[InternetMarketer]

Why is there bias against men in family courts?

[A War You Cannot Win]

Alpha fucks

Beta bucks

[InternetMarketer]

That wasn't a good answer.

Anyways, here is some interesting stuff. Men get the shaft in family courts, definitely not getting married.

Quote:

Mothers get primary residential custody 93.4% of the time in divorces.

Fathers in divorce get primary residential custody only 2.5% of the time.

Fathers in divorce get joint physical custody only 4% of the time.

Fathers in divorce get primary or joint physical custody less than 7% of the time.

Where fathers actively seek custody, they receive primary residency in less than one out of three cases (29%), and joint physical residency in less than half (46%).

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawrevie...efram.html

[Hades]

Women are seen as being better parents to children and more essential to the development of a child, whereas a father is fairly expendable. This parenting standard holds true even if Daddy is a responsible citizen while Mommy is an abusive alcoholic, the courts will always cut her slack because he's the culprit somehow.
The "standards of living" of the mother is also pretty strongly tied to the children (go figure) so once she accepts a certain living standard, like living in a two million dollar mansion and having a live-in housekeeper, the courts are hesitant to force her to backslide to a two-bedroom apartment situated above a bowling alley. Children are always used as weapons in divorce court.

It's also commonly believed that women make much less money than an average man, and that men can live on basically shit while working until death, so men should just pay money to the mothers of their children and that's an arrangement.

[Grit]

(07-25-2013 12:02 PM)Hades Wrote:  

Women are seen as being better parents to children and more essential to the development of a child, whereas a father is fairly expendable. This parenting standard holds true even if Daddy is a responsible citizen while Mommy is an abusive alcoholic, the courts will always cut her slack because he's the culprit somehow.
The "standards of living" of the mother is also pretty strongly tied to the children (go figure) so once she accepts a certain living standard, like living in a two million dollar mansion and having a live-in housekeeper, the courts are hesitant to force her to backslide to a two-bedroom apartment situated above a bowling alley. Children are always used as weapons in divorce court.

It's also commonly believed that women make much less money than an average man, and that men can live on basically shit while working until death, so men should just pay money to the mothers of their children and that's an arrangement.

Oh, the irony. The courts see the fathers as expendable, yet go over to the McDonald's thread and watch as men get blamed for leaving the poor, helpless mother with four bastard children. So: fathers are expendable, but not. Kick them out of the children's lives, but demand they still pay for the mother to raise them.

The only common thread here is that society holds women blameless and not responsible, period. Hence anything and everything gets foisted on men.

A man will never get equal public attention as a man. Therefore in an equal and fair society, women cannot have the ability to vote.

[MikeCF]

It's a form of welfare.

The judge sees a (now) single mom and a kid.

The judge thinks, "Either she'll go on welfare or the man will provide for the kid."

Generally speaking, men are viewed as pack mules by all members of society.

Why would anyone care if a man remained a bachelor? That pisses people off because then the man isn't carrying enough weight.

Once you peel off all the layers of the onion, swallow the red pill, or whatever metaphor...You really start to realize that society really fucking hates our guts.