Quote: (07-26-2011 03:36 AM)kerouac Wrote:
Maybe you need to re-read what was said.
That's the problem. It is not enough to read just what was said, this is a typical way you fall into some biased propaganda. Remember, you're listening just to one side. It makes sense if you just want to feel outraged, but it makes no sense if you really want to know the facts.
Quote:Quote:
Father's rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. They feel that men should not be punished for being men, and that women should not be awarded custody to their kids simply for being women. Currently women are awarded primary custody almost all the time, even if the husband was the stay-at-home Dad and the woman was the breadwinner.
Now, to give you an idea, here's what I did:
- I googled and read
the proposed bill. Even with my very little knowledge in family law I'd say the bill had very little chance to pass in its original form.
This post summarizes some issues with the bill; I do not agree with many of her points, but I'm not family lawyer so I cannot say for sure they're invalid. Some, however, I agree (for example, "clear and convincing evidence" is a standard which is too high for civil matters)
- I checked
the bill history just to see that it didn't even pass the committee (5 "no" 4 "yes"), which may be an indication of poor quality of the bill. There were no formal vote on the bill in the House or Senate,
Did you do ANY of this?
Quote:Quote:
NOW opposed that case. Is equal custody justice? I'd say so. If NOW is opposing justice, then it is fighting for injustice.
As I have said, you're one of those who seem to have a wrong idea about justice. Justice is not about making things fair for everyone (this is absurd, and simply impossible). Justice is to ensure everyone follows the same rules (laws), and the disputes are decided according to those rules, not according to some abstract "fairness".
Now about the rules. Some men seem to think that the rules in child custody cases should be faced on protecting the equality of parents. However the rules in those cases are to protect the interest of a
child, the parents' interests are secondary. If there is a conflict between parent interests and child interests, the government policy - pretty much everywhere across the world - is that the child interest should prevail. Note that the parents are adults and supposedly can take care of their interests'; a child has only his parents to take care of his interests, and if their interests clash, it creates conflict of interests.
As you see, the whole issue was not as easy as it was presented, and is FAR away from being as simple as "feminists are trying to screw us".
Quote:Quote:
Men want protection against false rape allegations. They feel that a man's life should not be ruined simply on the allegation of a woman who may be a vindictive liar. Currently, a woman can accuse a man of rape for no reason, and the man's name is splashed in the newspaper and his life is ruined. So, they fought for laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape—not convicted, just charged.
British groups fought this.
This was in UK, and I'm completely unfamiliar with UK laws; in US this law would definitely be struck down because of Equal Protection (because it singles out men); maybe even First Amendment charges (it restricts free speech). It also begs a question why rape is singled out; a false allegation of child molesting, murder, even domestic violence carries the same, if not heavier, stigma.
And, to play devil's advocate, for the vast majority of people this is not really a concern - unless you're a known celebrity, the news have very little to no incentive to report that Jane Doe accused Joe Shmoock of rape. There were roughly 180,000 reported rapes in US in 2010, which translates to roughly 520 a day. How many of them you heard about? I'd guess probably less than ten.
Quote:Quote:
The premise of the post is that "feminist" groups, or feminist-supremacist groups, as they should more accurately be labeled, are using the term "feminism" and the perceived idea that feminism is seeking equality, and using it to pursue feminist-supremacy.
Dude, you live in US which is the most hypocritical country in the world I've ever seen. You have politicians here who scream about "cutting the debt" while at the same time saying nothing about maintaining three wars or cuts in the military budget, which is the largest in the world. You have Supreme Court Justices who are openly on conservative payroll, receive perks (and not even shy about this), and make the decisions favorable to their sponsors. You have some other governors, members of Congress and Senate who speak boldly about "family values" and then being caught trying to suck a cock in public restrooms, hiring a whore or having an affair. That's how politics work in this country. And those are top-level politicians, whose actions are closely watched all around the world. Don't pretend to be shocked by a special interest group having a hidden agenda. You should have got used to it long time ago.
Quote:Quote:
The problem with the term "feminism" is that it is too broad. If feminism is about the fight for equality, then that's one thing, but if feminism means something grander, like the fight to push women to the top, then it's something completely different.
Nobody in this country fights for equality.
Everyone fights for either their own interests, or for something they're being paid for. Don't expect equality from special interest groups.
Quote:Quote:
Furthermore, I would reconsider your definition of injustice, which I gather you take as whatever seems "normal" to you. Injustice has a clear definition: "lack of fairness."
The problem with this definition is that everyone defines "fairness" differently. Is it fair for John to fuck Adam's girlfriend behind his back? Adam would say no, but John (and probably even Adam's girlfriend) would say yes. Now you have two sides, both believing what they do is fair. That's why justice doesn't deal with abstract fairness.
Quote:Quote:
Is it fair that a man who is accused of rape, whose charges are later dismissed, must still suffer the consequences of the rape charge? No.
No, it is not fair. But let's play it differently. Let's assume someone raped your daughter; do you think it would be fair to gag you to talk about it (i.e. you cannot even discuss it with your family as they might leak it to news) until the rapist is convicted? After all, you said it above yourself that the charges can be dismissed, so why would he suffer the consequences?
Quote:Quote:
Is it fair that the mother gets preferential treatment in courts, when all else is equal? No.
Again, you fixate on parent interests. It is the child interest the court addresses primarily; parents' interests are secondary.
I'm not very familiar with the family court systems (it seems to be more fair than, for example, in Russia), but in all cases I've read about it was dude's fault. As I said, the justice system is not your Mom. It expects you to actually do something, not just stand still and expect everything to be "fair". It also expects you to proceed in a specific way, to follow the rules and timelines, and failure to do so is often penalized.
Quote:Quote:
The fight towards justice is what is important here.
Before joining the fight I need to be sure there is something to fight for, which is based on valid legal analysis and facts. I said more than once, think how'd you be divorced BEFORE you got married. If you are a rich dude who married a poor but hot party girl who doesn't want to work, you're basically a loser asking to be ripped off. I have no desire to fight for such dude's bad decisions.
