Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.
Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.
- Not have jobs and not have enough non-employment income to be above the poverty level without being employed
- Earn low income even if employed
- Have custody of four or more children
- Combine joblessness with multiple child custody
- Become custodial parents as teens.
Research by Cynthia Harper of the University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton suggests that boys are significantly more likely to end up in jail or prison by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by a single mother. Bruce Ellis of the University of Arizona found that about one-third of girls whose fathers left the home before they turned 6 ended up pregnant as teenagers, compared with just 5 percent of girls whose fathers were there throughout their childhood. A study by Mary Corcoran and Roger Gordon of the University of Michigan shows that receipt of welfare income has negative effects on the long-term employment and earnings capacity of young boys. That study also found that both boys and girls were twice as likely to become unwed teen parents if raised in a fatherless home.
Fathers' rights groups have sought to remedy the courts' senseless handling of child custody by introducing and advocating for legislation to change the standard custody arrangement following an uncontested divorce. These laws, introduced in the United States, Australia, and Canada, would ensure equal time with each parent. This would also change how child support is handled, as equal time between the parents would mean that neither should be faced with a greater share of the child's living expenses. This would limit reasons for assigning a child support obligation to factors like differences in income or other personal resources.
Feminist groups have opposed the introduction of laws related to equally shared parenting using writing that uses a dishonest representation of the law as an every-case imperative, and demonization of fathers as deadbeats and abusers to argue against the proposed standard.
(Note that Michigan NOW has scrubbed the original of this post from the 'net. The original link, http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html, still comes up in searches of Michigan NOW's content, ((screenshot)) is widely referenced, and is quoted all over, but there is now no example of it in its original form.
NOW's 1996 Conference Resolutions include anti-shared parenting resolutions that demonize fathers as deadbeats and abusers
Feminist groups state that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children. The National Organization For Women and the American Bar Association also question the motives of those promoting shared parenting, noting that it would result in substantial decreases in or termination of child support payments.
- 40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish their ex-spouse
- Between 25% & 33% of mothers denied visits
- 90% of the violence and kidnapping we have seen are in sole custody situations in which the sole custodial parent fears losing his or her custody status, or the parentectomized parent kidnaps the child away from the sole custody parent who possessively blocks the visiting parent from access.
- Frequency of Visitation by Divorced Fathers: Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers - Sanford H. Braver, Ph.D., Sharlene A. WoIchik, Ph.D., Irwin M. Sandler, Ph.D., Bruce S. Fogas, Ph.D., Daria Zvetina, M.Ed.
- Unilateral abuse of parental custodial power is more common in court ordered sole custody situations.
- Child Custody and Parental Cooperation - Frank Williams, M.D., Dir. Psychiatry
- Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father's continued contact with his children
- Surviving the Breakup - Joan Berlin Kelly and Judith S. Wallerstein
- The former spouse [mother] was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children
- Increasing Our Understanding of Fathers Who Have Infrequent Contact With Their Children - James R. Dudley, Professor, University North Carolina
- 70% of fathers felt they had too little time with their children.
- Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce.
- Few men can afford to legally contest every infringement of the
-Visitation and the Noncustodial Father - Mary Ann P. Koch, Carol R. Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 1984)
- In 2006, approximately 58% of perpetrators in child abuse cases were women.
- In 2007, 56.5% of the perpetrators were women.
- In 2008, 56.2% of the perpetrators were women.
- In 2009, 53.8% of the perpetrators were women.
- In 2010, 53.6% of the perpetrators were women.
- In 2011, 53.6% of the perpetrators were women again.
Study: Child abuse on decline in U.S. (CBS)
Child Abuse Rate In The U.S. Drops For 5th Straight Year (Huffington Post)
Statistics showing that women are more than half of abuse perpetrators in the U.S. directly contradict NOW's inference that routinely assigning custody to mothers following divorce would prevent children from being placed in abusive homes. One could even come to the conclusion that routinely assigning custody to mothers puts children at greater risk, yet nobody is proposing that mothers be cut out of their children's lives to eliminate that risk.
Baseless accusations and conditions which aren't gender specific are not legitimate reasons to oppose instituting equally shared parenting as the applied custody arrangement in uncontested divorces. As a society, we've seen the negative effects of cutting either parent out of the child's life. Wouldn't it be most beneficial to the child to ensure that he or she receive the benefit of both parents whenever possible?
If the best interest of the child really is the standard feminists embrace, the most sensible way they can show that is by ceasing to oppose equally shared parenting initiatives. That opposition is not rooted in concern over abuse, but self-serving bigotry against men.
On its own, without the dialogue at the end, Alison's video makes its own solid point: There is no reasonable, rational cause to differentiate in our language between what we call it when a man forces himself sexually upon a woman, and when a woman forces herself sexually upon a man. It is the same violation. It is the same malicious behavior. It is the same intent to contravene the victim's right to refuse. It should be classified as the same crime, without prejudice of any kind involved in that determination.
The dialogue at the end shows that there's more to this than people realize, that when the thought process behind determining that raping a man isn't rape is held up to even simple scrutiny, it becomes very, very ugly.
Just for a moment, think about what is being said by the CDC's researcher at the end of the video.
"There is a definition of rape, and it's a separate form of victimization..."
See, it's different when a woman does it to a man. Because we said so.
"These are in line with the CDC uniform definitions for sexual violence."
Male rape victims don't deserve as much acknowledgement as female rape victims because Authority said so.
"We're the first survey to actually include this 'made to penetrate'." This, followed by the admonition that there's "experts and processes from all over the country going back several years." So for all of those years feminists worked to study sex crime, they excluded male victims of female perpetrators, because male victims weren't an area of interest for them. And that makes defining rape to exclude them A-ok, right? Because that's the way they've always done it.
What does she mean by using the word "construct" in answer to a question about why forcing unwanted sex on a man is not rape? Does the CDC consider rape a construct, instead of a real concept? Rape isn't real?
If rape isn't real, obviously the language used to describe the act becomes very, very important; defining, in fact. So using a different word for the rape of one sex than the rape of the other would be a concrete way of defining victimization of the sex denied recognition out of existence. Deny them the "construct," and you can erase the crime.
Feminists, who exploit proxy female victim status for political and social power, portray rape as a crime committed as an attack on the individual's gender, not just the individual. In order for them to be able to support their treatment of rape as a gendered crime, and exploit the proxy victim status that narrative creates for them, they cannot have anywhere near equal numbers of male victims. They especially cannot have male victims of female perpetrators. They cannot admit that women do commit rape. They cannot admit that women can commit rape. That is why they've worked so hard to erase male victims of female perpetrators; not because women don't rape, but because feminists don't benefit from talking about it.