Is there sexism towards men in america?

[Jocabia]

Ah, No True Scotsman.

You've repeatedly asked where feminism helps men and when example after example is given to you, your claim is that it's not really feminism.

I've repeatedly asked where the feminist movement has helped men on specific issues. Not individual feminists; not the ideology of equality associated with feminism; the political movement. Boots on the ground, bills in congress, policies and politics. I have, in fact, pointed out areas where the movement has done something that benefits men - and that the movement only has done so because it has perceived there being a real benefit towards women, e.g., in advancing parental leave.

The feminist movement has both helped and hurt men; it acts only to benefit women, and does so whether this is detrimental, beneficial, or fails to affect men.

Your failure to keep track of what I've actually been saying, and your failure to comprehend the distinctions I make, does not mean I've engaged in a no-true-scotsman fallacy; it means that you're strawmanning me, if accidentally.

The feminist movement explicitly set the goal of changing the way men and women are raised to fit into roles.

As have other people outside the movement.

Funny, no?

Your own sources make this very, very clear.

Nothing of the sort. You can make specious and false claims about what my "own sources" say, but that doesn't change what they do show; namely, that the feminist movement collectively doesn't give a shit about men, and just works on behalf of women;

Except it doesn't show that at all. It opposes making it law to give out joint custody without a fairly large burden of proof. As is pointed out in the articles, it's been shown time and again that giving judges discretion when it comes to custody results in better outcomes.

The funny part is you continually source articles that point that in the case where fathers sue for joint custody they win the majority of the time. Can you counter the claims of your OWN SOURCE?

Other tidbits from your own source:

Father’s rights groups are in the forefront of the push for legislation establishing a presumption in favor of joint custody. These groups emphasize that many states already have some form of mandated joint custody. The first of these was California. After seeing the effects on children: convoluted living arrangements between relocated, possibly remarried parents, children being transferred from parent to parent in front of police stations, children being enrolled in two separate schools and other horror stories, the California legislature, in 1989 revoked its presumption and the statute now established “neither a preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or sole custody, but allows the court and the family the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan which is in the best interest of the child or children.”

So in states where they've actually tried the legislation that you advocate for, they've resulted in worse results for children. NOW is opposing the mistreatment of children, not opposing the equal treatment of fathers. This is from your own source.

Now here is another source:

http://life.familyeducation.com/stepfam ... 47616.html

Fortunately, only 2 percent of custody battles actually go to trial.

And let's just focus on contested cases:

The statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey had collectively represented fathers seeking custody in over 2,100 cases in the last 5 years. n54 They reported that the fathers obtained primary physical custody in 29% of the cases, and joint physical custody in an additional 65% of the cases. Thus, when fathers actively sought physical custody, mothers obtained primary physical custody in only 7% of cases. The attorneys reported that the fathers had been primary caretakers in 29% of the cases in which they had sought custody.

So the advocates for fathers who actually contested custody actually not only don't propose their is a bias against men, but actually evidence a bias against women in those cases that are contested. Men who were primary caretakers got sole custody nearly 100% of the time. Women who were primary caretakers got sole custody roughly 10% of the time (in other words, in 71% of cases women were the primary caretaker and only got sole custody 7% of the time). It's much easier to claim the system is stacked against you when you don't look at the evidence, eh?

I'll say again, this is only those cases that are contested. It also points out in this study that when looking at all cases, women get full custody more often. However, that is the result of men and women reaching an agreement. There is good evidence that many good men are not going after joint custody because they perceive bias and they don't believe they will get their day in court. Given that you're promoting that perception against evidence, it appears you are part of the problem.

More importantly, studies show (and many of them are cited in the sources we've already provided), that in the cases where abuse is an issue, it is more likely that custody will be pursued. Yet, even including these cases, you still have more men than women getting sole custody. So much for the bias you complain NOW won't fight to stop.

These studies also show that men are often willing to bargain away their custodial rights in order to get a larger chunk of the fiscal pie. In the studies above, several father's advocates actually admitted to recommending this. Yet another result skewing the claim for bias.

Still, once the law is involved, men come out quite well, as shown in the studies.

Let's sum up:
Once you hit a courtroom, the bias appears to be for men, according to a study of attorneys who represent fathers.
Forced joint custody has been shown in several studies your own sources cite to be damaging for children.
Current law already supports the relationship between a parent who wishes to be involved and their children.

So what precisely is the legislation that you are complaining about going to fix?

[Jocabia]

By the way, am I the only one that has a hard time taking someone seriously when they list NOW's opposition to men's group promoting a debunked psychiatric diagnosis and complain about it. I mean seriously. If it wasn't TJHairball, I would totally believe this is just someone who's pulling our legs. What's next? Is NOW's opposition to NAMBLA sexism, too?

Being opposed to NAMBLA is not sexist. Fueling pedophile panic targeted at males, however, would be sexist.

Understand the distinction?

Opposing a "debunked" [actually, not so much debunked as much as controversial, the debate is ongoing and the politicized nature of the topic has made it pretty much impossible to expect any good science on the topic; parental alienation is certainly real, the characterization as a disorder is hotly contested] psychiatric disorder in custody disputes is not sexist.

Claiming that anyone trying to help men get custody are batterers or pedophiles, however, is sexist. Capiche? NOW would be opposed to the recognition of parental alienation as a mental disorder regardless of what the science said, on the exact same grounds that they are currently opposed to it: Doing so gives men a tool with which to achieve a fair share of custody in custody disputes, and father's rights groups are therefore in favor of the recognition of such as a disorder.

They didn't say that, though. What they said is that the legislation and many of the things that these organizations are proposing given greater access to batterers and molesters and make it more difficult for the court to protect women and children. Capiche?

And how about we don't talk about what NOW would do if the world were different. We know that NOW opposes a medical diagnosis that has been found to not be a valid diagnosis.

Meanwhile, men are getting more than their fair share of custody in custody disputes according to studies, but, hey, don't let that stop you? You already admitted you want to argue from a fantasy standpoint of what NOW "would do" if the evidence were different than it actually is. I'll concede that in the alternate reality world of Blargh where feminists hate men and are trying to destroy them and PAS is a real disorder, that NOW would still oppose it. Now that I've conceded that the outcomes in your fantasy world will match your fantasies can we stick to discussing the real world where we look at the evidence that exists.

[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 => .

[Grand Antarctica]

Yes. But over-feminism has clouded public view to see this Sexism as nothing but "Women rights and nothing else" there are points where People need to realize there are two sexes One is male.. Sexism can be placed against men. Most would not like to agree with it, but it does happen I am not saying it is an super-issue that needs to be addressed necessarily but nonetheless Sexism on both sides will not let up.. No matter how much you try.. It is always there it is ugly but it is there anyway.

[The Black Forrest]

As a father who has recently gone through an acrimonious custody dispute, I have the following thing to say:

I won my custody because I had an incredible amount of evidence that showed I was already an involved parent. I had bank statements and credit card statements showing that I had bought them food and clothes, taken them on vacation, bought them bicycles, and paid for their day care. I had letters from their teachers and their doctor and their dentist attesting that I had consistently been involved in their educational and medical lives.

It took me a few days to get all this together, but everyone was willing to help me because it was the truth. I was and still am an involved parent. And so it was relatively easy to accumulate that evidence. The reason I won my court battle was because I already had the kids half the time and I had already shown myself to be the type of father that leaves work early to take their kid to piano lessons.

Or, in other words, you thoroughly proved it. You fought, and fought hard. And shared custody would not even have been guaranteed by that effort.

Actually, he is right.

In my father's time, a woman would practically have to be a serial killer to not have custody.

[Tahar Joblis]

The funny part is you continually source articles that point that in the case where fathers sue for joint custody

Which is a small minority of cases;

they win the majority of the time.

Which should not be terribly surprising, because of the selection effects involved in the minority of men who think they have a shot at getting anywhere with that.

Father’s rights groups are in the forefront of the push for legislation establishing a presumption in favor of joint custody. These groups emphasize that many states already have some form of mandated joint custody. The first of these was California. After seeing the effects on children: convoluted living arrangements between relocated, possibly remarried parents, children being transferred from parent to parent in front of police stations, children being enrolled in two separate schools and other horror stories, the California legislature, in 1989 revoked its presumption and the statute now established “neither a preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or sole custody, but allows the court and the family the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan which is in the best interest of the child or children.

That's their opinion; not facts that they are presenting.

"Horror stories" drive legislative change. They do not represent empirical evidence. 1989 study claiming there's no real difference in child adjustment to divorce in joint or sole custody (due to small sample size). That's what was available when California changed its law to accommodate the demands of those against joint custody. Here's a 2002 meta-analysis that claims joint custody is associated with superior results for children than sole custody.

There is a very real distinction between my citing NOW as an authority on NOW's opinions and my claiming that what NOW is saying is in fact actually correct.

In other words, empirical evidence != opinion pieces.

So the advocates for fathers who actually contested custody actually not only don't propose their is a bias against men, but actually evidence a bias against women in those cases that are contested.

Selection effects. I keep bringing that up, but you keep ignoring that.

There is good evidence that many good men are not going after joint custody because they perceive bias and they don't believe they will get their day in court.

When they perceive bias, only the ones with the strongest cases will bring it to court.

Now, do these men need to understand that they can in fact fight for custody? Yes.

Is there a bias in the actual enforcement of these custody orders?

Yes.

So what precisely is the legislation that you are complaining about going to fix?

So what, precisely, is the legislation that NOW is complaining about going to break?

[Tahar Joblis]

They didn't say that, though. What they said is that the legislation and many of the things that these organizations are proposing given greater access to batterers and molesters and make it more difficult for the court to protect women and children. Capiche?

Which is only true ...

... if men are more likely to be batterers or molesters who cannot be identified as such in court than women. (Because, obviously, if the judge believes a parent to be a batterer or molester, that parent will be denied custody on those grounds.)

Understand? Knee-jerk hostility towards advocacy on behalf of fathers' custody rights only means "protecting children" under that assumption; which is both sexist and empirically questionable.

And how about we don't talk about what NOW would do

What feminist groups have said from day one, before parental-alienation-as-disorder had as much as a chance to be falsified. It's not a very distant hypothetical; anything and everything that is perceived as favoring

Meanwhile, men are getting more than their fair share of custody in custody disputes according to studies

Within the fraction brought to court. Which, we would note, mandating a presumption of joint physical custody in dispute would actually mitigate, in the event bias towards men existed.

As I've mentioned, since this is a very small [and non-representative minority] does not show bias in favor of men. It's a little like looking at the rate at which black men with doctorates are hired for tenure-track positions to see if higher education is fair to black men; a great deal of discrimination happens in earlier stages. Lax enforcement of custody arrangements when women take more than their fair share; that shows bias in favor of women.

[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.

[Forsher]

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.

We need a maths lesson at this point.

We have 100 frogs.

29 have black spots.

29 have muddy feet.

You would tell us that all the black spotted frogs have muddy feet...

[Frisivisia]

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.

We need a maths lesson at this point.

We have 100 frogs.

29 have black spots.

29 have muddy feet.

You would tell us that all the black spotted frogs have muddy feet...

To be fair, it is possible, though extremely unlikely.

[Forsher]

We need a maths lesson at this point.

We have 100 frogs.

29 have black spots.

29 have muddy feet.

You would tell us that all the black spotted frogs have muddy feet...

To be fair, it is possible, though extremely unlikely.

That is true, however, it is an unwise assumption, in fact I see no reason to be fair when the first assumption is that...

[Ladamesansmerci]

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.

We need a maths lesson at this point.

We have 100 frogs.

29 have black spots.

29 have muddy feet.

You would tell us that all the black spotted frogs have muddy feet...

You're presenting a case of independent occurrences, which statistically is unlikely. However, in the case Jocabia laid out, it would be more analogous to say black-spotted frogs are very likely to jump into mud. In that case, there is a statistical dependence between mud and spots, which makes the scenario of overlap between the two occurrences much more likely.

[Forsher]

We need a maths lesson at this point.

We have 100 frogs.

29 have black spots.

29 have muddy feet.

You would tell us that all the black spotted frogs have muddy feet...

You're presenting a case of independent occurrences, which statistically is unlikely. However, in the case Jocabia laid out, it would be more analogous to say black-spotted frogs are very likely to jump into mud. In that case, there is a statistical dependence between mud and spots, which makes the scenario of overlap between the two occurrences much more likely.

It's an illustration is the unlikelihood of each 29% being composed of exactly the same cases (based on the information provided).

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

And once you actually understand my post, I'll be quite happy.

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 searched your posts. Links you've introduced: http://life.familyeducation.com/stepfam ... 47616.html

"Studies you have linked to" is, as far as I can tell, a null set. You've quoted from this article, but didn't link to it.

Your link just mentions that only 2% of custody battles go to trial. The study you quote from mentions men seeking custody in 57 out of 700 cases in one study And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the selection effect I'm mentioning. You are absolutely correct in saying that feeding the perception of court bias is incorrect; and clearer, more explicit judicial standards are a good way to address those concerns. You are, although you don't know it, giving a solid reason why more explicit judicial standards are a good thing; whether judges are in fact biased against men, or biased against women, defaulting to joint physical custody when custody is contested is a good way to prevent judges from committing wrongs by giving sole physical custody to an abuser, and clear explicit judicial standards will encourage parents to not simply assume that a bad parent has a credible threat of taking sole custody.

As your sole link also points out, an initial arrangement is not a permanent arrangement. The moment we have evidence of abuse by one parent, we can strip custody away from that parent fairly easily if there has been a joint custody arrangement in place; it becomes much more difficult, however, if the abusive parent has been granted sole custody.

Whether or not the father is a primary caretaker in 29% of these cases - your source for that (dating from an article published in 1990, no less) is not necessarily representative of the whole picture, being two and a half decades out of date and focusing on a single state - we are nevertheless looking at a small subset of divorces when we see fathers contesting custody.

There are generally five common possibilities for why we have a mother and father contesting custody.

1.) One parent is contesting custody as a tactical measure to obtain concessions in the divorce settlement by giving up those claims.
2.) One parent is contesting custody because they are abusive and wishes to continue abusing the children, while the other wishes to prevent future abuse.
3.) Both mother and father want to be involved but the divorce is very acrimonious, though neither parent is abusive.
4.) The father is contesting custody because otherwise, child support payments will severely suppress his well-being. (Since mothers are nearly never required to pay child support or alimony.)

If we are in a situation where (1) or (4) is the case, it will essentially be a contest of lawyer skill as much as actual evidence on the ground; unless either parent is obviously incompetent, gender biases and which parent has the better lawyer will have more to do with the outcome than anything else.

If (3) is the case, it is not fair, generally speaking, for the courts to favor one parent over the other unless there's a clear superiority of one parent's competence as a parent over the other. Since neither parent is materially abusive, "best interest" judicial discretion again allows gender bias and lawyer skill to resolve who ends up with custody.

If (2) is the case, it is generally easier to convince people that a man is abusive rather than that a woman is abusive; and thus, fathers would be less likely to succeed in case (2) on the abusive side and more likely to succeed in case (2) when the mother is the abusive parent.

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.

That's not accounting for the selection bias. Currently, about one in five fathers are "primary caretakers." There's some rather significant "something elses" which determine when custody disputes arise.

(Note that it's not 71%-29% in any sample subset unless you're measuring badly; cases in which both parents contribute approximately equally mean that anyone claiming 71%-29% is either full of shit or using bad data.)

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.

"Study after study" that you haven't linked to?

You know, I linked to two studies contradicting this statement. I haven't seen any actual studies from you saying that joint custody is worse; just the op-ed pieces I linked to claiming it's worse.

I also haven't seen any studies saying vague standards are good.

I'll quote someone else: "The entrenchment of the best interest standard over the past forty years can be understood as arising from two quite different but interrelated sources. First, a political economy deadlock resulting from a gender war between advocates for fathers and mothers has deterred movement toward a more determinate rule. Second, judges are satisfied with the standard and unaware of its deficiencies because they believe mental health experts have the expertise to guide them in decisionmaking. But we have demonstrated that mental health experts are no better than judges in overcoming the challenges to verifiability that severely undermine the application of this indeterminate standard. These professionals have no special expertise in assessing credibility and therefore they cannot overcome the barriers created by the privacy of family information."

Judges are biased. Cases are decided on limited and often incorrect views of private information. This is in some cases sexist injustice against women. This is in some cases sexist injustice against men.

My complaint about the feminist movement in this instance is that feminist groups take every position that they do based on their perceptions of what will make it easier for women to obtain sole physical custody in disputes with men. This is not a laudable nor an egalitarian goal. I am not convinced those perceptions are even accurate; and I have noted numerous times in the past that some attempts to "help" women have myopically backfired.

(Hey, don't let the evidence sway you at all.)

Lack of evidence is decidedly unpersuasive.

Have you yet found anything in which shared physical custody is endorsed by a feminist group sometime in the last generation? Like you claimed was the case earlier, which I demanded you provide evidence of, repeatedly? Because if you have, you really should share; and if you haven't, you should just say, straightforwardly, that you don't have it.

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

[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.

[Bluefootedpig]

March is prostate cancer awareness month.


Also, campaigning for breast cancer awareness =/= sexism. Men can get it too y'know.

Just to be clear, for everyone in this thread:

There is no such thing as allocating too much money to curing a deadly disease that kills millions of people every year. The sooner you get that through your head the better. Who cares if breast cancer affects mainly women? Does that mean we should cut funding to breast cancer research on the grounds that it's sexist?

here is wiki on the months for march:

National Kidney Month
National Nutrition Month[1]
Women's History Month
Irish-American Heritage Month
Greek-American Heritage Month
National Brain Injury Awareness Month [2]
Endometriosis Awareness Month
Juvenile Arthritis Awareness Month
Self Harm Awareness Month
Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month
National Essential Tremor Awareness Month [3]

those are the aweness... so sorry, at least according to wiki, march is NOT prostate cancer month.

As far as funding, while yes it is good to cure any disease, would you also consider it good if every disease affecting white people where being cured, but if a disease only affected black people, we should ignore it? I think that would be discrimination, which brings us back here. Yes men can get breast cancer, but right now men live shorter lives than women, and yet majority of research is going into prolonging women's lives. That would be like saying that there is no such thing as "too rich" so we should give tax breaks to the wealthy.

[Bluefootedpig]

@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?

[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?

[Tahar Joblis]

5% of cases is not vanishingly small.

One in twenty. Yes, it is.

The judge is awarding sole custody in every single case where the father is the primary caregiver.

Definitely false.

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.

Unwarranted assumption identified.

So, in the perfect world for your argument, the judge is only wrong 7% of the time.

Which would be much less than the likely accuracy, but you never came up with 7% from anywhere - just like your 71% doesn't come from anywhere. Just pulled out of your ass by assuming that 0% of families involve both parents contributing roughly the same amount of time supervising the kids.

If 100% of cases of contested custody involved abusive women and not abusive men - your "best case" - then 100% of contested custody cases should be decided with sole custody for men.

I don't know what kind of math you're trying to invent, but we have enough free parameters to justify any presumption of "justice" happening ... based on unidentified characteristics of the small minority of couples who bring custody to court.

NOW gave clear reasons for why they oppose that law.

And those "clear reasons" consist of:

• 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.
• Joint custody is bad.

Which, I think, is a very bad set of reasons, and involves some claims of fact that aren't justified (2-4).

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.

Again, not a good set of reasons, again involving claims of fact that aren't justified.

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?

The outcomes. Where the vast majority of men give up custody in negotiations before even entering the courtroom.

Do we have clear evidence of bias within the courtrooms? Much harder to say, since - as we've demonstrated - we can use standards by which it seems biased against women, and standards by which it seems biased against men. We have clearly the perception of bias within the courtrooms, with both mothers' and fathers' groups claiming they have the short end of that stick, a perception that can only be fought by clearer and more explicit standards. Which you are opposed to.

Now, I'm repeating myself - again - but you claimed earlier that NOW openly and plainly supports joint custody, which I have contested:

But what you got from it is that NOW doesn't support join custody, which they openly and plainly do.

I have provided several cases in which NOW or the NY chapter attack joint custody in general and in some cases resolve to support "primary caregiver legislation." I have also seen a total absence of any evidence that NOW supports joint custody at all, let alone plainly and openly.

Would you like to admit error at this point?

[Gift-of-god]

Or, in other words, you thoroughly proved it. You fought, and fought hard. And shared custody would not even have been guaranteed by that effort.

The burden of proof lay on you to show that you were an involved parent, because the presumption is that even if you were challenging for custody, your claim is the weaker one.

I had no idea you were an expert on the Quebec legal system.

To be honest, I had no idea what the burden of proof was, or who had it, or what default arrangements there are. I wanted to walk into that courtroom with such an overwhelming amount of evidence that there would be absolutely no discussion whatsoever about my custody rights. I wanted to do the legal equivalent of bringing several automatic weapons to a knife fight, and I did.

When the fight is about something this important, you don't quibble about "burden of proof".

That's how the idea of sexual equality helped you. But the feminist movement? The political actions of feminism? That had nothing to do with it.

My mother is a feminist. She would consider herself part of the feminist movement. Please do not speak for her ever again.

In fact, look at the quotes above from NOW NYS; since your ex didn't want you to have joint custody, the NY chapter of NOW would oppose any legislation requiring that judges consider joint custody in cases just like yours.

None of this matters.

Fathers who are involved can get a huge amount of evidence easily, as I did.

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.

[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.

[Tahar Joblis]

When the fight is about something this important, you don't quibble about "burden of proof".

The issue is far too important not to pay attention to burden of proof on the policy level, however much you would claim to ignore the issue on the personal level.

My mother is a feminist. She would consider herself part of the feminist movement.

Your mother is not a feminist organization.

Please do not speak for her ever again.

I'm not. Please don't conflate individuals with social movements ever again.

None of this matters.

All of this matters.

Fathers who are involved can get a huge amount of evidence easily, as I did.

Documentation, it's not something that all people generate equally...

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.

Both parents continuing to see the child as often as they did prior to the divorce would mean some form of joint physical custody in nearly every case nowadays. The typical father - not the "exceptionally involved" type - is spending maybe half as much time with the kids as the typical mother.

That's rather like splitting weekends with dad with weeks with mom. (In fact, with Dad typically working more hours during the week, a lot of kids can expect to have most of their Dad-time on the weekends.)

If I'm not greatly mistaken, the median divorced father has well under 10% of the contact with his children than the mother does. Which would, in other words, mean that according to your normative statement, we ought to be trying to keep Dad in the custody loop more.