Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   "If a husband threatens to murder his wife with a gun, that's her problem, not the cops'." Was this from: A) Elliot Rodger's manifesto B) some MRA douche-blogger or C) "Reverend" Pat Robertson   ( rawstory.com) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

8253 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jun 2014 at 5:02 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



305 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-06-11 07:46:12 PM  

if_i_really_have_to: spamdog: Where the hell did all these guys come from, anyway? What did they do before this MRA stuff blew up?

Before, their privilege and opinions were unchallenged.  99% of society at least passively supported their thoughts and feelings.

Now people are actually calling them out on their bullshiat, and they don't like it.


As with everything in life, everyone involved holds some of the blame.
 
2014-06-11 07:46:31 PM  

Empty H: In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.


The key word is "empathy," isn't it?  While I agree with most of what I've read of his comments in the thread, his analogy doesn't allow for empathy. Either that, or else more information is needed about the person who was kicked in the shin and the circumstance of the shin-kicking. But as a simple parallel the way he's stated it, it doesn't strike me as being a good one.
 
2014-06-11 07:46:33 PM  

ciberido: Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

Your lies are tiresome.  Try some new material.


All it takes is more than one feminist to think they have that monopoly and then make false claims about MRAs for him to be right. Two feminists in all of feminism living up to his statement makes it correct. I'd say that's highly likely. So instead of accusing him of lying maybe you should be saying

#notallfeminists

/disclaimer: Because People in power are Stupid must have a whole lot more power than I'd give him credit for based on his posts
 
2014-06-11 07:47:29 PM  

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.


Your statement is only sort of true and only sort of true if you restrict it to family courts since 1910, when family courts basically came into existence.

Before that, when custody issues came before the court, so called  patriarchal ideas about gender roles ruled in favor of the father for a very long time and then swung with the growing feminist movement to be in favor of the mother.

So in fact, in truth, you are actually completely wrong on the history and in your claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_interests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_court

Now however, your statement is very truthy.

It is feminist groups, not fathers rights groups, who time and again lobby against shared custody and lobby to retain primary custody systems and other laws that favor the mother.

http://www.nomas.org/node/244
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1po78q/do_you_think_fe mi nists_should_support_a/


A very prominent 2nd wave feminist, Karen DeCrow died just this week. She was a strong proponent of shared custody.

But she was just about the last one. That was 1977.

https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21752-karen-decrow- la st-now-president-to-support-shared-parenting-dies

I gather from your comments here you think you know quite a bit about a father's rights movement, based on comments and posts you read on the net, but I actually don't think you've done much research. Many of your opinions seem shaped by cant, not by historical fact, reasoning, or reading into what the Father's Rights groups have to say.

I would greatly encourage you to place the national parents organization blog on your feed list.

https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog

Here are some other interesting blogs you might wish to read:

http://www.dadsrights.org/  - written by Anne Mitchell, attorney

http://parentalalienationsupport.com/

http://sometimesdaddiescry.blogspot.com/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/author/barbara-kay/
 
2014-06-11 07:51:55 PM  

ciberido: Whereas, with MRAs, so far as I know nobody every tells a guy, "Hey, you must be an MRA!" or "What are you, some kind of MRA?"


First "guys cant pee while hard" and now this. Just stop. You have no idea. I've been called MRA for saying I've never raped anyone. It's one of the first things people pull on you when you acknowledge any type of female privilege whatsoever.
 
2014-06-11 07:52:21 PM  

timujin: Empty H: timujin: Empty H: Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain. The headline was about "douche-bloggers". Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline. Are you a "douche-blogger"?

Really? I try to point out how your argument is invalid and you insinuate that I am a "douche-blogger". Out of all the ways you could have responded you chose that one. That is really sad.

I actually wasn't on either side of the argument but just wanted to point out that your argument of "If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain. If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't." makes no sense. But I am sure you already know that. Your attack on me shows that you know it doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't attacking you or your position, I was trying to give you a chance to say it a different way.

No, I did not insinuate anything, I asked you a question.   I assumed the answer to the question would be "no, I'm not a douche-blogger", which means that the headline wasn't about you.  That was my point.  If the guy who was all up in arms about the headline isn't a "douche-blogger" then he doesn't have a reason to be offended by it.  I am not sure how you failed to comprehend that.

The earlier comment about shins was made to evoke the same meaning. "If it's not about you, why are you taking offense?" restated metaphorically as "If you weren't the one kicked in the shins, why are you complaining about the pain?"

In response to your first paragraph:

...Anyway.

In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.

So your contention is that if you see someone kicked in the shin, then you personally feel pain?  To quote, well, you, "...Anyway."

Fine, I won't bother with metaphor, I'll simply restate.  The headline was about "MRA douche-bloggers", not even in whole, but only as part of a larger joke.  Dude #1 took serious offense and then came into the thread and made a big scene about how MRA's were being persecuted by feminists.  I pointed out that he was overreacting and he ramped up his "I'm the victim here" posts.  Dude #2 got involved and I pointed out, using a metaphor, that if the headline wasn't about Dude #1, then he shouldn't be acting offended by it.  You stuck your nose into the middle of a conversation because you didn't understand what I was talking about.  My analogy had relevance to the discussion I was having with Dude #2, not to the contents of the link the headline referred to.


You were having a public conversation and I pointed out that your metaphor was incorrect. I had assumed you understood the basic idea of empathy, and that you also had empathy for other humans, and maybe you were trying to say something else. It is now obvious that my assumption, possibly even both, were wrong.
 
2014-06-11 07:52:23 PM  

LazyMedia: To be fair, you were white-knighting a whiner, not actually whining. But Jesus, HE was whining.


DrBenway: Yeah, but his white-knighting was more-than-a-little-bit tinged with passive-aggressive whining. Resorting to that sort of defensiveness is not an endearing quality.


Please cite where I have white knighted anyone in this thread. This one should also be easy.

Oh, and passive aggressive? How the fark have I been passive aggressive?

Denigrating your opponents by attempting to emasculate them: whining, defensiveness, passive-aggressiveness - nice!

Look, I get it: any man that has the audacity to say "hey, this might just be unfair" is no man at all, right? Men are stoic, and tough. We don't complain, so any man that does is obviously no man.

Tell me more about those patriarchal gender roles I've heard so much about, because you guys seem to be applying a full court press of them at them moment.
 
2014-06-11 07:54:17 PM  

Empty H: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.

Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."


Except he DID say that the kids shouldn't call the cops and get dad busted. It should be left to Mommy to deal with it.
 
2014-06-11 07:56:48 PM  

DrBenway: Empty H: In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.

The key word is "empathy," isn't it?  While I agree with most of what I've read of his comments in the thread, his analogy doesn't allow for empathy. Either that, or else more information is needed about the person who was kicked in the shin and the circumstance of the shin-kicking. But as a simple parallel the way he's stated it, it doesn't strike me as being a good one.


It was intended as a parallel to getting offended because of a joke made about a group that doesn't include you, not about the topic the thread is actually about.  However, sine the topic is about someone having issue with something happening to someone else, I can understand the confusion.
 
2014-06-11 08:00:17 PM  

Theaetetus: Empty H: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.

Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."

Maybe Mikey thinks that counts as supporting Pat? You know, if you can't criticize 100% of what someone does or says, then you must support them 100%, everything is a complete dichotomy, us vs. them, go team, rah rah rah!


That was what I referencing, yes.  Thank you.
 
2014-06-11 08:00:42 PM  

Empty H: You were having a public conversation and I pointed out that your metaphor was incorrect. I had assumed you understood the basic idea of empathy, and that you also had empathy for other humans, and maybe you were trying to say something else. It is now obvious that my assumption, possibly even both, were wrong.


Using a situation that involved pain was not the ideal metaphor, especially considering the actual topic of the thread.
 
2014-06-11 08:04:58 PM  

aagrajag: timujin: Elegy: timujin: If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.

That's right. Talking about any inequality you face makes you sound like a victimized, whiny crybaby.

Toughen up men. Just suck it up and take it. You don't need to voice your opinion when you see something you think is unfair. You're a man. Be a man. Be tough.

Just suck it up, you crybaby.

You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.

No.

If you were a black man, and there were to appear a headline including the phrase "negro gangbangers", would you not be somewhat annoyed at the co-location of a highly negative adjective with a perfectly benign one? It's a deliberately insulting conflation.


and the best way to counter it is to come into a thread like this and act like an MRA douche-blogger?
 
2014-06-11 08:07:16 PM  

timujin: Empty H: You were having a public conversation and I pointed out that your metaphor was incorrect. I had assumed you understood the basic idea of empathy, and that you also had empathy for other humans, and maybe you were trying to say something else. It is now obvious that my assumption, possibly even both, were wrong.

Using a situation that involved pain was not the ideal metaphor, especially considering the actual topic of the thread.


This is probably going to sound way too "feely" but that is seriously all I was trying to say. I had you Favorited and thus expected better.

Okay, so um, how about that local sports team.
 
2014-06-11 08:14:26 PM  

Elegy: LazyMedia: To be fair, you were white-knighting a whiner, not actually whining. But Jesus, HE was whining.

DrBenway: Yeah, but his white-knighting was more-than-a-little-bit tinged with passive-aggressive whining. Resorting to that sort of defensiveness is not an endearing quality.

Please cite where I have white knighted anyone in this thread. This one should also be easy.

Oh, and passive aggressive? How the fark have I been passive aggressive?

Denigrating your opponents by attempting to emasculate them: whining, defensiveness, passive-aggressiveness - nice!

Look, I get it: any man that has the audacity to say "hey, this might just be unfair" is no man at all, right? Men are stoic, and tough. We don't complain, so any man that does is obviously no man.

Tell me more about those patriarchal gender roles I've heard so much about, because you guys seem to be applying a full court press of them at them moment.


Uh, dude... maybe just stop typing?

Unless this is some sort of performance art, that is, in which case I enthusiastically applaud your efforts.
 
2014-06-11 08:22:16 PM  

Relatively Obscure: D) No one?


This.  Pat Robertson says plenty of things we can legitimately biatch about without needing to make shiat up.  You suck, Subby.

/you don't help by making shiat up, because when someone else points out that your complaint is made up, even those making legitimate complaints lose credibility
 
2014-06-11 08:26:26 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

What if the mother doesn't do after being repeatedly abused and/or threatened by her husband? Are the children supposed to watch daddy mistreating & threatening their mother and take no action?

Is it emotionally damaging to a child to see and hear one parent mistreating the other.


It's also emotionally damaging to be the kid who sent daddy to jail.  I'm not snarking; I want you to consider how that's going to scar a child, because you known damn well that is how the kid is going to internalize it.  I don't agree with Pat Robertson about much, but I don't think it was bad advice to tell the kid: go tell your mother that you're scared and something needs to change.
 
2014-06-11 08:28:38 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-11 08:29:00 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: They also have been known to pull fire alarms to prevent anyone from discussing gender equality.


I remember seeing that youtube video.  It just made me want to listen to the guy more.  I mean, if what he was going to say was going to be so bad, they wouldn't NEED to shout him down.
 
2014-06-11 08:45:35 PM  

DrBenway: Uh, dude... maybe just stop typing?

Unless this is some sort of performance art, that is, in which case I enthusiastically applaud your efforts.


Uh, dude, the sum of your arguments here amount to: he's whining, he's white knighting a whiner, he's passive aggressive.

I have directly challenged you to show where I have done any of the above in this thread. The words are right there on the screen.

You're response: "lalala stop typing"

Truly, you are a master debater.
 
2014-06-11 08:51:10 PM  

Theaetetus: Empty H: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.

Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."

Maybe Mikey thinks that counts as supporting Pat? You know, if you can't criticize 100% of what someone does or says, then you must support them 100%, everything is a complete dichotomy, us vs. them, go team, rah rah rah!


Sorry, but trying to claim that he didn't say that is utter bullshiat.

He says "You don't want to get your father busted"

He says the daughter should 'take the discussion to her mother' to tell her it scares her.

Finally, he says the "mother" should take care of it.

So I'm still not sure how he didn't say that. It's exactly what he said "don't call the cops on daddy, mommy will just have to figure it out on her own".
 
2014-06-11 08:52:40 PM  

Elegy: DrBenway: Uh, dude... maybe just stop typing?

Unless this is some sort of performance art, that is, in which case I enthusiastically applaud your efforts.

Uh, dude, the sum of your arguments here amount to: he's whining, he's white knighting a whiner, he's passive aggressive.

I have directly challenged you to show where I have done any of the above in this thread. The words are right there on the screen.

You're response: "lalala stop typing"

Truly, you are a master debater.


He or she actually hasn't made any "arguments". He or she has only engaged in name calling and dismissals.

I have no idea why DrBenway thinks what I wrote is addle brained and she or he did not bother to explain why to us, but most likely could not explain why.

Nevertheless, I am confident DrBenway feels she or he has unlocked "Master of Thread" accomplishments.

Such is FARK, such is modern day Internet fora.
 
2014-06-11 08:54:35 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-11 08:56:35 PM  

brimed03: Bathia_Mapes: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

What if the mother doesn't do after being repeatedly abused and/or threatened by her husband? Are the children supposed to watch daddy mistreating & threatening their mother and take no action?

Is it emotionally damaging to a child to see and hear one parent mistreating the other.

It's also emotionally damaging to be the kid who sent daddy to jail.  I'm not snarking; I want you to consider how that's going to scar a child, because you known damn well that is how the kid is going to internalize it.  I don't agree with Pat Robertson about much, but I don't think it was bad advice to tell the kid: go tell your mother that you're scared and something needs to change.


I don't think anyone is arguing with that. The point that's being made though, best I can tell, is that there are intances in which the mother is not just physically battered but psychologically battered, sometimes quite severely. That can result in a sort of paralysis where they can't do much of anything no matter whether they want to or not. You hear a lot about "fight or flight" but less about the third "F": freeze. That's the circumstance that I'm picturing anyway, and I'm not seeing how it's right to hold that against the mother in that case.
 
2014-06-11 09:22:05 PM  

timujin: DrBenway: Empty H: In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.

The key word is "empathy," isn't it?  While I agree with most of what I've read of his comments in the thread, his analogy doesn't allow for empathy. Either that, or else more information is needed about the person who was kicked in the shin and the circumstance of the shin-kicking. But as a simple parallel the way he's stated it, it doesn't strike me as being a good one.

It was intended as a parallel to getting offended because of a joke made about a group that doesn't include you, not about the topic the thread is actually about.  However, sine the topic is about someone having issue with something happening to someone else, I can understand the confusion.


Got it. No problem.
 
2014-06-11 09:23:40 PM  
At least now I know how to get a Fark insta-green: just put "MRA" in the headline.
 
2014-06-11 09:26:08 PM  

HideAndGoFarkYourself: freewill: HideAndGoFarkYourself: When you're staring at somebody waving a gun at your mother in anger, you call the police.  You don't HOPE that your dad decides not to kill your mom that day, then talk to your mom later and get her to call the police.  If mom was interested in the police being called, she'd have done it, or she's so terrified of her husband that she's not going to call regardless of how scared little Timmy is.  The time for a family discussion is after daddy gets out of rehab, or mommy gets a divorce.  It's a lot easier to counsel a kid that calling the police was the right thing, and that he ultimately may have saved a life, than it is to counsel a kid that his inaction was part of the reason his mommy got killed in front of him.

I was assuming that Robertson was not responding to a situation that was occurring in real-time. As in, I didn't think his father was pointing the gun at his mother while Robertson was giving the kid instructions, so it was not, in fact, an emergency at that very moment. I do agree that in the moment, calling 911 is the right thing to do.

Robertson was pretty clear with the kid that his father is going to kill his mother eventually and something has to be done.

tiamet4: Also, he should not be asking his mom to "talk to his dad about getting help".  He should be asking his mom to get him the hell out of this situation.

I can agree with this completely. If "help" is limited to asking him to please stop and see a therapist, then Robertson's answer is certainly wrong. LIke I said, I understand how it could be read that way, but I read it as "you need to tell her this isn't OK and to do something, she knows what that means".

When I hear "help" in the context of a violent psycho, I hear "Baker Act".

/ Alternately, "shoot him first, mom."

So, the lesson to the kid is that it's not his responsibility to report criminal behavior?  I agree, the mom SHOULD be the one reporting it.  That it's happened more than once is pretty ...



This exactly what he said.

Well again, you dont want to get your father busted but you could, uhmm you know, umm.
What do you mean?
Well misuse of a firearm.
You ought to go to your mother and say "mom this thing is scaring me and and I I'ah
will ask you please to get my fa, father to have some help."
This is the kind of *incomprehensible* I mean one day he is going to pull the trigger
It doesnt take too much if you have got a loaded weapon that you are brandishing
around.
I'm gonna kill you and the next thing you know the thing goes off, maybe accidently but you mother winds up dead
You are a kid, what are you going to do? Your mother ought to take care of that.


Since you don't understand english I will explain what this sentence implies.
"Well again, you dont want to get your father busted but you could, uhmm you know, umm."

Lets break this sentence down, "Well again", this is in reference to a previous remark he said.

"you dont want to get your father busted but you could", from this you get what he was talking about in past, about turning people in, probably in a previous question.  Instead of saying exactly what he probably said before, "but you could" as in you could call the police.  Since he has gone down this road before he cites the previous solution quickly, because he figures people have been watching his show remember the last few minutes of the show.  Then he gives an alternative solution because turning your dad in sucks, and if they could actually do it, they would have done it already.  The obvious solution is obvious, the *kid* that posed this question wanted an alternative solution to calling the cops on his Dad.

Please stop commenting until your brain fully matures. (this may never happen)  Actually I am totally kidding please continue, your dumbness makes life so colorful.
 
2014-06-11 09:27:52 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

What if the mother doesn't do after being repeatedly abused and/or threatened by her husband? Are the children supposed to watch daddy mistreating & threatening their mother and take no action?

Is it emotionally damaging to a child to see and hear one parent mistreating the other.


^^^ ^^^^
OMG this! (thanks Bathia_Mapes)

Yes - its incredibly hurtful to the kids (and their future relationships) to see that behavior continue.
 
2014-06-11 09:28:47 PM  
Oh oh oh, I know it...it's the SCOTUS in the Castle Rock V, Gonzales case
 
2014-06-11 09:31:36 PM  

RoyBatty: Such is FARK, such is modern day Internet fora.


Too true. I'd be much more impressed if anybody would brings anything to the table besides the old, tired, whining trope.

How's life been? Haven't seen you around since the Eliot Rogers thing, but then again I haven't been around much.

fusillade762: At least now I know how to get a Fark insta-green: just put "MRA" in the headline.


Works for anything loony radfem too. It helped that subby was a liar and most people - with the exception of a few holdouts - came to the conclusion that Robertson's advice was actually rather reasonable, all things considered.
Once you realize TFA is pretty boring, what else is there to talk about besides people's naughty parts?
 
2014-06-11 09:32:05 PM  

jst3p: On this note some are coming around. I have 50/50 custody in Colorado and I didn't have to fight for it, the court are more accepting of recent research that shows that kids can thrive in a situation where they have two homes if it is done properly. Logistics can be tricky and getting along with the ex can be trying but it can work.


i know your story, and I bet you know at least some of mine, but I have never seen a situation where one of the parents got full custody, no matter how many claims there were of domestic violence or drug abuse. This went out years ago. In any divorce that i've been aware of for most of my life, custody is split. And I've done a few rounds (years) in family court. If the parents move apart, usually one parent gets the kids for the school year, then the other gets them during the summer. If they live close to each other, the old "Wednesday night and every other weekend" applies for the non-custodial parent. This is the standard write-up for a custody order, I saw it from every lawyer I ever met, and it didn't vary much. The idea is that the kids need to be in one home during the school week, it's better for them.

But here's the thing: you aren't required to stick with the custody order to the letter, if you can work something else out. That is just the minimum required. If you're still on speaking terms with the ex, you all can work out anything you want. Swap the kids every single school night, if you can deal with each other. In fact, if you can trick your ex into giving you more and more time, you can then petition the courts to let you have that custody officially. Jst3p might know a little about that one.

Now, probably a man will have trouble getting primary custody still, but think about it, guys--before you split, who took care of the kids most of the time? It may have been you--maybe your ex-wife is a coke fiend who lives down at the bar--but in most instances, it was the wife dealing with the kids.

You know why MRAs are so loud and strident about their rights being denied? BECAUSE THEY'RE MEN. That's what men do. I have yet to see this overwhelming bias against men having any custodial rights. Women get farked over just as often as men do. We just don't go on a shooting spree over it.
/Now make sure and tell me about your MAN friend who was totally screwed.
//I was screwed worse. Spare me.
 
2014-06-11 09:37:10 PM  

nanim: Bathia_Mapes: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

What if the mother doesn't do after being repeatedly abused and/or threatened by her husband? Are the children supposed to watch daddy mistreating & threatening their mother and take no action?

Is it emotionally damaging to a child to see and hear one parent mistreating the other.

^^^ ^^^^
OMG this! (thanks Bathia_Mapes)

Yes - its incredibly hurtful to the kids (and their future relationships) to see that behavior continue.


I don't know, what would be the alternative? Robertson is pointing the "kid" - and I say that in the same sense that penthouse forum publishes "true stories" - to the seemingly only trusted adult in his or her life.

As someone pointed out, the emotional scarring of sending your daddy to jail and having your co-dependent mommy hate you for it is also rather large.

As someone else pointed out, the potential danger from abusive daddy when abusive daddy realized kid just called the cop on him is also not inconsequential.

There are no perfect answers here. "Go tell your mom that this scares you and she needs to make it stop" is not a bad answer, or at least a less bad answer, than many others he could have given.
 
2014-06-11 09:38:57 PM  

cryinoutloud: jst3p: snip--but in most instances, it was the wife dealing with the kids. ...


cdn.pophangover.com
 
2014-06-11 09:41:07 PM  

cryinoutloud: jst3p: On this note some are coming around. I have 50/50 custody in Colorado and I didn't have to fight for it, the court are more accepting of recent research that shows that kids can thrive in a situation where they have two homes if it is done properly. Logistics can be tricky and getting along with the ex can be trying but it can work.

i know your story, and I bet you know at least some of mine, but I have never seen a situation where one of the parents got full custody, no matter how many claims there were of domestic violence or drug abuse. This went out years ago. In any divorce that i've been aware of for most of my life, custody is split. And I've done a few rounds (years) in family court. If the parents move apart, usually one parent gets the kids for the school year, then the other gets them during the summer. If they live close to each other, the old "Wednesday night and every other weekend" applies for the non-custodial parent. This is the standard write-up for a custody order, I saw it from every lawyer I ever met, and it didn't vary much. The idea is that the kids need to be in one home during the school week, it's better for them.

But here's the thing: you aren't required to stick with the custody order to the letter, if you can work something else out. That is just the minimum required. If you're still on speaking terms with the ex, you all can work out anything you want. Swap the kids every single school night, if you can deal with each other. In fact, if you can trick your ex into giving you more and more time, you can then petition the courts to let you have that custody officially. Jst3p might know a little about that one.

Now, probably a man will have trouble getting primary custody still, but think about it, guys--before you split, who took care of the kids most of the time? It may have been you--maybe your ex-wife is a coke fiend who lives down at the bar--but in most instances, it was the wife dealing with the kids. ...


Well I kind of know your story, and I have always sympathized, and no women don't shoot up their kids, sometimes they drown them, sometimes they repeatedly run over the father, and yes, whoops, sometimes they do shoot them down dead.

https://www.google.com/search?espv=2&q=woman+shoots+her+children
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/05/05/schenecker-julie-opening-sta te ments-murder-trial-florida

The standard deal, the every other weekend and Wednesday nights is a horror show ,and encourages the custodial parent to chip away at the hours on Wednesday, and the drop off time on Friday and the pick up time on Sunday, and offer the kids a chance to go to a football game if they ask their dad for permission to go to that football game on his Saturday but they have to ask, or a birthday party, or a shopping trip to the mall, and how often can Dad really say "no"?

You may not see the bias, but it's there. It's there in how quickly courts and states and police act against parents who do not pay custody, but how they make parents whose custody is being interfered with file a suit in civil court on their own dime and wait months and months and pay for attorneys and court psychs and delays and delays and literally years go by and nothing has been done to enforce custody.

And while in your scenario, mom was dealing with the kids? Dad was working one or more jobs that probably sucked just trying to keep a roof over everyone's head.
 
2014-06-11 09:45:28 PM  

Elegy: RoyBatty: Such is FARK, such is modern day Internet fora.

Too true. I'd be much more impressed if anybody would brings anything to the table besides the old, tired, whining trope.

How's life been? Haven't seen you around since the Eliot Rogers thing, but then again I haven't been around much.


As FARK gets more polarized, I visit less often too. We used to be able to have these discussions and they were discussions. Now everyone leaps to be the first to play the troll/whiner/whatever card.

The interesting discussions come up when Mikey1969 and cryinoutloud and other people reveal personal experiences -- those are real, give one pause and make one think -- and then the discussions are shutdown with cries of MRA!!, Feminazi!! and other kind of bullshiat.
 
2014-06-11 09:47:52 PM  

timujin: aagrajag: timujin: Elegy: timujin: If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.

That's right. Talking about any inequality you face makes you sound like a victimized, whiny crybaby.

Toughen up men. Just suck it up and take it. You don't need to voice your opinion when you see something you think is unfair. You're a man. Be a man. Be tough.

Just suck it up, you crybaby.

You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.

No.

If you were a black man, and there were to appear a headline including the phrase "negro gangbangers", would you not be somewhat annoyed at the co-location of a highly negative adjective with a perfectly benign one? It's a deliberately insulting conflation.

and the best way to counter it is to come into a thread like this and act like an MRA douche-blogger?


There are some people here who are Not Helping, 'tis true, but the objection itself is quite valid.
 
2014-06-11 09:48:16 PM  

RoyBatty: Elegy: DrBenway: Uh, dude... maybe just stop typing?

Unless this is some sort of performance art, that is, in which case I enthusiastically applaud your efforts.

Uh, dude, the sum of your arguments here amount to: he's whining, he's white knighting a whiner, he's passive aggressive.

I have directly challenged you to show where I have done any of the above in this thread. The words are right there on the screen.

You're response: "lalala stop typing"

Truly, you are a master debater.

He or she actually hasn't made any "arguments". He or she has only engaged in name calling and dismissals.

I have no idea why DrBenway thinks what I wrote is addle brained and she or he did not bother to explain why to us, but most likely could not explain why.

Nevertheless, I am confident DrBenway feels she or he has unlocked "Master of Thread" accomplishments.

Such is FARK, such is modern day Internet fora.


To me, anyway, your little checklist was eminently dismissible, for the reasons I noted, albeit less than diplomatically, and for that I apologize. That "Because" guy (the one who Elegy totally wasn't white-knighting) had already made me edgy and you caught some of the spillover. Again, sorry about that. Anyway, each one of those brief scenarios you offered present a substantial number of variables that influence any "yes" or "no" response to them. Do you really see them as being straightforwardly black and white, purely this way or that?

As far as the other fellow goes, everything he has typed in this thread exemplifies the basis of my complaints, hence the bolding of his entire comment in the last instance. Short of repeating every single remark he's made, that was to me a fine example of what I had observed. Being defensive and thin-skinned is a pretty good way to attract responses that one might not like, and their apparent lack of self-awareness doesn't help matters. Given where he appears to stand on the root issue here, there is no small irony to that. "How I am not self-aware? Show me where I'm not self-aware!" I can hear it now...

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
2014-06-11 09:50:31 PM  

Elegy: timujin: If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.

That's right. Talking about any inequality you face makes you sound like a victimized, whiny crybaby.


No.  But the pathetically-obvious straw-man you've just built DOES make you sound like a whiny crybaby.

I don't think anyone outside of your imagination denies that some of the points MRAs make are legitimate concerns.  Domestic abuse and child custody are two areas where there are biases in the court system (and in law enforcement) that need to be addressed.

But, even with that, there are two major problems.  First, these are the very positions on which the MRAs and most feminists agree.  So there would be no need for a "MRA movement" if domestic violence and child custody were all that the "men's rights movement" was about --- you could just become a feminist.

Second, the majority of what "men's rights" seem to be about are aversion and distrust of women, or a desire to preserve as much as possible the inequalities and injustices that feminists are trying to fight.  So the few good points they have are buried under a toxic brew of resentment, hostility, and a selfish desire to preserve injustice, which makes all claims to be FOR justice seem like risible hypocrisy.

In short, put your house in order, get rid of the toxic resentment and childish complaints about how evil women are, and then people will start to take the men's rights movement seriously.
 
2014-06-11 09:51:02 PM  
If the kid is old enough to reach out to Pat Robertson for advice, the kid is old enough to call the cops, go to a neighbors house, or tell a teacher. Advising the kid to talk to mom sounds like a great way to guilt Mom into confronting Dad, and possibly getting herself shot in the process. Her blase attitude is a defense mechanism to avoid provoking Dad any further. And if Daddy shoots Mommy, continuing the job by offing the kids, then himself is entirely within the realm of possibility.

Nowhere does Pat suggest that maybe the kid being removed from the home, regardless of what Mommy does, might be a good idea for the health and well-being of the kids?
 
2014-06-11 10:00:01 PM  
Came for the MRA butthurt. Left satisfied.
 
2014-06-11 10:06:42 PM  

RoyBatty: Dad was working one or more jobs that probably sucked just trying to keep a roof over everyone's head.


Well, that's the thing. I mean, talking about custody, rates really haven't changed in the past 20 years. I know you're a well read guy, so here's some some source material from the census bureau for you

At table 1, the proportion of custodial mothers in 1995 to custodial fathers in 2009 remained largely the same: 11,000,000 mothers to 2,000,000 fathers. So actually, men aren't receiving custody more often.

Family courts are also about more than custody of course. Table 2 shows that only 30% of men received child support, while almost 55% of women received child support. Men are also better at paying: only 34% of men received all child support payments while 42% of women received all child support - the proportion of out and out deadbeats was roughly the same between genders, with 27% of men never receiving any payments versus 29% of women. And on page 5, custodial mothers were more likely to not work than custodial fathers, and were more than twice as likely to be on some form of government assistance.

RoyBatty: As FARK gets more polarized, I visit less often too. We used to be able to have these discussions and they were discussions. Now everyone leaps to be the first to play the troll/whiner/whatever card.

The interesting discussions come up when Mikey1969 and cryinoutloud and other people reveal personal experiences -- those are real, give one pause and make one think -- and then the discussions are shutdown with cries of MRA!!, Feminazi!! and other kind of bullshiat.


I know right? It's not even that it makes me mad, it's just so damn boring and unoriginal. I don't care if someone disagrees with me, but the same 3 lines over and over again, with no room for actual discussion.... Yawn.
 
2014-06-11 10:08:35 PM  

DrBenway: Do you really see them as being straightforwardly black and white, purely this way or that?


With what we are given in the video, I think it boils down to what I laid out.

The child is a child.
The adult is an adult.

While there is an unhinged person running around with a gun, I would never suggest the child call the cops except as a last resort. I would suggest try and leave the house and find a neighbor and have them call the police.

The child is a child.
The adult is an adult.
The person with the gun has ran around several times with a gun.

When the incident is over, I would still not suggest the child go first to the cops. The child should be directed to find an authority figure. Mom, a neighbor, or a teacher.

It truly is Mom's responsibility to protect her child when Dad is going off with the gun.

NOTHING, absolutely nothing in the scenario suggests mom is so battered she cannot act. That is what you and others are putting on top of the situation, and in doing so, you make the child responsible for the mother.

But the child is a child.
The parent is an adult.

Given what we are told, I see no reason to think the default position must be that mother is helpless and psychologically battered to the point that AFTER the attack she cannot go to the police.  That may indeed be a possibility, but that is what you have to hitch your argument to in order to morally justify telling a child to become responsible for the mother.

And I suspect it is a sexist belief on your part that takes you in that direction.

If the situation was reversed, and there are many fathers who physically do fear for their safety and their children's safety from abusive mothers, we would sympathize with the father, but we would tell the father it is his responsibility to get out, to call the police and make the child's environment safe.

So yes, stripped of how each of us want to project our bigotries and fears and suspicions onto the scenario, what we know is that

+ a child
+ an adult woman, the child's parent
+ were victimized by a man with a gun

And I say it is wrong to tell the child he has to be responsible for the mother before speaking to the mother first.

Telling the mother, "Dad scares me" is the right thing to do.
Telling the kid, "when this happens you must escape, and take your younger brother with you"
Telling the kid, "when this is over, let a teacher know"

Those are correct. Telling a kid to pick up a phone during a gun confrontation is idiotic and dangerous and sexist and likely to wind up with the kid dead and many other members of the family.
 
2014-06-11 10:19:47 PM  

Elegy: RoyBatty: Dad was working one or more jobs that probably sucked just trying to keep a roof over everyone's head.

Well, that's the thing. I mean, talking about custody, rates really haven't changed in the past 20 years. I know you're a well read guy, so here's some some source material from the census bureau for you

At table 1, the proportion of custodial mothers in 1995 to custodial fathers in 2009 remained largely the same: 11,000,000 mothers to 2,000,000 fathers. So actually, men aren't receiving custody more often.

Family courts are also about more than custody of course. Table 2 shows that only 30% of men received child support, while almost 55% of women received child support. Men are also better at paying: only 34% of men received all child support payments while 42% of women received all child support - the proportion of out and out deadbeats was roughly the same between genders, with 27% of men never receiving any payments versus 29% of women. And on page 5, custodial mothers were more likely to not work than custodial fathers, and were more than twice as likely to be on some form of government assistance.



There's so much terrible logic at play in these discussions.

"I don't see a bias. Most men don't contest custody therefore I conclude it's reasonable for women to get custody more often".

Well, men don't contest custody for the same reason so many innocent people accept plea bargains marking them guilty.

+ Going to court is VERY VERY expensive
+ Regardless of the truth, they will probably lose

"When men go to court, they get custody 50% of the time"

+ Yes, when the very best cases go to court, when you've stripped off all the men who couldn't afford good lawyers, or haven't the documentation, and who have paid $25K to $250K or more to get to court, then at those times, it's a 50/50 chance the father might win.

All of that is indicative of bias, not indicative of no bias.

RoyBatty: As FARK gets more polarized, I visit less often too. We used to be able to have these discussions and they were discussions. Now everyone leaps to be the first to play the troll/whiner/whatever card.

The interesting discussions come up when Mikey1969 and cryinoutloud and other people reveal personal experiences -- those are real, give one pause and make one think -- and then the discussions are shutdown with cries of MRA!!, Feminazi!! and other kind of bullshiat.

I know right? It's not even that it makes me mad, it's just so damn boring and unoriginal. I don't care if someone disagrees with me, but the same 3 lines over and over again, with no room for actual discussion.... Yawn.


Exactly. Waste of time reading the same comments over and over. I visit threads that seem interesting, scan down the comments looking for either wit or insight or hopefully both, and then as soon as I see it hit a very rote and unoriginal political ad hominem blame game, I'm out. Sadly these days it seems like that's about 3 comments in on many threads.
 
2014-06-11 10:20:02 PM  

ciberido: aagrajag: I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?


Well, there's a limit to how much I know about the whole MRA thing.  For the most part I just ignore them.  So perhaps someone who knows more can comment, or maybe even someone who considers himself (or herself) and MRA can comment without coming across as having a seizure while posting.  But to take a stab at it, there are two reasons.

First, because "MRA" is a self-applied label.  You can post what you think about women's rights and other people will label you a feminist (or not a feminist) based on their criteria of what makes someone feminist (or not).  Of course you CAN label yourself a feminist (and many people do), but you may well find that other people assign you the title whether or not you want it or think it's fair.  Whereas, with MRAs, so far as I know nobody every tells a guy, "Hey, you must be an MRA!" or "What are you, some kind of MRA?"  You take it upon yourself.  That makes it more of a personal choice to identify with the group, which increases your responsibility for being associated with that group, and entitles other people to make judgments about you based on your association with that group, moreso than with some other ideologies, such as feminism.

(Of course I could be wrong about this, but you'd have to demonstrate it by giving an example of someone who was labeled a MRA without ever claiming the title himself first.)

Second, MRA has a pretty tight focus, whereas "feminism" is a broad category.  There are many different "waves" of feminism, with any number of issues that they disgree on.  Pornography is one example: there are some feminists who think porn is inherently misogynistic or anti-wom ...


I have to say that I would far rather identify myself as a humanist than an MRA, especially as the word has become poisoned of late. Many people perceive MRAs as a misogynist group of malcontents, with few real grievances because that fringe would be the ones to most loudly identify by that label.

There is a lot of confirmation bias going on these days. Perhaps we non-crazies need to start a "This is what an MRA looks like" campaign, just as feminists did before us. I very much have to admit that there are some seriously ugly undercurrents in what little I've seen of the on-line MRA communities (in which I do not participate).

I have a pet theory which states that the recent radicalization of the MRA movement is strongly tied to the bipolar nature of American politics: right and left, Dem and Repub. As feminism is largely aligned with the left, those who oppose its excesses (such as the staunch opposition to assumptive shared-parenting) will be drawn to the right, and often then poisoned with the genuine, vicious misogyny that so infects it. I've certainly read more than a few forums that bring out the Yourenothelpingjonstewart.jpg

But it's the casual dismissal of other genuine concerns that so aggrieves me: grotequely out-of-proportion rates of drop-outs, homelessness, imprisonment, workplace deaths and injuries, biased family law and courts, non-existent resources for male victims of domestic violence... none of these things affect me directly, but they hurt others. Yet somehow, the immediate assumption is that I have been personally injured by the system; that I have suffered personal injustice at the hands of feminism or some of the biased law it supports. I haven't. I'm a happy guy who was lucky enough to get to marry his best friend.

So why do I care? Because someone has to. I don't expect feminists to fight men's battles or tear down their own privileges. They advocate for their injustices; we advocate for ours. Men didn't wake up in the 1920s, slap their foreheads and exclaim: "Wow! We've been right dicks to these women who just want the vote! Here, have some franchise!" Whites didn't realise all of a sudden in the 1960s that they'd been royal assholes to black people and shower them with civil rights. Heterosexuals did not unilaterally grant marriage right to gays. Each group had to biatch and march and complain and sue over and over for redress of its grievances. And -- just like MRAs -- each group was perceived by the "other", the group that held a privilege in that area of society, not as advocating for what they deserved as equal human beings: the vote, civil right, marriage, but as wreckers of society:

"The suffragettes don't just want the vote! They want to destroy the family!"
"The black don't just want civil rights! They want to oppress the white man!"
"Gays don't just want marriage rights! They want to destroy the family (again) and turn your children gay!"

So, it is only to be expected that MRAs would get the same treatment, sad though it be.

I should also note that while I don't always agree with the *female* feminists or Fark, I can always have a rational and civil discussion with them. It always seems to be the males who step into the Limbaugh-feminazi-stereotype. They do exist, but they aren't plaid-clad, workboot-wearing, buzzcut-sporting lesbians; they're straight men. Ah, we are always our own worst enemies.

But, to those men who haven't been abused, who haven't suffered a serious injustice in family court, who haven't had the law wielded as a sword by a mentally ill woman: there is a word we use around here for people who don't care about injustice until it affects you personally:

Republicans.

//this screed is not directed at you ciberido; just had to get some things out there.
//cheers everyone, and try not to take anything too seriously that does not need to be
//also, slashies
 
2014-06-11 10:28:28 PM  

fusillade762: At least now I know how to get a Fark insta-green: just put "MRA" in the headline.


What the hell IS MRA anyway?

Michigan Rape Attorney? MaxioRectalAbrasions? Mars Rovers Anonymous? Mom's Rockin' Applesauce?

Whatever it is, it seems to have taken up more space on this board than if someone posted the uncut version of The Stand. ..
 
2014-06-11 10:29:25 PM  

RoyBatty: With what we are given in the video, I think it boils down to what I laid out.


I frankly saw no reference to a video and took your checklist as something general and not referring to a specific example. Are you referring to the Robertson clip on the link? You appear to be reading a lot more into the very brief scenario they discuss and fleshing it out with a lot more details than what I heard. Is there another video you're referring to? I really don't see how you can take something so abbreviated and produce so much black-and-white absolute certainty about the circumstances from it.

Again, if there's another video or some other source you're referencing that has provided more detail, let me know.
 
2014-06-11 10:35:41 PM  

DrBenway: RoyBatty: With what we are given in the video, I think it boils down to what I laid out.

I frankly saw no reference to a video and took your checklist as something general and not referring to a specific example. Are you referring to the Robertson clip on the link? You appear to be reading a lot more into the very brief scenario they discuss and fleshing it out with a lot more details than what I heard. Is there another video you're referring to? I really don't see how you can take something so abbreviated and produce so much black-and-white absolute certainty about the circumstances from it.

Again, if there's another video or some other source you're referencing that has provided more detail, let me know.


Yes that's the video, but I think it's the other way around. I am stripping the scenario we are given from the various interpretations that were placed on it in this thread.

All we really know is:

Mother, father, two kids, repeated incidents where father is brandishing the gun and making threats with it.

I'm out of here (gym in 26 minutes.)
 
2014-06-11 10:37:36 PM  
So for those claiming that subby is lying and that whole Pat can be a douche, but in this case he's a stand up guy, please enlighten the rest of us on what we're missing in this article.

Because I've read it through multiple times, and I still seem to hear him saying that the little girl should talk to Mommy, that she shouldn't get her daddy busted, and that her mom should be the only one to handle it.

Maybe it's a filter on RawStory like the April Fool's filter on here? All of Pat's illogical shiat is replaced by nuggets of wisdom on everyone else's browser? Or vice versa?
 
2014-06-11 10:46:26 PM  

RoyBatty: You may not see the bias, but it's there. It's there in how quickly courts and states and police act against parents who do not pay custody, but how they make parents whose custody is being interfered with file a suit in civil court on their own dime and wait months and months and pay for attorneys and court psychs and delays and delays and literally years go by and nothing has been done to enforce custody.
And while in your scenario, mom was dealing with the kids? Dad was working one or more jobs that probably sucked just trying to keep a roof over everyone's head


RoyBatty, I lived through all this. I didn't get some green card because I was a woman. Fark, I'll never recover from all the years and money I spent during that time. My son will take a lifetime to get over some of the things that were done to him. And I still lost my ass. I'll be the one working two sucky jobs just to keep a roof over my head, because I lost 20 good years to a psycho and trauma.
Now I ain't a young woman anymore, and thank god it is all over for me. I know better to bring this up around Fark. And you bet your ass that I'm a little bitter if I stop to think about it. But I don't blame MEN for any of it.

But I am still saying that I have NEVER personally seen a court case where one parent got complete custody of a kid. Wait, I take that back--I knew a man who did. His ex came into court during the final hearing and accused him of sexually abusing their kid. Their 8-month old kid. She'd never mentioned it before. Judge told her to fark off and get out of his court, and gave him full custody.
 
2014-06-11 10:54:18 PM  
Well if there's one thing I've learned about civil rights, it's that they tend to act as a pendulum.  When it leans too far to one side, the oppressed party tries to push it back in the other direction.  When it finally reaches balance and equality, a minority of said oppressed party carry its momentum and tries to push it too far, leading to the oppressors feeling oppressed, and retaliating.

Men are from Iran and Women are from Isreal.  Everybody is just retaliating for something that the other party has done.
 
2014-06-11 11:06:49 PM  

RoyBatty: LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Your statement is only sort of true and only sort of true if you restrict it to family courts since 1910, when family courts basically came into existence.

Before that, when custody issues came before the court, so called  patriarchal ideas about gender roles ruled in favor of the father for a very long time and then swung with the growing feminist movement to be in favor of the mother.

So in fact, in truth, you are actually completely wrong on the history and in your claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_interests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_court

Now however, your statement is very truthy.

It is feminist groups, not fathers rights groups, who time and again lobby against shared custody and lobby to retain primary custody systems and other laws that favor the mother.

http://www.nomas.org/node/244
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1po78q/do_you_think_fe mi nists_should_support_a/


A very prominent 2nd wave feminist, Karen DeCrow died just this week. She was a strong proponent of shared custody.

But she was just about the last one. That was 1977.

https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21752-karen-decrow- la st-now-president-to-support-shared-parenting-dies

I gather from your comments here you think you know quite a bit about a father's rights movement, based on comments and posts you read on the net, but I actually don't think you've done much research. Many of your opinions seem shaped by cant, not by historical fact, reasoning, or reading into what the Father's Rights groups have to say.

I would greatly encourage you to place the national parents organization blog on your feed list.

https://www.nationalparentsorga ...


Yeah, don't have kids. Don't know much, or particularly care about divorced-father's rights. Think that anyone who claims that men have fewer rights than women, and need some sort of special protection is a complete idiot, and that anyone who claims biases in the system are the result of feminism must have been dropped on his head as a child.
 
Displayed 50 of 305 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report