it more legitimacy than it currently has -- or should have -- in court."
What does (A) mean? (A) states that the disorder has the support of father's rights groups. (A) also attacks them as "so-called." See the first bullet. This is the beginning of the ad hominem line of attack of "father's rights groups support it, therefore we should oppose it."

(B) "This accusation is made by abusive ex-husbands and is intended to cause the courts to disregard mothers' claims of fathers' physical or sexual abuse in an effort to gain the fathers' full or joint custody. NOW Foundation is concerned that because of the alienation accusation known batterers and child abusers have been awarded custody; the numbers of cases involving dads in custody disputes abusing and murdering children is appalling. "
What does (B) mean? It's a claim that recognizing parental alienation as a disorder will result in custody being awarded to fathers, who will then abuse or murder children. See the second and third bullets.

(C) "The alienation accusation has been embraced by men's custody activists as an effective weapon to undermine mothers' bid for legal custody of minor children."
What does (C) mean? It's a claim that recognizing parental alienation as a disorder will result in fathers gaining custody more often, and another call to battle against men's custody advocacy. First and second bullets.

(D) "Many advocates on behalf of mothers believe that batterers, child abusers and pedophiles populate these men's custody networks."
What does (D) mean? It's saying that father's rights groups are abusers. First and third bullets.

(E) "There have been numerous instances of documented batterers and child abusers being awarded custody by biased family court judges."
What does (E) mean? It's reinforcing the third bullet implicitly. At this point in the statement, we're apparently supposed to have caught on that "child abusers" is supposed to be synonymous with "men."

(F) "NOW Foundation has sent a letter recently to the American Psychiatric Association noting that publications by the American Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have concluded proposed "alienation disorder" is inadmissible in court and has been discredited by the scientific community."
What does (F) mean? Ok, here's something I didn't cover: Here NOW is declaring it has appealed to the authority of lawyers in order to convince psychiatrists of a claim about psychiatric science. Pure politics.

(G) "Accordingly, family court judges, lawyers and other court personnel should take action against the use of the alienation accusation in cases before them. Read NOW Foundation's letter (PDF) and for more information on family court issues, go to the family law website."
What does (G) mean? It means that NOW is calling itself an authority on psychiatry. Politics, unsurprising, blah blah, but not an argument that carries any weight in critical analysis.

(H) "More information on fathers and ex-partners involved in child custody or child support matters who have killed children, murdered mothers and/or committed suicide, please visit this website."
What does (H) mean? It's saying that fathers who want custody do bad things. Third bullet. Note this is an appeal to anecdote, rather than empiricism; we can actually produce a lengthy list of mothers who have killed children, too.

Now, I have gone through the entire statement that I linked you to, line by line, and explained exactly how the "clear reasons" that NOW is citing are precisely:

• Father's rights groups support it.
• More fathers may gain some measure of physical custody if it is passed.
• Fathers who want custody are abusive, so preventing this prevents abuse.

Understand? That's what NOW is actually saying. This is their argument. These are their reasons. I'm not making shit up here.

You're right. The fact that it's a fake diagnosis is never brought up and could not possibly be a rational primary reason for rejecting its usage.

They were silly enough to expect the reader to understand that because it's fake they don't think it should be used. So they went into how it's used and why it's usage, in addition to be bullshit, is a problem.

The problem they are stating is that Father's rights groups are supporting a fake diagnosis. They are leading to a conclusion.

The second bit is that it is used by abusive husbands, therefore, in addition to it being utter bullshit, we should prevent it's usage in covering up that abuse. It's not "father who want custody are abusive". It's fathers who use this fake diagnosis are covering up abuse. Also, abusers are often involved in these men's custody networks which is why they support the diagnosis. Again, it's an indictment of the networks and those who use it or support the diagnosis.

You keep wanting to separate this all out. Nowhere does it say or indicate or suggest that all father's who pursue custody are abusers. They're pointing out that abuse is a problem and this this diagnosis is a tool of abusers who hide in so-called father's rights networks and promote a fake diagnosis that claims that the symptoms of abuse are actually symptoms of the fake diagnosis. It's all related.

You're pulling it apart and putting it back together in ways that are convenient. And you're smarter than this. It isn't complicated. They are saying that it's a tool of abusers and so are the so-called father's rights groups. And that the two things are related.

It's possible you actually don't understand this, but we both know that you do. Stop being silly. I know the facts don't support your case, but that doesn't mean you get to make them up wholesale. This isn't political ads, where people can only read your soundbites and don't care enough to digest it. You're talking to me and we both know better.

You missed the title of the article, so let me show it to you.

NOW Foundation Opposes Phony Parental Alienation Disorder

The title of the article includes "phony" maybe they thought that it being phony was significant. Somehow, though, it didn't make any of your bullets. And you tried so hard to be totally unbiased and fair.

Let me fix them for you.

• PAD is phony (This is the topic of the first sentence. It's a phony disorder that only father's rights groups are trying to give legitimacy)
• Father's rights groups support it. (Also from the first paragraph. They are leading to a conclusion.)
• Abusive fathers use this to try and retain custody of their children. (Second paragraph.)
• It puts children in the hands of abusive fathers. (Second paragraph.)
• Abusive fathers populate father's rights groups. (third paragraph, linking the reason father's rights group support it to the fact that abusers support it.)
• Lawyers groups, judges groups and child advocates all believe it should not be admissible because there is no evidence for it. (Fourth paragraph.)
• In other words, all the groups who see this diagnosis used, have never seen evidence for it. (Fourth paragraph.)

Here's the part you're glossing over. PAS or PAD can only be alleged when the father is accused of abuse. Therefore, it's only relevant in those cases. It's flipping an accusation of abuse, abuse that actually shows symptoms in children, and claiming the reason those children have the symptoms of abuse is because their mother is crazy. And it's a fake accusation. In other words, it's never true.

Now, there are cases where mother's falsely accuse fathers of abuse. About 1% of the time, in fact. But in those cases, there are no symptoms of abuse so the diagnosis and the accusation wouldn't be valid. And the father doesn't need to allege a fake diagnosis because he can simply point out the child has no symptoms of abuse. The diagnosis is ONLY applicable when the child has symptoms of abuse, symptoms only caused by abuse. This is the part you're missing. It's only useful when there are symptoms of abuse. It can only be alleged by abusers.

Incidentally, father's also falsely accuse mothers of abuse about 21% of the time. In other words, 1 in 5 cases where a father accuses a mother of abuse, it is a purposeful lie. In 1 of 100 cases where a mother accuses a father, it's a purposeful lie. In other words, according to you, the cases where a mother is falsely accusing a father of abuse are vanishingly small. Actually, it's 5 times more vanishingly small than the number of cases that hit court.

Yet, the made-up diagnosis was directly explicitly at mothers accusing fathers by its creator. Incidentally, some other things the creator of this diagnosis lobbied for is the removal of child abuse reporting laws and considered sexual abuse cases a turn-on for lawyers and judges involved. He had agenda against the protection of children from abuse. He never published his "study" in a peer-reviewed journal and rather published it himself. It was peer-reviewed, however, and roundly rejected. No study on PAS or PAD has ever survived peer-review. Studies have been attempted. Repeatedly. Yet the evidence never supports the use of the diagnosis. In science, especially psychiatry, that's as close as your going to get to debunking.

1. It was created to fit an agenda by an activist against the prosecution of child abuse.
2. It's creator avoided and rejected peer-review.
3. It is only supported by groups with an agenda the diagnosis fits into.
4. Study after study has been attempted by those groups with an agenda and yet they still cannot survive peer review. Only one study was even attempted to be published and the peer review was scathing.

In other words, it's debunked. Solidly, roundly, totally debunked. It's a phony diagnosis. And given that it's phony and requires the symptoms of abuse in order to even be accused, it's not even a slight stretch to accuse those who use this diagnosis of abuse. There's smoke. There's heat. There's flames. It's not a jump to point out there's a fire.

http://www.awpsych.org/index.php?option ... Itemid=126

As for your bullshit about politics. Here is the APA's stance on the disorder.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/ ... drome.aspx

They do not take a position, however, they have noted there is no data supporting the condition. In other words, they ignored politics and separately found that the syndrome has no evidence.

So we have all the major organizations for law, psychiatry and child advocacy coming out against the disorder being used in court.

You can read more about the phony disorder here.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/40/1/127.full

[Jocabia]

Can we just...not...look, there ain't no shame in being a white dude in America, really, there isn't...that is until someone starts one of these 'oh yeah, well me too' bits like we want to get into that exclusive oppressed club.

And that's not to say that there aren't unfair characterizations out there, or a handful of situations where we do not enjoy our usual advantages. But they are not part of our collective identity in the way marginalized groups encounter. We have the luxury of dealing with issues on an individual basis and yet for some reason that's the societal advantage that we toss aside so some white dude can pretend that because in a handful of instances things don't work out swimmingly for white dudes that 'we're oppressed too!'

And that's when white dudes look stupid. Stop it.

My problem is that they're not just complaining. They're doing bad things.

The example TJHairball is bringing up is that father's rights groups promote a phony diagnosis that is used to cover up child abuse. And he's bringing it up as a promotion for father's rights groups and a slight against NOW.

If it were just "me too", I'd be cool. Hell, if they were actually advocates for men being fathers to their children and having access as a result, I'd be cool with it. But they promote child abuse. They cover it up. And they attempt to bring children together with their abusers. And that's not an abstract. It's explicitly what TJHairball is defending.

[Jocabia]

However, the political actions of the feminist movement only support paternal involvement so long as it's perceived as directly aligned with women's interests.

I.e. whenever the man is not dangerous to his children or their mother.

Now, of course, for you, that's not enough support. That's why you're upset they stand against the usage of a "diagnosis" that is only alleged when it is convenient to cover up the signs of abuse.

[Jocabia]

I.e. whenever the man is not dangerous to his children or their mother.

To hear NOW argue it? All men are automatically suspect of being dangerous to their children and spouses.

I don't know if you realize it, but you just called GoG "dangerous to his children or their mother," implicitly; given the stated position of NOW, and your reference to the feminist movement being opposed to paternal involvement only when a man is dangerous to his children or spouse.

Wow, I didn't realize that GoG accused his wife of PAD. You can support this yes? Or are you claiming that GoG got his children as a result of forced custody legislation that NOW opposed? Of course, you can support that if that's your claim. Because it must be one or the other or NOW hasn't said one thing about whether or not GoG should have access to his children.

Because NOW has only opposed forced joint custody as a default position. NOW has never said, nor will ever say, that women get the kids unless the woman agrees for it to be otherwise. And I'm sure you'll agree, they're not claiming that women should be denied custody unless they can make a case for sole custody.

What's left is what GoG got, joint custody being found by a judge to be the most reasonable position, which is what judges find the majority of the time. NOW didn't oppose GoG. However, if you can prove they did, please, present where they opposed him?

Not some made up version of what they said. Not some political lampoon of what they said. What they actually said. Because as much as you want to take one article and quote it as if it isn't referring to the usage of a fake diagnosis and the other article and quote it as if it's not referring to the state requiring joint custody unless a significant burden of proof is met to show otherwise, that's not how reasonable people see articles.

See, when the topic of an article is forced custody legislation, then I recognize they are referring to forced custody legislation. And when the topic of an article is a fake diagnosis, then I recognize they are referring to the usage of that fake diagnosis. That is what reasonable people do.

Now, where did NOW write an article that said that involved, healthy fathers should be denied access to their children unless the mother gives permission. Go ahead.

[Jocabia]

If you support joint custody in any case in which it is not the first choice of both parents, then your position is substantially differentiated from NOW's.

Note that the laws in question do not actually require joint custody to be forced on all contesting parents; all such laws, passed or proposed, have simply required that the judge presume that joint custody is in the best interest of the child when both parents desire custody, until they have been shown a reason why this is not the case in this particular case. E.g., the parent is abusive or has been wholly absent from the child's life.

I wonder why a presumption of joint custody is bad, as an aside.

Every court in the country operates on certain presumptions (innocent until proven guilty, hearsay evidence is unreliable, unduly prejudicial things are not allowed in the courtroom, etc etc).

It seems that a presumption that the custody arrangement prior to the marriage will continue is not a bad presumption to make. Prior to the dissolving of the marriage, both parents had legal and physical custody of the children. A presumption that such continue is hardly a bad presumption to make.

Now, that doesn't mean the court is stuck with that presumption as the ultimate finality. It means that the court has a starting place.

The presumption of joint custody isn't bad as long as judges have discretion to override that presumption in cases where abuse is at issue or cases where it's not what either person is seeking.

One problem with the presumption, however, is that it's not all that possible to demonstrate that someone is not involved as a parent. I could bring in a trillion documented instances where the other parent was not present for critical events in the child's life, or even casual events in the child's life, and I still haven't proven the other parent is not involved. For all the judge knows, I've cherry-picked only those events where the other parent simply couldn't be there. In pretty much every case, by the time a child reaches 5, there would be a mountain of times when one parent or the other isn't there.

However, showing how often they were not there, says nothing about how often they were. And to figure out if they were an active loving parent, you need someone to show those times when they were active and loving.

Think about it like child support. What if I said that we were going to assume that both parents were paying for the child equally unless proven otherwise. So I walk in and I show I paid 50K last year to care for my son. My ex-wife (I have neither an ex nor a son, by the by) shows up and brings no evidence. Now, because there is the presumption that she paid half, she's got to provide nothing to show she paid for half of my son's care. Nothing I could do would ever prove she's not carrying her weight. I could only show how much I pay relative to certain bills I provide, show my best case.

Now, if I say that in order to claim that in order to determine support for your child, both parents have to bring positive evidence of their involvement in the child's care, suddenly I get a realistic picture. And if one parent doesn't arrive with the positive evidence, then the lack of evidence hurts their case. It leaves the burden squarely where it should be, on the only person who can provide any evidence as to where things stand.

[Jocabia]

I.e. whenever the man is not dangerous to his children or their mother.

Now, of course, for you, that's not enough support. That's why you're upset they stand against the usage of a "diagnosis" that is only alleged when it is convenient to cover up the signs of abuse.

Actually, if the link to NOW NYS is at all representative of the political arm of the feminist movement, he's got a major point.

If parenting responsibilities are shared 51%-49%, mother's favor, there's no abuse, and the parents do not both jointly agree to a joint custody arrangement, NOW NYS supports forcing judges to award sole custody to the mother, with occasional visitation for the father.

Or, as TJ said clearly, unless GoG could prove 51% care for the child, NOW NYS would support no custody for him - only visitation.

Let's be clear, so does NOW equally suggest that if it were slanted in the father's favor 51%-49%, that the father should get sole custody given the same conditions?

If that were the case, that still would not support the case that now opposes fathers having custody except in cases where it benefits the mother. Their position, frankly, would be exactly fair. Wrong, I'd say, but fair.

That, however, requires us to ignore the context that they believe there ARE cases where parents disagree on custody and judges are right to award joint custody.

[Jocabia]

They do not oppose having judges decide that individual families can have joint custody in cases where there is no risk of abuse, and the families live close together, are financially secure, and the parents have not yet remarried.

No, that is not what they are stating. They are opposed to mandatory joint custody, i.e. they oppose joint custody in ALL cases that come before a judge

These two statements seem to be in conflict.

The second statement could just be read in two different ways.

What he means to say is that NOW opposes the idea that there should always be joint custody, joint custody in all cases. So here he doesn't mean they oppose joint custody always, but rather that they oppose joint custody being reached in all, as opposed to some, cases.

[Jocabia]

I hate reviving dead threads, but I thought I would share this link.

http://i.imgur.com/QviYK.jpg

The poster was posted on a men's rights board on reddit, the left side shows the various responses to it.

Any thoughts on if women are fighting for men's rights? or thoughts in general?

Thoughts?

The violent reactions displayed on the sidebar are unfortunately entirely typical, although most of it seems to be comments from a single person. It's actually this sort of violent reaction that got my attention on this sort of issue in the first place: You can say something entirely reasonable, that should be entirely noncontroversial, some no-brainer like "it's a bad thing to falsely accuse a man of rape," and people will call for your death, imprisonment, and/or mutilation.

The reason that people identify me as a men's rights activist on NSG isn't because I decided to align myself with the movement; it all started when Bottle was making a spectacularly bad argument involving rape, in which she defined rape very badly (one of those definitions that implies "accidental rape" and "mutual rape" are commonplace events), and when I pointed this out, she went unhinged on me. Most of my shifts in position and emphasis have followed this pattern; I've seen the problems with how so-called "feminists" are responding to assertions related to men's rights issues, objected to them, faced a lot of flak, and entrenched myself in empirical fact in response.

I'm antagonistic like that; I develop positions by considering the various means to falsify them, investigating those means myself, and examining the attempts of others to falsify them; and if they stand up well against those attempts, I stand by them. It's also why very few people are willing to identify as MRA, online or especially IRL; because they will face numerous and repeated unreasonable and unreasoning attacks.

If only you were that reasonable.

But instead you complained that NOW stood against a made up disease that IS ONLY APPLICABLE when child abuse has occurred, because its made up symptoms ARE the symptoms of child abuse. Sorry, but if you want to pretend you're just being reasonable, then FIRST you have to be reasonable. Maybe at some point you were arguing something reasonable and you got attacked, but you aren't anymore. How you got there is completely irrelevant to the fact that you did get there.

[Jocabia]

But instead you complained that NOW stood against a made up disease

False. As I told you before, my complaint about that article was not that they stood up against a "made up disease"; my complaint is that NOW was (A) propagating pedophile panic and (B) opposed to recognition of parental alienation because father's rights groups supported it. That is to say, I find their reasons lacking, and in opposing recognition of parental alienation as a disorder, they justify themselves by claiming implicitly that fathers who desire custody over the objections of mothers are abusive. Which I already told you before:

The problem isn't that NOW thinks that PAS or PAD is scientifically unfounded - NOW would reject this whether or not it was scientifically founded. (Note that the topic has been politicized from day one, prior to the introduction of any evidence; we can say, empirically, that parental alienation happens consequent to divorce; the debate is whether or not that deserves description as a disorder.)

Why? Because it's endorsed by fathers' rights groups. Because it will make it harder for women to obtain sole physical custody. Because anything which gives custody - in part or in full - to men is enabling abusers. Because NOW buys into the credo that male divorcees are often abusers, and that only an abusive male would possibly want to contest custody against the mother.

Understand? My problem with the article is not, specifically, that NOW argues against parental alienation as an instrument of divorce court. People can and will throw anything and everything at each other to try to hold onto their children in a divorce, up to and including false allegations of rape. My problem with the article is that NOW characterizes any group supporting men trying to get custody as populated by "batterers, child abusers and pedophiles." That NOW will oppose any effort to remedy inequities perpetrated against men in custody cases, on the [patently false] grounds that favoring women systematically in custody disputes prevents abuse and punishes abusers.

that IS ONLY APPLICABLE when child abuse has occurred, because its made up symptoms ARE the symptoms of child abuse.

Also false. The symptoms are that the child is alienated from one parent and takes the other parent's side of things. Which is not actually a symptom of abuse, except as far as abusers classically isolate their victims from others who might support them (i.e., parents who work to alienate their child from the other parent are probably abusive themselves), and that less charismatic abusers will often find themselves sided against (because they're abusive).

Is it a real disorder? Questionable, but highly political from the moment it was described.
Is it a real phenomenon? Yes; it's established that some parents alienate their children from the other parent deliberately, in spite of that other parent not being abusive.
Is abuse involved with the symptom of a child being alienated from one parent? Yes, and on both sides, at that.

Again, my problem with that particular article is not that NOW opposes recognition of parental alienation as a psychiatric disorder; it is their reasons for doing so. And those objections are quite reasonable; I think when we lay out explicitly the question of:

"Is it appropriate to stereotype all fathers desiring custody in a contentious divorce as abusive?"

Then it becomes transparently clear that I'm being very reasonable as to why I found that article objectionable.

Now, since you're bringing this topic back up, perhaps you have finally uncovered evidence that NOW is in support of joint custody, as you kept claiming in spite of all evidence to the contrary? If so, I'm interested in seeing it presented.

I know you believe you're being reasonable. Duh. Of course you do. You aren't. We know you aren't.

You're intelligent. You can try to convince me otherwise, but we all know that you are. You can read. You can understand that NOW knows as well as I do that it's a made up disorder used to cover up child abuse. They oppose it for that reason. They said so. Plainly. The disorder didn't look for the symptoms of children being disassociated from their parents. It simply took the symptoms of abuse and ascribed them to a disease that was entirely made up. There are issues with separating children from their parents. Everyone admits that. There are countless papers written on it by countless organizations. Those symptoms aren't the symptoms of abuse. Everyone agreed with that before this crackpot and everyone still agrees. No one but this crackpot claims they are the symptoms of abuse and only the symptoms of abuse.

NOW also oppose men's groups. Why? Because they've been taken over by men who support his made-up disease and it promotes and protects child abusers. The article, again, was very clear about this.

But, I don't need to restart this debate. Because you know this. You can disagree with NOW if you like, but you're not going to convince anyone that you could not understand NOW's article or the purpose of it. So one of two things is going on. You're lying about what you think it says. Or you're so rabidly anti-woman that you simply can't see past your confirmation bias.

But, hey, why don't you just try to convince yourself that the world is against you. That totally must be it. You're reasonable and it's everyone else who just went nuts. Yup. That's probably it. Nothing crazy or rabid about that.

[Jocabia]

If only you were that reasonable.

But instead you complained that NOW stood against a made up disease that IS ONLY APPLICABLE when child abuse has occurred, because its made up symptoms ARE the symptoms of child abuse. Sorry, but if you want to pretend you're just being reasonable, then FIRST you have to be reasonable. Maybe at some point you were arguing something reasonable and you got attacked, but you aren't anymore. How you got there is completely irrelevant to the fact that you did get there.

Tahar Joblis has addressed where you've gone wrong in direct relation to your claims regarding him.

The thing is the phenomenon is real. The question is whether or not it actually qualifies as a syndrome.

The phenomena of children being separated from their parents is real. Nobody has ever denied this. Not NOW. Not anyone. Children are better off when they're not. NOW was standing up against this made-up disorder. It's not a disorder that deals with children being separated from their parents. It's a disorder that claims that the symptoms of abuse are instead the symptoms of that separation. And that claim has been discredited again and again.

Who claimed that children cannot be harmed by being denied their parents? Not me. Not NOW. In fact, I can point you to countless debates specifically pointing out why I oppose the idea of paper abortions for that very reason.

The problem is that TJ flips this on its head. You can oppose this disease... because of its origins... because it has not valid data supporting it... because everyone has exposed it as phony.... and still not hate men. You can oppose this disease for all kinds of rational reasons and not hate men. And you can oppose groups that promote this disease, groups that use it to cover up abuse, and not hate men. And you can even believe that children shouldn't be separated from their parents unless bringing them together with their parent does more harm than good and still be totally and utterly opposed to the recognition of this "disease" in courts, because it's a bogus disease.

But TJ wants to wave away all the reasonable reasons why one could feel that way and then say that it's all about man-hating. And you don't get to do that.

This "disease" has a specific set of symptoms. It's defined by its symptoms. You want to look at the claimed cause and the claimed cause only, but there are other ways to look at that problem that are real and aren't coverups for abuse. Use any one of those ways and you'll have my full support. And, most likely, NOW's.

[Jorelle21]

No, men are at an advantage in this country.

[Kalaspia-Shimarata]

There is sexism to men all over the Western World

[Kalvaycia]

Okay, okay, this is how this works. Sexism exists. Now that that obvious fact is out of the way (I didn't think that I had to say it but I see posts where people are like "sexism doesn't exist in modernized nations") I would like to elaborate further to point out that, depending upon what you are doing or what industry you are in, sexism effects the genders differently. In certain job positions men do get paid more. In certain job positions women do get paid more. When it comes time to go to colleges and such women do get a break. You know what? So do black people, Asian people, Mexican people, and any other person who isn't a white male. Do you know why? Because a certain number of people from each denomination have to be in facilities that the government helps fund. It isn't because they're singling out men, it's because they're trying to force people to get along. We don't think of it as much today because it isn't nearly as prevalent, but relatively not too long ago it wasn't illegal for employers or deans to say "no women" or "no Indians" or something like that. Nowadays we only seem to perceive laws as "if someone made this law today then what would the point be" but it's the concept of "one group ruins it for everybody". Some colleges and professions needed the government to say "hey, you can't tell that very qualified person that they can't work here just because you're a racist. now we're going to force you to hire a certain number of this type of people to be certain that they get an equal opportunity to work here". There is a reason for it, that reason just doesn't apply as strongly in this day and age. Until we get to the point in our global history where every person every where no longer hires or admits someone based on their physical attributes then these laws will probably remain in place. If you really think that businesses and colleges having to hire a certain amount of each type of person is so awful and want it to end, then you should actually do something about the racism and sexism that do exist. If there was no one to be sexist then there would be no need for the law and it would be much easier to have it repealed.

[Kalvaycia]

Also, women and men ARE different. While one is not inferior to the other and both are necessary parts of the human race, they are not the same. Everyone seems to be saying "men and women are the same" and while they may not mean that literally, I would just like to point out that perhaps you should take a moment to consider the fact that men and women are not the same. We were created differently (no matter what you believe about creation, it is quite clear from any anatomy or psychology textbook that we are vastly different) and we were meant to live differently. Whether humanity likes it or not or thinks that that's fair or not that is just how it is. If you don't like it then take it up with your respective deity, not the government.

[Kalvaycia]

Actually, biologically, when you get down to it males and females are nearly the same, with very minor physical and psychological differences. The differences being so incredibly minute in reality they aren't worth mentioning...unless you like trying to over-exaggerate them to further divisions between the sexes...which is what the world currently does.

"Similar" does not mean "Same", though I see and acknowledge your point as valid. While the differences aren't nearly as big as they relatively could be, they are enough to divide an entire race, meaning that they have to be addressed or you get arguments like this one that are 9 pages long.

[Kalvaycia]

"Similar" does not mean "Same", though I see and acknowledge your point as valid. While the differences aren't nearly as big as they relatively could be, they are enough to divide an entire race, meaning that they have to be addressed or you get arguments like this one that are 9 pages long.

They are only "big enough" to divide the sexes if we emphasize them. You're missing the point. Hell, we could create a division because of hair colour! But we see hair colour as something that's such a pathetically silly difference, we might as well say we are the "same".

So too it is with being male and female. the differences are so minute at birth, really, we might as well say they are the same. The only reason people like to say men and women are different is because cultures try to emphasize the minor differences, to distort them into "big" differences.

Why the differences are there was not what I was discussing.

[Kalvaycia]

Everything that I post I neither claim to be right nor wrong, it is only my view point and beliefs....I for one would very much like to think that we are different for a multitude of reasons and that these reasons shouldn't be downplayed, that they should respected and celebrated....differences aren't the enemy here, it's ego....but again that's just my opinion on things.

[Keronians]

Yes.

But not anything overly significant, and in no way comparable to the amount of sexism towards women.