Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Quote:Oft-cited statistics that only 10-15% of fathers are granted sole custody are skewed because they include couples who have agreed to grant the mother custody or to joint custody. When men do seek primary physical custody in a disputed divorce, about 50% get it.
Second link in the quote is from a 2009 New York Times piece discussing the custody issues women were faced with in the midst of recession era layoffs, which prompted more women to work longer/full-time hours.
Quote:There are now 2.2 million divorced women in the United States who do not have primary physical custody of their children, and an estimated 50 percent of fathers who seek such custody in a disputed divorce are granted it.
Indicating that court bias is actually in the presumption that the parent who works more, parents less.
If anyone has any statistical data to support the claim of current, wide-scale gender-bias on behalf of US courts in regards to child custody awards, I'd be interested in seeing it.
but those are just old blog pages from two random women. right?
anyway lets assume that they are not biased and just go with it;
in the second link you posted, what i understand from what is being conveyed, is that when a married couple divorces, and ONLY when the woman works more hours than the man, the child custody win rate is around 50-50
that doesnt mean there is no gender biased in court against men regarding child custody? what a misleading article title. dishonest writing imo...
Second link in the quote is from a 2009 New York Times piece discussing the custody issues women were faced with in the midst of recession era layoffs, which prompted more women to work longer/full-time hours.
Indicating that court bias is actually in the presumption that the parent who works more, parents less.
If anyone has any statistical data to support the claim of current, wide-scale gender-bias on behalf of US courts in regards to child custody awards, I'd be interested in seeing it.
but those are just old blog pages from two random women. right?
anyway lets assume that they are not biased and just go with it;
in the second link you posted, what i understand from what is being conveyed, is that when a married couple divorces, and ONLY when the women works more hours than the man, the child custody win rate is around 50-50
that doesnt mean there is no gender biased in court against men regarding child custody? what a misleading article title. dishonest writing imo...
Calling them old blogs does not make them false
And but it's still 50/50 and backs stuff i have linked . It may not decisively prove it but there is a strong correlation.
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
tizh, you don't understand. i capitalised ONLY for a reason. look at the title, look at the skewed sample size, read between the lines. the article screams anti-men
at least in my opinion.
not bashing feminism btw, if a similar article came out with an issue like "no discrimination against women in the workplace" and had similar garbage in it. i'd point it out too
December 30, 2017 at 7:54 pm (This post was last modified: December 30, 2017 at 8:22 pm by Rev. Rye.)
It appears that the history of gender bias in divorce custody is a fairly complicated one, so here's me trying to explain it:
Early on, it was actually customary that, in a divorce, it was the father who got custody, largely because of assumptions (actually enshrined in law at that point, look up "coverture" for more details) that women [unless, of course, she ended up as the Queen of England] should have a similar place in the law as children, always with someone in control over her, whether it's her father, her husband or her son.
Eventually, Caroline Norton of England started pushing for laws that allowed mothers to retain custody of their children during a divorce, which ended up with the Custody of Infants Act of 1839, which allowed judges discretion in child custody cases, and created a presumption called "The Tender Years Doctrine," which established maternal custody for children under the age of seven, and eventually increased to sixteen by 1873. The law started to spread to the Commonwealth and elsewhere (including America.) On the one hand, it gave women more rights than they had had, but the assumptions behind "The tender Years Doctrine" seemed to be rooted in the same patriarchal ideology that kept custodial rights from them in the first place.
Then, after about a century of this, in the 1970s and 1980s (at least in America), courts started moving away from the "Tender Years Doctrine" to "The Best Interests of the Child Principle," which is pretty much self-explanatory. I suspect that things started off biased in the mother's favour, as the judges raised on the "Tender Years Doctrine" grew old and retired and ended up getting replaced by younger judges who were taught to consider the best interests of the child, it ended up evening out. I wish I could find some data across the decades to support this hypothesis (ideally with subsets of data focusing on older vs. younger judges), but I strongly suspect if I could find it, it would bear out my hypothesis.
"Everyone knows" it's the case because it used to be the case. And the fact that they seemed to have moved towards parity (at least in this area) doesn't seem to actually change people's perception of it. A lot of commonly accepted claims that turn out to be bullshit were, in fact, once true, but people never got around to seeing if things changed that much.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
December 30, 2017 at 8:01 pm (This post was last modified: December 30, 2017 at 8:12 pm by Amarok.)
(December 30, 2017 at 7:54 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: It appears that the history of gender bias in divorce custody is a fairly complicated one, so here's me trying to explain it:
Early on, it was actually customary that, in a divorce, it was the father who got custody, largely because of assumptions (actually enshrined in law at that point, look up "coverture" for more details) that women [unless, of course, she ended up as the Queen of England] should have a similar place in the law as children, always with someone in control over her, whether it's her father, her husband or her son.
Eventually, Caroline Norton of England started pushing for laws that allowed mothers to retain custody of their children during a divorce, which ended up with the Custody of Infants Act of 1839, which allowed judges discretion in child custody cases, and created a presumption called "The Tender Years Doctrine," which established maternal custody for children under the age of seven, and eventually increased to sixteen by 1873. The law started to spread to the Commonwealth and elsewhere (including America.) On the one hand, it gave women more rights than they had had, but the assumptions behind "The tender Years Doctrine" seemed to be rooted in the same patriarchal ideology that kept custodial rights from them in the first place.
Then, after about a century of this, in the 1970s and 1980s (at least in America), courts started moving away from the "Tender Years Doctrine" to "The Best Interests of the Child Principle," which is pretty much self-explanatory. I suspect that things started off biased in the mother's favour, as the judges raised on the "Tender Years Doctrine" grew old and retired and ended up getting replaced by younger judges who were taught to consider the best interests of the child, it ended up evening out. I wish I could find some data across the decades to support this hypothesis (ideally with subsets of data focusing on older vs. younger judges), but I strongly suspect if I could find it, it would bear out my hypothesis.
"Everyone knows" it's the case because it used to be the case. And the fact that they seemed to have moved towards parity doesn't seem to actually change people's perception of it.
True the notion that a women is better for the child is rooted in patriarchy .
(December 30, 2017 at 7:48 pm)SaStrike Wrote: tizh, you don't understand. i capitalised ONLY for a reason. look at the title, look at the skewed sample size, read between the lines. the article screams anti-men
at least in my opinion.
not bashing feminism btw, if a similar article came out with an issue like "no discrimination against women in the workplace" and had similar garbage in it. i'd point it out too
Yup but that capitalization does not alter the overall point .
As for the title which one
More Fathers Are Getting Custody in Divorce
The 8 BThe 8 Biggest Lies Men's Rights Activists Spread About Woman
Which of these is anti male ? I don't tend to read between lines unless i have good reason . The sample size seems sufficient . And none of it seems to scream anti male .
As for whether you would do the same for feminists . If it looked like these articles. I would call your criticisms unwarranted .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
@tizh, it does alter the overall point. taking the optimal set of data to push the article's bias is ridiculous. the sample chosen was "cases where women work more than men". with this set, the result was 50-50.
what about the rest of the data? where men work more than women, where there is unemployment, where one parent is unempliyed, where there are equal working hours etc.
most likely was not 50-50 so was left out. in fact, the article actually PROVES discrimination against men in child custody cases. since the parent which works the most working hours usually LOSES the case. so how is it 50-50 lol
(yes i know it can be argued that time spent and working hours shouldnt play a role but it does)
December 30, 2017 at 9:05 pm (This post was last modified: December 30, 2017 at 9:05 pm by Amarok.)
(December 30, 2017 at 8:30 pm)SaStrike Wrote: @tizh, it does alter the overall point. taking the optimal set of data to push the article's bias is ridiculous. the sample chosen was "cases where women work more than men". with this set, the result was 50-50.
what about the rest of the data? where men work more than women, where there is unemployment, where one parent is unempliyed, where there are equal working hours etc.
most likely was not 50-50 so was left out. in fact, the article actually PROVES discrimination against men in child custody cases. since the parent which works the most working hours usually LOSES the case. so how is it 50-50 lol
(yes i know it can be argued that time spent and working hours shouldnt play a role but it does)
Sigh no it dose not . And the rest of the data is a moot point . And no it does not prove male discrimination .
(December 30, 2017 at 8:48 pm)Shell B Wrote:
(December 30, 2017 at 7:36 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: So your solution is to do the same .
Why not? I’m the one getting shit for it, obviously.
Still does not mean you need do it back
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Second link in the quote is from a 2009 New York Times piece discussing the custody issues women were faced with in the midst of recession era layoffs, which prompted more women to work longer/full-time hours.
Indicating that court bias is actually in the presumption that the parent who works more, parents less.
If anyone has any statistical data to support the claim of current, wide-scale gender-bias on behalf of US courts in regards to child custody awards, I'd be interested in seeing it.
but those are just old blog pages from two random women. right?
anyway lets assume that they are not biased and just go with it;
in the second link you posted, what i understand from what is being conveyed, is that when a married couple divorces, and ONLY when the woman works more hours than the man, the child custody win rate is around 50-50
that doesnt mean there is no gender biased in court against men regarding child custody? what a misleading article title. dishonest writing imo...
The Times piece wasn't a feminist rant; it was referencing a series of articles for Working Mother Magazine, warning that readers who held the misperception of there being a gender-bias being in their favor would undoubtedly be dealt a blow of shock and devastation in the courtroom.
Because again, the court bias appears to be in the presumption, that the parent who works more, parents less. Male OR female.
I'm not suggesting that gender bias against men never, ever occurs in regards to custody proceedings. But I seriously question the MRM claim of gender bias being widespread and prevalent to the point of the system being rigged against them in regards to custody, when they can only produce the fervent assertion of everyone knows this... and anecdotal accounts that can't be corroborated or verified. If there's better evidence, where is it?
Because again, if anyone has any reliable/statistical data that supports the claim, I'd be interested in seeing it.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
