| |
|
as amusing as all of this is, i feel the need to straighten some things out.
speaking of quaint, it's quite just that to read some of these posts. now now, i'm not calling anyone an idiot or anything. if anyone takes offense to any generalizations, you have only yourself to blame. if i cant criticize feminists politics without specifically offending someone who aligns herself with feminism, then, well, theres no accounting for others' insecurities, i suppose. next time i'll try to jump into the fray on something we can all agree on, just so no one's feelings get hurt.
i dont come armed with statistics. i'm not prepping for a bill o'reilly appearance, after all. most of the information is out there if you want to look for it. on the other hand, any stats from anyone can be compromised by different sides of the arguments, so all that cutting and pasting to tell complex but fractional portions of what is mostly a simple situation doesnt agree with me.
i also dont worry too much about responses. i mean, sure, it's tough being called an idiot by some feminist, or a misogynist by conclusion cliff jumpers, but i cant let stuff like that, half-assed opinions by non-thinkers, get to me. if it did, i might actually have to start thinking "straight." personally, i'm able to disagree with someone vehemently while still giving them the benefit of the doubt in terms of their overall good and decent place in humanity, such as it is. but i cant force people to play nice.
most of the responses here belie a very certain ignorance about the topic in general. i've been involved with this situation for a bit of time now, and most of the statements i've seen here are pretty typical stuff, ideas about this or that, letting the kids decide, nothing is fair, women get to have the kids because of the pain and torture of childbirth, all that fun stuff. i'll try to be as specific as i can simply in order to perhaps shed some light here and there for one or two newcomers to the discussion.
i'll also throw in a disclaimer that when i say "mom" and "dad," i mean it in terms of generalizations. i cant possibly speak to each situation out there. i dont mean to. it wouldnt get us anywhere. the problem isnt with individual interpretations of the law based upon each situation. the problem is an overwhelming and inherent flaw, along with a good deal of corruption, within the justice system, brought on by several historical societal factors. if this were a talk about race, i'd say "the black man" and "the white man". i wouldnt expect to get bashed for using the male gender nouns in those cases and i also wouldnt expect to get a response like "my uncle joe is a white and he's not racist" as a counter to the argument in general. so lets move on...
i read here that, sure, equal custody would work, but only where the parents get along. thats a perfectly ridiculous statement, altho i'm sure it wasnt meant that way. it seems on the surface to make sense. but think: why would the courts ever get involved in a situation where the parents already agreed? and by virtue of there being a disagreement, does that then necessitate an unequal arrangement? what that statement says is that if the parents dont get along, mom gets more time. unfortunately, that opinion didnt come out of the ass of one particular barbelith user. it came from a typical approach in these cases, which means that moms suddenly get an incentive to disagree.
i've also read here that, well, no one comes out happy in a courtroom situation. ha ha. well, i guess thats another reason to be wrong about decisions. just blame it on the fact that no one is ever happy with the outcome of the justice system. if no one's happy, we must be doing something right, right? thats a good way of looking at things if you believe that all is well in the world and there are no improvements to be made, i guess.
kids, yeah, kids unfortunately cant decide. for one thing, most kids in custody situations where there is conflict are pretty young, and unless a kid is nearly 18, they really arent in the position to make decisions like this. you may feel differently, but then again, some people might also believe that their 15 yr old should determine how late they should come home from a party, or how often they can talk on the phone.
theres also the problem of assuming that courts operate within the law. unfortunately, in a commodity-type court system, where cases move pretty quickly in and out, and there is little oversight and the parties are generally not sleeping on top of enormous amounts of cash, it's simply the case that the law is not followed as much as the status quo is followed, the path of least resistance. as an example, i'll use a quick case that i'm familiar with. in pennsylvania, all judges were given the order by the state legislature that beginning in january of 2004, they were to presume 50-50 custody in all cases. two months later, a judge overturned an agreement by two parties that gave 60-40 time in favor of the mother to give 80-20 time in favor of the mother. no reason was given, it just happened.
when you see a hundred cases like this after informally talking to a hundred people, things start to come out a certain way. if you'd like, you can write off my statements as those from a mad father, or a raging chauvinist. i'll simply answer that you're wrong. it's not my job to convince you of anything. i dont care if you're wrong, except that you're part of the same society that continues to support this kind of thing. in that regard, i do wish that more people would see what was really going on. however, this isnt usually the forum for changing minds, message boards on the internet. i've been thru this before, it's not going to happen that a movement will gain strength on the internet. it's gaining strength in other areas, and thats where i devote my time in terms of this specific issue. so blow me off if you want, it doesnt matter. if you saw it, you'd agree. i cant make you see it. it's easy to side with the status quo on this issue, because agreeing with these things has been set as the right thing to do. but sometimes the status quo is simply wrong.
regarding feminism, look, i believe that most social movements are driven by good intentions. i also believe that some outcomes of the feminist movement have been positive. i also understand that feminism isnt one movement. but i'd ask you to understand that fathers rights isnt one movement, either, and that attacking or judging fathers based on the actions of a few attention-getters is wrong, and to dismiss unfair custody law as falling in line with your perception of how some fathers treat their children is also wrong. as far as feminism goes, i believe that in some ways, it's instilled a false sense that in general, women are victims and men are a favored class. this is a harmful thing, i think. it may satisfy some people to know that when men walk into family court, they are viewed as the lesser party. some may feel there is some justice there. but to set aside special interests, it should be a goal of civilized and free societies to treat all people the same under the law. you may bring up minority hiring quotas as an arguably fair way of dealing with past inequities, but that analogy wouldnt apply here. minorities have been subject to centuries of inequality in most areas, which has left them with an inherited disadvantage. if we were to set the playing field even right now with custody law, there would be no historical disadvantages for anyone to overcome. it would simply be equal.
regarding "whats best for the children." you dont know, do you? no one knows. that uncertainty is no reason to arbitrarily decide that kids are better off with mom than with dad.
most of the counter arguments for equal custody can be pretty summarily dismissed, which i suppose can be a reason for people to get pissed off, when their arguments come out to be so very flimsy.
lastly, please dont assume that there isnt corruption in family courts. you see news all the time where courts have failed abused children, where courts sentence innocent people to long jail terms or death, you see high paid attorneys toying with the law to support guilty celebrities. you see high court justices pick and choose what precedents to follow and which ones to disregard, based on politics. you see cops mistreating people, politicians taking bribes. it's not a crazy thing to point to the money trail to see why family courts act the way they do. if you honestly feel that courts are designed to protect the underprivileged, to see all cases on their own merits, then maybe you should do some more research. i cant do it for you.
all i ask is that 1. you have sympathy for dads who dont get to see their kids as much as theyd like, and not make fun of them for dressing up like superheroes and climbing buildings. if they disrupt your commute, good for them. thats what social change is all about. 2. you appreciate the possibility that dads are parents just like moms, and that we havent necessarily come as far as is possible in terms of gender equality. women have their battles to fight, to be sure, and they are valid battles. but men have their battles to fight as well, no less valid and no less crucial to the prospect of future free societies.
if you read all this, thanks. i know it was long. if you are offended by my manner of writing, then i offend you. please, for the children, dont let personalities of some individuals blind you to the realities of the world. |
|
|
)