« The Relaxation Meme | Main | Vagina Dentata, Anyone? »

August 17, 2005

The Angry Dads Manual On Keelhauling Your Wife

World 'o Crap and Amanda at Pandagon both have plenty to say about a book-in-progress by Rachel Alexander for "Intellectual Conservative" that supposedly shows fathers how they can win custody and avoid paying child support.

I've been seeing "advice" like this on fathers' rights mailing lists for over ten years. It's unbelievably bad. I think these kinds of "advice" books are designed to appeal to angry men in the hope that they will shell out the cash and buy them.

If a guy goes into a marriage and immediately buys a book like this, it doesn't bode well for the marriage. Plenty of guy's attorneys tell them to become more active in their children's lives and extracurricular activities immediately upon the beginning of divorce proceedings because judges like dads who are active in their children's lives. The reason for doing this is dad is going for either sole or joint custody, and he's going for that lower or eliminated child support order that goes with it. This book advises fathers to begin doing that while married to the mother, not because it's the right thing to do for your child, but because that would give the dad a better chance of getting custody in the event of divorce.

Your marriage is in sorry shape if you buy a book like this right after the honeymoon.

The types of guys who will buy this book, however, are angry dads in the midst of a divorce, not dads years from a divorce who have a few kids with the wife. Suddenly playing Superdad won't go over well in court. All mom's lawyer has to do is to make sure the court hears how inactive he was before divorce proceedings started. The judge won't be pleased at being played as a sucker. Since mom had been the primary caregiving parent from the beginning, and not due to a divorce-bed conversion like dad, she's most likely to get custody. That said, more courts are recommending joint custody because attorneys and psychologists make money from it. Parents are told to "get along" for the sake of the kids, and then the parents are ordered to shell out lots of money to pay for mediation, psychological and custody evaluations, parenting classes, guardians ad litem, and the like. Divorce today is a big money-making racket, and moms, dads, and kids are left in the dust.

This book gives all kinds of bad advice, such as finding a shark for a lawyer, hiring a "hired gun" psychologist, keeping your ex in court to emotionally and financially exhaust her, find as many ways to badmouth your ex in court as possible, and other noxious suggestions. What it doesn't say is that this kind of harassment is very expensive. The angry dads who do this will shell out thousands of dollars in legal and psychological fees - and they probably won't get what they want in the end.

Who wins with this "advice"? The lawyers and psychologists, and the woman who wrote the book (assuming anyone is foolish enough to buy it.). They rake in the money. Dad is left bitter, angry, alone, and broke. The children fare worst of all. Any man who puts his wife through the Hell described in this book deserves his own special place in Hell.

Posted on August 17, 2005 at 09:21 AM | Permalink

Comments

Well, I have to say that ex used all those tactics and they worked beautifully. Plus, it's not often well known that abusive personalities can sometimes target the children from the very beginning as being their "special buddy" or ally against Mom. The courts have no insight into this kind of extremely manipulative behavior. I had never seen it until I experienced it.

All I can say is watch out, ladies. Your man "finds himself" unemployed. Make him get out and look for a job pronto. If you allow him to sit around the house for any length of time at all, even if he's basically sleeping while the kids play, you'll never have any leverage, and he'll never have to shape up. 'Cause now he can threaten you with a big time custody fight as he is the "stay-at-home" parent. Sound improbable? Nope. Happened to me and a few others I have known as well.

Posted by: silverside at Aug 17, 2005 9:47:04 AM

Wow,
These types of tactics should be exposed at every opportunity. Women, as mothers, everywhere need to be made aware of this.Are there any books/websites dedicated to the early practice of this type of behavior?
Is there a useful name, for referance in the courts, for the targeting of the children from the very beginning-as well as "suddenly"-for the purpose of later legal leverage that silverside speaks of?
Are there any precidents of these tactics being exposed and backfireing in the court of a savvy judge?
Where could the author of this yet-to-be-finished "book in progress" get material for such nonsense, is it just made up?
It just feels so unfair! There ought to be laws against such premeditated and projected actions.

Posted by: CaptDMO at Aug 17, 2005 11:41:16 AM

"Plus, it's not often well known that abusive personalities can sometimes target the children from the very beginning as being their "special buddy" or ally against Mom. The courts have no insight into this kind of extremely manipulative behavior. I had never seen it until I experienced it."

But Silverside do you feel that somebody can do this in anticipation of a divorce and custody fight years away; as it's the rare human who can be that manipulative for years on end waiting for a divorce and custody fight to break out???

OR is it an abusive and control situation RIGHT FROM THE START...as I think it was your ex (not sure, as I correspond with many women about these issues) but one of you told me that their ex was constantly removing baby animals from the mothers on his farm? Claiming that these babies would die or be killed by their mothers if they were left alone.

I remember hearing that woman say she actually thought there was something wrong with her ex due to this behavior; since if all animal mothers needed others to raise their offspring, their line would have been extinct long ago.

Probably the evaluation was incorrect on him from the beginning or the evaluator was biased in his findings; that's how he got custody...since he sounded like a nut job from very early on.


Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 17, 2005 1:28:09 PM

"Wow,
These types of tactics should be exposed at every opportunity. Women, as mothers, everywhere need to be made aware of this.Are there any books/websites dedicated to the early practice of this type of behavior?
Is there a useful name, for referance in the courts, for the targeting of the children from the very beginning-as well as "suddenly"-for the purpose of later legal leverage that silverside speaks of?"

Is this a serious post?

Or will it evolve into a backhanded smack at mothers (who are generally closer with infants) as soon as someone responds.

Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 17, 2005 1:32:02 PM

I think abusers act this way because they have a certain compulsion to do so. Eventually, they must realize that their behavior puts them at risk for a divorce. So I think that whether it's "psychological" or "premeditated" is a kind of a false dilemma. I think it's both. Just like it is for a lot of criminal behavior. Sure, I can show you that some murdering freak had "personal issues." I can also show you that the same murderous freak planned out his crimes very carefully. You certainly can be one and the other.

Posted by: silverside at Aug 17, 2005 1:47:34 PM

Nah, I don't generally find a "backhanded(verbal) smack" necessary, I just leave enough rope lying around.
It IS a shameless backhanded invitation for all to actually go the the
authors site, read the included stuff -vital to the context- that "the usual suspects" seem to have "forgotten" to forward with their plaints and observations.THEN examine the comment threads with that in mind.
It probably wouldn't hurt to examine the list of Intellectual Conservitives(.com) Columnists and weigh their quality of commentary against those that seem to have much to say on the matter.(see trackbacks)

Posted by: CaptDMO at Aug 17, 2005 1:56:08 PM

I definitely recommend reading the link to Intellectual Conservative that I had included with this post. That's the link to the actual book-in-progress. It's horrifying. World o' Crap did a fisking of that web page. I didn't feel up to doing a fisking, especially since WOC already did such a fine job. I just wanted to point out how horrid that web site was, plus the fact that the guys who would use that shoddy advice would have to pay a lot of money to pull it off, and probably not get the results they wanted.

Posted by: The Countess at Aug 17, 2005 2:54:54 PM

Who wins with this "advice"? The lawyers and psychologists, and the guy who wrote the book (assuming anyone is foolish enough to buy it.). They rake in the money. Dad is left bitter, angry, alone, and broke. The children fare worst of all. Any man who puts his wife through the Hell described in this book deserves his own special place in Hell.


HELL'S BELLS, Trish!!!

This IS a turn-around. Now you're saying stuff that I could even AGREE with. Keep up the good work!

(Oh, I hope the above also applies (conversely) to mothers...

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Aug 17, 2005 6:34:03 PM

P.S. What have they done to your blogsite software? The Preview Page comes up with a Dark Blue background and is almost unreadable. Is someone trying to say something here?

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Aug 17, 2005 6:44:31 PM

tttwtanbtt, that's not a new point-of-view for me. I've often talked about the divorce-related cottage industries here.

Regarding the blue page, Typepad glitches like that sometimes. Just refresh the page.

Posted by: The Countess at Aug 17, 2005 8:33:13 PM

Some men are doing what some women have been doing for years. That's gender equality for ya. And those aren't cottages, they're mansions. lol

Posted by: rooman at Aug 17, 2005 8:46:50 PM

"Some men are doing what some women have been doing for years. That's gender equality for ya."

No they haven't...

This is a distortion of history actually.

Long before child support was mandated mothers raised their children and fathers worked and provided support for them to do that. So it's quite natural for a mother to do this. There is nothing sinister or unusual for a mother to live her life this way.

Thus, women haven't changed really, men have. AND as usual the reason men have changed is related to money, the root of all evil...

Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 17, 2005 9:37:28 PM

MYMOM:"Some men are doing what some women have been doing for years. That's gender equality for ya."
"No they haven't...
This is a distortion of history actually.
Long before child support was mandated mothers raised their children and fathers worked and provided support for them to do that. So it's quite natural for a mother to do this. There is nothing sinister or unusual for a mother to live her life this way.
Thus, women haven't changed really, men have. AND as usual the reason men have changed is related to money, the root of all evil..."

You're right....it's inherant(spelling), it's in the behavioral make up for females to rear the children (hunter/gatherer), which hasn't changed in eons of world history.
It's a trait that can't be bribed or bought, threatened or ousted; women will always be women and men will always be men.....and they're money will always be their conviction to their nasty ways and means. Did I at least come close to hitting the nail?

Posted by: Jeanie at Aug 17, 2005 11:55:10 PM

What about this then?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10342538

Of course, Jeanie's right.

The women stayed home at the cave, minding the fire, chatting about nothing and watching the kids (multi-tasking), while the men went out and exercised their brains, or if lacking brains, become sabre tooth tiger fodder... Hence, they evolved bigger, smarter brains...

And hence, today, women are genetically programmed to raise children, and think they do it better simply because they are programmed, while men tend to have more powerful brains, and may actually make better parents because they are able to intellectually stimulate their children more effectively... Among other things.

tt
And I'm still getting the blue background... xx

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Aug 26, 2005 7:25:35 AM

Sorry, I meant this...

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Aug 26, 2005 7:30:23 AM

"And hence, today, women are genetically programmed to raise children, and think they do it better simply because they are programmed, while men tend to have more powerful brains, and may actually make better parents because they are able to intellectually stimulate their children more effectively... Among other things."

Sorry but men did not ALLOW women to be mothers, that's not what happened in our history. As much as men would like to believe that.

Women are mothers quite simply because we bear and subsequently birth and are responsible for nurturing the next generation. We have more invested in that generation, as we simply go through more getting them here. Thus we are (in most cases, I understand not all, but generally) we are the person most concerned with their best interest and welfare as we have the most invested in said child. It's probably not the wisest choice nature could have made, since perhaps it would have been better to let the larger more aggressive of all beings (the male of every species, including our own) become mothers; however, evolution has chosen the female to be the bearers and nurturers of the next generation, whether or NOT men like it.

Sorry if right brained men feel they WOULD have been better mothers, however, they'll have to get over it.

As will you.

Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 26, 2005 1:07:05 PM

ttw, are you aware that one of those "researchers" is a eugenicist? He was cited in The Bell Curve, spouting racist garbage. That doesn't bode well for any other research on his part regarding intelligence.

Are you getting the blue background when you preview your comment? I've asked Typepad to look into it. The Count gets that same blue background when he previews his comments. Another commenter mentioned the same thing to me a couple of days ago. I hope to have it fixed soon.

Posted by: The Countess at Aug 26, 2005 3:10:18 PM

Hi Trish,

ttw, are you aware that one of those "researchers" is a eugenicist? He was cited in The Bell Curve, spouting racist garbage. That doesn't bode well for any other research on his part regarding intelligence.

No, I had no idea. I don't know these guys from a bar of soap (it's not my field, just an interest), but I do know that there is plenty of other (older) research about which says much the same thing. It's been a popular (propagandized?) assumption that male & female brains had equal intellectual abilities, but it's apparently just not the truth. Besides, whatever faults one or more of these guys have doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. Remember, people also thought Galileo was a heretic...

I believe that the female brain is vastly more complex, due to its (often excellent, sometimes exceptional) multi-tasking abilities, but that also has a major downside - less brain volume devoted to raw intellectual capacity because a lot must be used for the multi-tasking "hardware". In contrast, the male brain is "simpler" (highly single-tasking, single-minded - negatively labelled obsessive) but very much "deeper" and maybe even "broader". (I'm in computers, which provides many parallels.) As you know, I've held this notion for a while now, and I'm glad to see others now taking it up.

Back to the race question - different races do have different DNA / different genetic compositions. This DOES mean that some races will be better in some areas than others, and the converse. It may well be that the Chinese, or the Japanese, or the North Europeans have the best brain genes...

And Yes, the blue background only happens in Preview, but every time. Not really a big problem, because I can see the preview text by selecting it... I'm getting it using IE6 on Win2000, if that helps...

Cheers,
tt

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Aug 27, 2005 6:53:22 AM

About the only thing I can glean from many of the comments here is that many are of the opinion that women are not capable of raising children and working full time. We should keep women tied to the kitchen sink, barefoot and pregnant as they say?

If this is the case why then do we have so many women in the workforce, many of them "married with children"?

What is this business about women should be able to stay at home with their children following a divorce? I agree to the extent that we are "all created equally" and we all deserve the same opportunity in "the pursuit of happiness", but for once lets stop thinking of ourselves and think rationally. If you go through a divorce, no matter how much money you get from child support, your life is NOT going to be the same as before your divorce, especially if there are children involved. We should not fool ourselves nor allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that much of a semblance of what our lives were like while we are married can be maintained. No amount of money is going to guarantee this, no amount of child support either. If your marriage was particularly "hellish" I'm sure this is a welcome thought. If, however, you just "couldn't get along", you will find that life doesn't really improve and all of the stubborness each of you shared that prevented you from getting along will continue with you throughout your life and later relationships.

I'm not highly intellectual. I consider myself to be rational and pragmatic. I've caused enough woes to myself in my own past to know what hardship is and I've also learned from those experiences that I don't want hardship to be a permanent factor in my life.

I am a woman and a mother. I am a "second wife". I am a full time worker. Until all sides of our current family court system can come together and agree that there is not a "one size fits all" solution to this problem; until the "feminists" can stop hating men and stop blaming them for the "woes of the woman"; until the deadbeat dads will stand up and take responsibilty for their actions; until we ALL stop generalizing all men as deadbeats who leave their wives and children; until we ALL stop generalizing all women as angelic "caretakers"; we will continue to be unable to all focus together on a solution. The children should be the focus.

Not all women are nurturers. Not all men are deadbeat dads. You cannot continue to say these things and generalize all people into one of these categories because every single situation is different. Just because your husband abandoned you does not make all men evil and corrupt. Just because you stayed home with the children while daddy worked does not make you the best caretaker for the child(ren). Really the BEST thing for the child is that mommy and daddy stay together.

How we've come to the point where we so vehemently protest that we should NEVER "yank" children away from their mothers, but its ok to do that to daddy, astounds me. Why is it OK for one but not the other? This is completely contrary to the very ideas and principals of EQUALITY. The thing women have been fighting for, for YEARS. In order to have equality you do not tip the scales in favor of ANYONE based on their sex.

We each are unique individuals with unique passions, abilities, needs and goals. I don't think anyone ever goes into a marriage hoping for divorce. Think back really hard as to why you got married. Were you in love? Was your partner someone you imagined living the REST OF YOUR LIFE WITH? This is only part of what marriage is. Marriage is a LIFETIME commitment. It is not designed for convenience. Marriage is not a thing to be "prideful" of for getting the prettiest girl or marrying the richest man. Marriage is not a competition. It is not to be taken lightly, the promise to live the rest of your life with one person, and "forsaking all others."

I'm not pointing fingers by saying these things. I'm not saying that people who get divorced are bad people, please recall I'm a second wife, if I were so disagreeable towards divorce I would never have married my husband.

I guess what I am saying is this: We are fighting for equality, yet we are demading favoritism based on our gender with respects to child custody. WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO DEMAND THESE THINGS AND HOPE TO FIND TRUE EQUALITY!!

In closing, I think it is important to say that we can keep pointing the finger, we can keep blaming others or we can learn from our past and our mistakes and move forward together for the best and most reasonable solution. As the saying goes, "together we stand, divided we fall".

Posted by: at Sep 9, 2005 2:21:51 PM

"Why is it OK for one but not the other? This is completely contrary to the very ideas and principals of EQUALITY. The thing women have been fighting for, for YEARS. In order to have equality you do not tip the scales in favor of ANYONE based on their sex."

Because quite simply 'equality' as a concept or goal is fine regarding education, work, and other similar life accomplishments, since in theory anyway, everyone who makes the same contribution will pretty much get the same result.

This is fair.

Yet now you've taken that analogue (which is a false one vis-a-vis bearing children) and demand women to allow men an equal 'share' in a venture men contribute little or nothing to...

The only thing equivalent I can thing of is a man passes a field one day and carelessly throws a handful of seeds into it.

He continues on his way and forgets all about this event.

Then he's passing by a year maybe two later and notices that a woman has tended the field and there is a whole new beautiful crop there instead of the previous barrenness.

So after doing NOTHING to bring this whole situation to fruition, this man suddenly decides he's as legally entitled to EVERYTHING produced in that field as the woman, because he carelessly dropped off a few seeds a year or two earlier.

So of course, women are going to fight you on this. We would be damn fools if we didn't, as where else in the world anywhere could you have a sitaution like this and get away with it? Even in South Africa the apartheid government knew they had to contribute SOMETHING to the land in order to be able to claim it...something.


Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 9, 2005 7:10:52 PM

Now you're comparing single mothers to a piece of dirt? I thought the analogy of women being like domestic animals was bad. I guess you win.

Posted by: pete kaplan at Sep 9, 2005 7:44:40 PM

"Now you're comparing single mothers to a piece of dirt? I thought the analogy of women being like domestic animals was bad. I guess you win."

You know very well what I meant. It was an analogy as you know. Like talking about a fox or a crow sometimes. It doesn't mean I think people are foxes or birds.

The point being that previously when children were created within the context of a legally recognized marriage and men contributed to the support and care of their wives and children before during and after birth, it was an equal enterprise with men contributing something.

NOW they expect equal rights while contributing NOTHING.

AND it's a little much.

Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 9, 2005 8:26:41 PM

I don't think anyone ever goes into a marriage hoping for divorce.

Really? Tell that to men who plan to treat their wives poorly after the children arrive so they will be divorced fathers (i.e. playmates, not parents) or women who marry a guy so he will adopt the kids and she can divorce him and get child support.

I've seen both, more than once.

Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at Sep 9, 2005 10:05:04 PM

My cut and paste didn't work. What I cut was "I don't think anyone goes into marriage hoping for divorce."

Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at Sep 9, 2005 10:06:19 PM

I fixed it for you, kohoutekdriver8. You just had the wrong HTML for italics.

Posted by: The Countess at Sep 9, 2005 11:48:12 PM

"Tell that to men who plan to treat their wives poorly after the children arrive so they will be divorced fathers (i.e. playmates, not parents) or women who marry a guy so he will adopt the kids and she can divorce him and get child support."

Yes, these things happen but I find it hard to believe that people PLAN these things. As there is no predictability anymore in family law. Basically everything is up to the discretion of a Judge and you can NEVER predict what any individual will do...

Thus, you can't really PLAN these sorts of scenarios. It's like trying to PLAN the weather.

And there have been cases today where a natural parent loses custody to a step parent and pays them child support. AND even where a stay-at-home parent loses custody. It's not ridden in stone that you're a stay-at-home parent and will automatically win your custody case due to this. OR that the adoptive parent will always lose custody after divorce.

Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 10, 2005 12:04:10 AM

Nymom:The point being that previously when children were created within the context of a legally recognized marriage and men contributed to the support and care of their wives and children before during and after birth, it was an equal enterprise with men contributing something. NOW they expect equal rights while contributing NOTHING.

Pete: Did it ever occur to you that maybe these men don't want to see their progeny being raised by these single mothers? Maybe they feel they can do a better job of raising their kids than the mothers can, which isn't saying a lot. And maybe they know that the marriage contract doesn't mean crap anymore. When it comes custody and child support judges don't discriminate between married men and non-married men. They believe a non-married man can be just as good a parent as a married man. So why shouldn't these guys have the right to look out for the best interest of their kids?

Posted by: pete kaplan at Sep 10, 2005 12:55:01 AM

"When it comes custody and child support judges don't discriminate between married men and non-married men. They believe a non-married man can be just as good a parent as a married man. So why shouldn't these guys have the right to look out for the best interest of their kids?"

Because why should someone who contributed a 2.5 second quick drop deposit and then basically disappeared for the next nine months, suddenly five minutes after the birth of a child, get out of bed, throw on his pants and then show up at the hospital and be considered an equal partner in an enterprise?

After contributing NOTHING to the entire process????

Give me one other example where this sort of 'equal partnership' would be considered acceptable???

So although Judge might not consider any difference in a married versus a single man as a parent, to that mother and many others in society who question the wisdom of this, there's a world of differnce.


Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 10, 2005 7:37:03 AM

The only thing equivalent I can thing of is a man passes a field one day and carelessly throws a handful of seeds into it.

NYMOM, are we to understand that something like this happened to you?

You were treated as nothing more than an empty, albeit, fertile, piece of ground and had a handful of seeds tossed your way?

In other words, treated like a piece of dirt?

Of course, that must hurt. Hugely.

The question is, why would one good, loving, caring, decent human being do that to another good, loving, caring, decent human being?

One thing I have observed is that people usually marry someone they consider their equal, if not better than themselves. Someone they consider worthy of them.

My point is that if he truly thought YOU deserved to be treated like a piece of dirt, how did he feel about himself?

And why?

tt?

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Sep 12, 2005 3:31:03 AM

Well first of all, no that never happened to me I was married.

Nevertheless, I still think it's wrong to give single men the same legal rights as married men vis-a-vis children.

As what in the heck does a single man contribute?

He's responsible for NOTHING until after the birth of a child and paternity is legally established. He doesn't have to provide the mother with so much as a hot dog to eat during her pregnancy or a vitamin.

Plus what is the incentive for men to even GET MARRIED if both single men and married ones get the same treatment...

I think it's ridiculous to treat them both the same.

For instance, why should a married man be responsible for the debits and living expenses of his wife when she's pregnant and then turn around and see single men responsible for nothing?

Eventually his reaction will be why should he take on added burdens when single men get away with no burdens and get the exact same treatment as married men once child is born and paternity established.

It's clearly a disincentive to marriage.

Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 12, 2005 7:31:02 PM

Pete:"When it comes custody and child support judges don't discriminate between married men and non-married men. They believe a non-married man can be just as good a parent as a married man. So why shouldn't these guys have the right to look out for the best interest of their kids?"

Nymom:Because why should someone who contributed a 2.5 second quick drop deposit and then basically disappeared for the next nine months, suddenly five minutes after the birth of a child, get out of bed, throw on his pants and then show up at the hospital and be considered an equal partner in an enterprise?

Pete: Again you miss the point of the question. Who care's what you think of this guy at this point? You already made the decision to have "his" baby, not just your baby, but his baby, too. Or whether or not he wants to be an equal partner with you. The question is why shouldn't these guys have the right to look out for the best interest of their kids? Evidently you don't have the best judgement. It doesn't take rocket scientist to get knocked up.

Posted by: pete kaplan at Sep 12, 2005 7:43:53 PM

NYMOM

I know your feelings about mothers always being better for children. Although I fundamentally disagree with the natural woman as nurturer argument, I appreciate that in your view that's absolute. Yet, when you argue that there is a fundamental difference between the rights married men should have vs. single men, I simply can't understand why that should be the case.

The reason why single men and married men should be treated equally when it comes to custody is because of the CHILDREN. I am pro choice - 100%. But when children are born, they have 2 biological parents that they have rights to and children should not be punished or discriminated against exclusively because the parents decided not to stay together or commit during pregnancy. Life is not fair for grown ups. Sometimes one person wants to get married when the other doesn't. Ambivalence about a life partner does not necessarily mean ambivalence about a child.

Women (though not for much longer, sadly) have the right to choose to see a pregnancy to term or terminate our pregnancies. Men should have the right to be equal fathers under the law regardless of prenatal marital status.

Posted by: at Sep 13, 2005 12:21:47 PM

Wow NYMOM...you say, "So after doing NOTHING to bring this whole situation to fruition, this man suddenly decides he's as legally entitled to EVERYTHING produced in that field as the woman, because he carelessly dropped off a few seeds a year or two earlier.

So of course, women are going to fight you on this. We would be damn fools if we didn't, as where else in the world anywhere could you have a sitaution like this and get away with it? Even in South Africa the apartheid government knew they had to contribute SOMETHING to the land in order to be able to claim it...something."

AND

"why should someone who contributed a 2.5 second quick drop deposit and then basically disappeared for the next nine months, suddenly five minutes after the birth of a child, get out of bed, throw on his pants and then show up at the hospital and be considered an equal partner in an enterprise?

After contributing NOTHING to the entire process????

Give me one other example where this sort of 'equal partnership' would be considered acceptable??"

Well I have a concept for you which might explain men's annoying desire to parent their children upon divorce (and before). Are you ready? Here it is: Like all normal parents, men love their children and want what's best for them. Deep stuff, I know. Oh yeah...many normal mom's and dad's realize that kids have a right to be parented by their biological parents...regardless of either parent's preference, self-righteous beliefs, etc.

I agree that mom's are wonderful...I had one until recently. I also would have been right pissed at her if she had played gatekeeper to my father. He is one hell of a parent if there ever was one. You know what…they disagreed on stuff a lot...but they respected each other’s roles. They had different styles and I gained so much from being exposed equally to those styles.

Yes, let's not forget the very real sacrifices women make on behalf of their children. But let's also not forget the very real sacrifices men make on behalf of their children. In case NYMOM is scratching her head...I'm talking about grueling work, providing that evil money to pay the bills, spending time away from home...often giving women the choice to stay home (yeah, it's a great choice, we know it...otherwise women wouldn't fight so damn hard to stay home), then there's always going to war with it’s associated death and maiming, on a smaller scale, men generally confront burglers and other threatening neardo wells. Men have always sacrificed. Women sacrifice a HELL of a lot too. However, it is clear to me that fairness to women is a much higher priority to men than fairness to men is among women.

NYMOM, you may now return to seeing the world in sexist, black and white for your regularly scheduled male-bashing…

Posted by: Steve at Sep 13, 2005 3:02:27 PM

You people have to understand NYMOM is a Feminist. Feminists believe that women should have the exclusive right to control the lives of their children. For the good or bad; right or wrong, no exceptions.

Posted by: pete kaplan at Sep 13, 2005 5:33:29 PM

Actually, Pete, NYMOM is not a feminist proper. Sure she cares deeply for what she considers the "natural" rights of women as mothers, but even a cursory glance at her arguments reveal a dark and caveman like understanding of the rights of women many of us spend our lives struggling to protect.

Many feminists would argue, in fact, that she's as chauvinist as they come. NYMOM repeatedly clings to gender stereotypes that only women can parent well, that men only pretend to parent at best, and that women in the workforce signals the doom of the family. I've looked at her blog and her comments and I find them disturbing.

Posted by: mom&stepmom at Sep 13, 2005 6:57:38 PM

"I've looked at her blog and her comments and I find them disturbing.

But it wasn't disturbing to you to involve a little girl and her mother in a six-year custody fight...

THAT didn't disturb you in the least, but my blog does.

It figures.

Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 13, 2005 7:24:26 PM

All feminists have a single agenda. Some may be against women in the workforce, others against women wearing underwear and some against abortion. But everyone who believes that mothers should get custody of the kids in a divorce are feminists. NYMOM is feminist because the child's best interest is secondary to that of the mothers. All that other stuff is a red herring.

Posted by: pete kaplan at Sep 13, 2005 9:23:13 PM

NYMOM

"But it wasn't disturbing to you to involve a little girl and her mother in a six-year custody fight..."

Actually, NYMOM, it was the little girl's mother who involved US in a six year custody fight. She had a problem with the idea that anyone but her should see her child. We didn't have much of a choice, unless you consider giving up seeing your child a choice. My husband entered a custody battle to be able to SEE his daughter regularly, not take her away.

I know that you believe that that's just fine, that children should see their fathers as much or as little as their mothers want them too. I also know that you think that only mothers are capable of loving and caring for their children. We'll never agree on that. What I know for certain is that my stepdaughter is grateful that her father and I put up a fight to see her. If we didn't enter into a custody battle, she wouldn't have had the opportunity to know her father the way she does and she would never have gotten to know her sister whom she adores.

Pete, if you want to make your argument clear about gender, parenting, and custody (with which many people most likely agree with in theory), then I think you may want to avoid making sweeping statements about feminists. Sadly, this really is the problem with much of the rhetoric of father's rights groups and I truly wish it weren't so. We have similar agendas regarding problems with custodial and non custodial determinations, but I can't get into the feminist/women bashing. Plus, there really are women non custodial parents who would benefit from joining a group that is fighting for their rights to reevaluate the policies of custody arrangements.

Perhaps we should form a whole new group called "non custodial parents rights" and leave all discussions of men's rights out of it.

Posted by: mom&stepmom at Sep 14, 2005 10:52:54 AM

mom&stepmom: "Plus, there really are women non custodial parents who would benefit from joining a group that is fighting for their rights to reevaluate the policies of custody arrangements. Perhaps we should form a whole new group called "non custodial parents rights" and leave all discussions of men's rights out of it."

There are already groups with the name "non custodial parents" in their titles, and they fool nobody. Those groups represent fathers, along with a few token and misguided noncustodial mothers. The NC moms don't understand that the few crumbs they are thrown by "non custodial parents" (actually fathers' rights) groups aren't worth the trouble. These NC moms don't understand that a lot of what fathers' rights groups stand for, such as presumptive joint custody, gutting protections for abused women, and bogus "syndromes" such as Parental Alienation Syndrome have harmed them. The kinds of things that fathers' rights groups stand for are the very things that have caused problems for those NC moms in the first place.

Posted by: The Countess at Sep 14, 2005 11:42:33 AM

What's ironic about these claims that fathers' rights groups are only about helping dads have more contact with their children is that these comments appear in a post about a very ugly handbook for dads about how to make your wife's life a living hell so that you can harass her into giving you custody of the children. This book has been linked on lots of fathers' rights message boards, and the guys are giving it a big thumb's up. So much for the best interests of the child.

Posted by: The Countess at Sep 14, 2005 11:45:52 AM

Countess,
I definitely agree that much of the rhetoric of father's rights groups is offputting at best, and at its worst offensive and dangerous. However, there are non custodial parents (both fathers and mothers) who do need help and support and are negatively impacted by custodial policy.

I would rather not be associated those groups, but where should non custodial parents turn? What kind of an organization could they start that wouldn't be considered offensive or dangerous? Especially considering that all of the language has been co-opted by groups that give them a bad name. Do you have suggestions?

Posted by: mom&stepmom at Sep 14, 2005 12:27:02 PM

"Actually, NYMOM, it was the little girl's mother who involved US in a six year custody fight. She had a problem with the idea that anyone but her should see her child. We didn't have much of a choice, unless you consider giving up seeing your child a choice. My husband entered a custody battle to be able to SEE his daughter regularly, not take her away."

In earlier posts you claimed your husband saw his child only four days a month (which is a standard visitation plan) and that he felt it wasn't enough.

This is not supposed to be grounds for changing custody however.

A change in custody is supposed to be based on a substantial change in circumstances taking place in the custodial parents household, NOT on the non-custodial parent wanting to change the visitation plan.

That's a totally different issue and is not supposed to warrant a custody trial. It's a visitation issue...

Name me one place where I said fathers should never be allowed to see their children. Custody, visitation and child support are ALL separate issues. People like you just throw them all together and start an uproar demanding hearings and changes of custody whenever something doesn't suit you.

Like F4J (which the last father sentenced actually had visitation as well, but he decided he wanted more so joined F4J and climbed a bridge to hang a sign) anyway you sound just like them. Wanting to change a visitation plan doesn't give you the right to demand a custody trial or start an uproar claiming bias at every turn...

Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 14, 2005 12:52:50 PM

mom&stepmom, I'm most familiar with noncustodial parent groups that help abused mothers who have lost custody to abusers. One that concentrates on that holds a yearly conference called The Battered Mothers Custody Conference. It's on the web. The Leadership Council has also studied the issue. I don't know offhand if it offers assistance to individuals. It tends to lean more towards research and public policy. I've seen some Yahoo groups that are comprised of noncustodial mothers, but I don't consider most of them safe. They've often been infiltrated by fathers' rights activists who have caused problems on the groups. Although they sometimes offer some good information, I don't as a rule recommend them because of security problems.

Posted by: The Countess at Sep 14, 2005 1:53:18 PM

Thanks for the input, Countess. It's true that any focus on noncustodial parents does get infiltrated by father's rights groups that spout the annoying anti-women stuff.

I would love to find an organization made up of noncustodial parents - fathers and mothers who have not necessarily been battered, but are still struggling with custody issues - that doesn't tow the fathers' rights party line.

NYMOM, my husband does only see his daughter 4 days a month, the standard visitation plan for non custodial parents. And it never suited either him or his daughter. A change in circumstances can be a child growing out of the custody arrangment. In NY state, the parent with custody determines visitation or there is a full blown custody battle. He opted out of the full blown custody battle and his ex gave him as little visitation as possible. If he had custody he would have certainly given her more time with their daughter. They live 10 blocks away from each other, so it's pretty ridiculous.

He entered into another 2 year custody battle when his ex wanted to move out of state. After the forensic reports came back in his favor recommending that he spend more time his daughter, the day before trial, his ex pulled out of her relocation trial.

His daughter just started 7th grade and she'll have to apply to high schools soon. My husband never agreed to his ex's choice in middle school and feels that the school their daughter attends is pretty shabby, particularly considering that a 15 minute extra commute would yield some fabulous choices in schools. His ex has refused to entertain any discussion about where his daughter will go to school. My husband has repeatedly tried to get them both to a mediator, hoping that an outsider might enable compromises between them, but his ex refuses to go to mediation. This will begin, I'm sure, the next phase of the custody battle.

As we all know, a struggle of wills can take place when parenting a child. And even though both parents believe that they know what's best for the kids, the same types of power struggles that take place in a relationship are now being exploited through the children. Unfortunately for non custodial parents, as any non custodial father OR mother will tell you, they have absolutely no power to influence some important decisions in their children's lives.

Disregarding the father's rights groups who get focus on a whole host of other issues - here are some of the things that many non custodial parents would want on the table - parenting plans in lieu of custody arrangements, reconsideration of minimal custody arrangements, revisiting custody arrangements when children reach different developmental stages, recommendations to mediators when parenting issues become particularly controversial, parenting after divorce classes to train both custodial and non custodial parents on how to stay focused on the children and deal with each other post-divorce, and "visiting" language changed to "parenting time."

Posted by: mom&stepmom at Sep 14, 2005 2:38:28 PM

mom&stepmom, all of the groups I've run into that call themselves "non custodial parents" groups are poorly-disguised fathers' rights groups. Decent dads who want some help end up leaving because they don't like all the griping they hear about feminists, women in general, and ex-wives in particular. Plus, those groups offer very poor advice. Some of them go over the line and offer legal advice and tactics. They shouldn't be offering legal advice at all, since most fathers' rights activists aren't lawyers. That doesn't stop them, though. The groups play on men's anger and give them all kinds of bad advice that only makes their situations worse. Plus they end up spending money on excessive litigation that could have been spent on their children.

I wish there were organized groups out there to help custodial mothers who are having problems, but there aren't any. There are individuals who help. Some chapters of NOW have done some work on divorce and custody issues (California in particular comes to mind), but the feminist movement in general has not paid much attention to those issues. I find it ironic that fathers' rights activists so often bring up feminists who supposedly try to interfere with dad's "right" to his children. Feminist groups haven't taken custody and divorce issues into consideration much at all, exempting the individual state chapters that have worked on these issues. There has been some recent interest, though. I'm waiting to see how that turns out.

Posted by: The Countess at Sep 14, 2005 5:29:09 PM

mom&stepmom, what the countess is trying to tell you is there are no feminist or father's right groups interested in the best interests of children. There is no money in it for them plus it cost money to care for children. So if a parent genuinely wants to protect their kid or they feel that the custodial parent isn't a competent parent, their kids are sh@t out of luck. You have already experience some apathy here on this blog. Your case is another example of why there should be automatic father custody in divorce. If there was a presumption that your husband was going to get custody before the divorce there would not have been all the problems for his child.

mom&stepmom:Pete, if you want to make your argument clear about gender, parenting, and custody (with which many people most likely agree with in theory), then I think you may want to avoid making sweeping statements about feminists.

Pete; I don't think I could make it any clearer than I have. "All feminists have a single agenda. Some may be against women in the workforce, others against women wearing underwear and some against abortion. But everyone who believes that mothers should get custody of the kids in a divorce are feminists." What's not clear about this statement? I don't think anyone has ever disagree with me when I've said this.

Posted by: pete kaplan at Sep 14, 2005 7:05:22 PM

Pete, please do not misrepresent what I wrote. I said that the feminist movement overall hasn't taken much interest in divorce and custody issues, but there are individual group chapters and individual feminists who have. I did not say that there are no feminist groups interested in those issues. There are. Those chapters and individual feminists always take the issues from the standpoint of the best interests of the child. In fact, I have spent the last day e-mailing someone who works for a chapter of a feminist group that is going to actively stand up to fathers' rights misogynistic proposed legislation in that state. I've been providing insight and information.

I've noticed that domestic violence groups have taken quite a bit of interest in divorce and custody issues because they are so often intertwined with domestic violence and child abuse. Domestic violence groups frequently participate in legislative hearings against bills sponsored by fathers' rights groups because those bills would be harmful for women and children, especially women and children who are victims of abuse.

Posted by: The Countess at Sep 14, 2005 7:25:39 PM

mom&stepmom, I've noticed that the non custodial mom mailing lists tend to focus more on moral support than on legislative action, public policy, and activism. There is nothing wrong with support lists, but I wish there were more lists that concentrated on family law.

Posted by: The Countess at Sep 14, 2005 7:36:22 PM

the countess:I said that the feminist movement overall hasn't taken much interest in divorce and custody issues, but there are individual group chapters and individual feminists who have.

Pete: I know what you said. Feminists are interested in women's interest only, like mothers getting custody in divorce. mom&stepmom wasn't interested in mother custody, she was interested in what was best for her step child! Feminists aren't interested in what's best for step children, or other peoples children or even their own children. They're interested in what's best for mom or women in general.

thecountess:Domestic violence groups frequently participate in legislative hearings against bills sponsored by fathers' rights groups because those bills would be harmful for women and children, especially women and children who are victims of abuse.

Pete: You're beginning to catch the same virus NYMOM has. "Domestic Violence groups" is another name for "feminist groups". They do not participate in legislation hearings against bills that would be harmful for "children" who are victims of abuse. They're interested in stopping bills that could help fathers get custody instead of mothers in the event there is charges of domestic violence. Prove me wrong. When did a DV group ever sponsor a bill that would help a father get custody from an abusive mother? They're not really interested in helping abused children. They're interested in helping women get and keep custody at any expense.

Posted by: pete kaplan at Sep 14, 2005 8:57:29 PM

Oh, stop it, Pete. The Children's Aid Society's Domestic Violence Project is only one project that helps abused women, teens, and children. It's described as: "We believe every member of a family is affected when there is violence at home.  The Family Wellness Program provides individual and group counseling to men, women, teenagers and children who have experienced violence in their homes or in dating relationships.  We also offer case management services including help getting an order of protection, public assistance, housing, shelter, and referrals for other services when necessary." I know you're going to jump all over the men's program because it is about assisting abusive men who are ready to take responsibility for their behavior. It's not about helping male victims of abuse. Most victims of domestic violence are women, and this project reflects that fact. I really don't care how you are going to spin all this.

In addition, the Massachusetts Advocates for Children has started a task force that focuses on children affected by domestic violence. This group works closely with battered women's shelters and organizations.

Jane Doe, Inc., a Massachusetts domestic violence group, works with abused children and teens.

Don't misrepresent domestic violence groups by claiming they are not interested in abused children.

I am not going to waste any more of my time with you. I wanted to point out how you had misrepresented what I had written, and I have succeeded in showing exactly how you did that.

Posted by: The Countess at Sep 14, 2005 9:19:17 PM

"NYMOM, my husband does only see his daughter 4 days a month, the standard visitation plan for non custodial parents. And it never suited either him or his daughter. A change in circumstances can be a child growing out of the custody arrangment. In NY state, the parent with custody determines visitation or there is a full blown custody battle."


I live in NY state, so I know this is not correct. Your court order determines visitation, not the custodial parent.

AND I know people in NY who went to court to change a visitation plan (I know a non-custodial parent who got it increased and a custodial who got it decreased since NCP wasn't picking up child for visits.)

It's as expensive as a custody trial; but that doesn't mean it IS a custody trial.


"He opted out of the full blown custody battle and his ex gave him as little visitation as possible. If he had custody he would have certainly given her more time with their daughter. They live 10 blocks away from each other, so it's pretty ridiculous."

So in essence he negotiated orignally (before meeting you it sounds like) and the result was this agreement for four days a month visitation. Which he was apparently in agreement with since generally opting out of a trial implies consent with whatever was negotiated.

Correct????

Then he decided (when his daughter was 6 years old) that this wasn't enough visitation...

I guess the obvious question is what changed his mind????

It's also interesting that he hasn't posted vis-a-vis his situation here even once. If he's so interested, how come he doesn't search around the internet for information on his own for non-custodial parental groups????

Why is it always step-persons doing the research for "concerned" fathers???


Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 14, 2005 10:27:09 PM

"...here are some of the things that many non custodial parents would want on the table - parenting plans in lieu of custody arrangements, reconsideration of minimal custody arrangements, revisiting custody arrangements when children reach different developmental stages, recommendations to mediators when parenting issues become particularly controversial, parenting after divorce classes to train both custodial and non custodial parents on how to stay focused on the children and deal with each other post-divorce, and "visiting" language changed to "parenting time..."


AND have you ever thought about the money involved in these sorts of public policy changes (that you mention above) and want to see happen...

Since every ONE of them would require having a GAL appointed to represent the childrens' best interest, a new evaluation and a lawyer for each party.

I told you I knew a number of people who have fought 'visitation' cases. Last one: $30,000 just for a mother to get more visitation for her two children (and this one wasn't even in NY where everything is generally more expensive).

$30,000...

This is what you want to see instituted.

See The Countess writing about "Cottage Industries" which spring up around family courts like mushrooms and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Is that what you want????

Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 14, 2005 10:44:30 PM

Only $30,000? I've seen custody cases with all those add-ons you've quoted costing in the six figures. The lawyers, parenting coordinators, mediators, GALs, and psychologists rake in a lot of money with those add-ons. That's what noncustodial parents (especially dads) don't think about when they demand all that stuff - it ain't cheap. The thing is that parents are already free to do a lot of those things if they choose to do so, if there is a valid change in circumstance. Most parents don't want all that stuff, mainly because they don't need it, and also because that kind of stuff costs a mint. There is no reason to make all those add-ons mandatory for all families because a minority of parents (mostly dads) want them.

Posted by: The Countess at Sep 14, 2005 11:06:33 PM

Countess, read my lips, I don't give a rat's *ss about what your organizations are doing for those fathers or mothers. If you notice next time you go to a shelter the programs are aimed at rehabilitating women so they can keep or get back custody of their kids. The vast majority of the women in the shelters aren't there just because they claimed they've been abused, they're there because they're alcoholics, drug addicts or abusive to their kids. A woman who can afford to pay an attorney $30,000 doesn't need a shelter. She can check herself into the Betty Ford Clinic or the Hilton Hotel. I've been to a half dozen women's shelters in and around Pasadena. If anyone is misrepresenting them, they are. And you. I'm not saying that we don't need the shelters. I'm saying that they are misrepresented. It's not like all these average law abiding mothers are coming in all beat up looking for a place to hide-out from their husbands. Of course it helps if they say they were beat up. But even the women that work in the shelters aren't that stupid. They know these women are addicts and can't be trusted. That's why they keep them on a short leash when they're in the shelter. Let me put it this way. The real live shelters don't look like the shelters on WE channel.

thecountess:"I've seen custody cases with all those add-ons you've quoted costing in the six figures"

Pete:Name one custody case you've seen that cost six figures! Not that I don't believe you, but I don't believe you!

Posted by: pete kaplan at Sep 15, 2005 12:19:22 AM

"It's as expensive as a custody trial; but that doesn't mean it IS a custody trial."

NYMOM, the problem you have with "custody battle" vs. "visitation issue" is purely semantic. They cost the same, they involve the courts in the same way, they're just as heartbreaking and decisions are practical and equally meaningful. A "visitation issue" can change 4 days a week to every other week.

Regarding a Court Order determining visitation and not the custodial parent, it is not that simple and you know it. Only 10% of cases go to trial and there are plenty of reasons not to go to trial. Most people are reasonable and weigh the benefits of putting their children through enormous pain with the risks associated with trial even if not going to trial means that they lose significant time with their children. I also think that most custodial parents are reasonable and would like their children to spend time with their other parent. We have divorced friends who manage to parent their children separately very well. The problem really comes when that is not the case.

"So in essence he negotiated orignally (before meeting you it sounds like) and the result was this agreement for four days a month visitation. Which he was apparently in agreement with since generally opting out of a trial implies consent with whatever was negotiated."

Then he decided (when his daughter was 6 years old) that this wasn't enough visitation."

His little girl was six at the time that he and his ex separated, and my husband was really naive about custody issues. He thought his ex would give him more time with their daughter. His is one of those cases where presumed joint custody (if there were even an option of this) would have benefited both him and his daughter.

In retrospect, he realises that he underestimated his ex. And, NYMOM, I was very much a part of his life from the beginning, and offered moral support without interfering as best I could. He asked my opinion about going through a custody battle and we both thought it would be too much for their daughter and that it would be more humane to settle. We had no idea how little time he would get if he settled or how ungenerous his ex would be. Again, we live 10 blocks from each other and there is no history of any kind of abuse.

I understand the cottage industry surrounding child custody. And we know first hand how expensive this is. Jesus, the forensic visit alone during the relocation case cost EACH parent $7,000. Not to mention legal fees. He didn't want any of this. He just wants to see his kid more. And it's really sad. What's worse is that Countess is right. There is nowhere for noncustodial parents to go to seek help that isn't poisoned by father's rights groups' lingo and politics. I agree that feminists have not made custody an issue, except as it relates to domestic abuse, which I believe is absolutely appropriate, yet father's rights groups have a disillusioned paranoia about ALL women trying to take away children from fathers.

"It's also interesting that he hasn't posted vis-a-vis his situation here even once. If he's so interested, how come he doesn't search around the internet for information on his own for non-custodial parental groups????"

About my husband not coming on this site or any other. It's not his way. He's different than me. I like to research and he doesn't. I live with him and I know how sad he is about his daughter and the difficulty he has even talking to me about it. Maybe the reasons that some stepparents research this stuff is because we are at least a little removed from the situation enough to cope with it. This is the way I do things, and I don't see anything wrong with it. When I found out I was going to be a stepmom, I looked into all the ways I could be the best one possible. I bought and read all the books and there are some great books out there - "The Enlightened Stepmother," "Stepwives," etc., I didn't want to come in and cause problems for my husband and my stepdaughter. One of the few ways I live with a man saddened by these issues is to investigate what's out there. It helps me.

"mom&stepmom, I've noticed that the non custodial mom mailing lists tend to focus more on moral support than on legislative action, public policy, and activism. There is nothing wrong with support lists, but I wish there were more lists that concentrated on family law."

A big problem with good dads is that crappy ones have really ruined it for them. Deadbeat dads give them a horrible reputation, domestic violence has made it so that there is no policy that can offer presumed joint custody and still protect women from abuse or poverty. And the worst insult is that these father's rights organizations SHOULD be a place for men to turn to, but rather than living up to the best that they could be, they turn into hotbeds and training grounds of misogyny.

Pete, sadly, you are an example of this.

Posted by: at Sep 15, 2005 10:03:50 AM

A big problem with good dads is that crappy ones have really ruined it for them.

Too bad that doesn't apply to the other gender. Society still holds a powerful stereotype as a truth.

Deadbeat dads give them a horrible reputation,

"Deadbeat Dads" is a "cute" label. And it's a feminist media tool. Sure, there ARE Deadbeat Dads, but there are about the same number of Deadbeat Moms. "We" just don't talk about them. Or even recognise them, bashing, beating, verbally and emotionally abusing their poor helpless kids in the supermarket. Just imagine how those kids get treated out of the public eye...

domestic violence

is really a matter of "definition". The feminists would have it defined as they do, but in reality, making False Allegations against a father in order to deny him and the children their relationship is also "domestic violence". It's just not popularly recognised as such.

... has made it so that there is no policy that can offer presumed joint custody and still protect women from abuse or poverty.

Uh-huh! What about protecting men from the same things?

And the worst insult is that these father's rights organizations SHOULD be a place for men to turn to, but rather than living up to the best that they could be, they turn into hotbeds and training grounds of misogyny.

Yes, true. Just like so many women's and mother's rights groups degenerate into hotbeds of misandry. I think there's plenty of evidence of that on this site.

The genders are not so different. One is not particularly "better" than the other.

Pete, sadly, you are an example of this.

Well, I don't see it, but maybe I'm "blind". Or is this just unsubstantiated "opinion"?
Enlighten us?

tt


Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Sep 29, 2005 1:20:49 PM

"I agree that feminists have not made custody an issue, except as it relates to domestic abuse, which I believe is absolutely appropriate..."

No...This is not appropriate at all.

Actually I believe this is what has led to the explosion of abuse allegations on the part of mothers trying to keep their children...

These mothers obviously feel they have NOBODY in their corner...UNLESS they cry abuse. Then they get attorneys paid for, automatic custody and a restraining order keeping dad away until a hearing is held which can take months or even YEARS. By the time this works it's way through the system, a mother has already firmly established herself as the custodial parent...BEFORE the case is ever in front of a Judge about the actual custody...

The bottom line is that desperate mothers feel they have to do this or they won't get custody of their children...Mia Farrow, Bridget Marks, that one upstate (I forget her name) there are probably thousands of mothers in this situation however, so the names are almost unimportant...

The important thing that you feminists need to understand is this and I direct this to you because you earlier said you were a feminist: YOUR power base is composed of WOMEN, not men, but WOMEN...

So when you go off on these tangents talking all this crap about helping fathers get custody from mothers or ONLY helping women who are abused and worrying about issues that impact very small groups of people, while ignoring the larger group of ordinary women out here, YOU risk having NO POWER BASE at the end of the day...

NONE...

AND don't think all those mens groups you are helping are going to be supporting you either...

You feminists keep alienating ordiniary women with your bs; you are going to be sitting on the side of the road with nothing...most of you will be LUCKY if you have jobs when the smoke clears...

Your influence will be 0...it's practically that now as most candidates and issues you support lose when people vote on them and know you support it...

Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 29, 2005 6:42:36 PM

good grief.

Posted by: rich at Sep 29, 2005 6:53:42 PM

Well what's the point of beating around the bush...

If feminists don't start straightening up they are going to wind up with just what I said 0 influence...

They practically are at that already...that's why Bush is in the White House and our Supreme Court is about to take an extreme turn to the right...

If feminists cannot come out and clearly stand behind something so essential and elemental to most mothers as the custody of their children, well what use are they to women...and most women are going to be mothers, so alienate them and the whole power base is gone...

That's something many feminists do NOT seem to understand...

Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 29, 2005 7:15:59 PM