First post blank since it can't be edited but this is a continuation of the thread on Private Member's Bill C-422 here.
Private Bill C-422 con't
Sun, 2009-07-26 15:00
#1
Private Bill C-422 con't
Sun, 2009-07-26 15:08
#2
In the previous thread, among other comments that I'm not responding to:
If it is 60-40 then a fair assessment will have to be made as they do in Belgium and other countries with the presumption of equal shared parenting.
I'm not sure why there should be a presumption of equal shared parenting when, overwhelmingly men don't share parenting equally. Perhaps they do in other countries but I doubt it. I know they don't here. Statistics show that.
Men already have legal access to their children - they just need to exercise it before I think any such presumption can be considered valid.
Sun, 2009-07-26 16:46
#3
remind
Exactly loretta!
What really is going on is men's belief in their right to wholey owned:
Designer vaginas and all that goes with it in women's oppression and exploitation.
Sun, 2009-07-26 16:51
#4
It is precisely because most men don't share parenting that the patriarchal lobby is angling for a presumption that they have and will and therefore should be empowered by the State to resist any acknowledgment of the needs of parent that has and will...
Another element that is obscured in these partiarchalists world-view is the role played by stepfathers and other partners of the primary parent that often do much better responding to the child's needs than Battling Bio-Dad and his cheap tactics to remain in control and save a few bucks a week.
Sun, 2009-07-26 18:11
#5
Martin.... you really don't know what you're talking about !!!
Nearly 50% of divorced women with children are medicated mental patients. ( 70% of "antidepressant" users are... adult women.)
Check out www.paawareness.org to learn what many parents... MOSTLY MOTHERS... do to their children.
At www.ssristories.com just scroll down to Mother... and read the stories.
Sun, 2009-07-26 18:28
#6
Thank you. The more you guys post here, the more it becomes clear that you are waging a war of attrition against mothers (and proudly too...), rather than trying to improve the judicial process or legislation as you claim.
It's a good thing that judges are still allowed to judge situations like yours on their merits, case-by-case, and to (sometimes) keep misogynist harassers like yourselves away from children and their mothers... A shared caretaking presumption would strip them of the responsibility to do that.
Why not just crawl back into the woodwork - where some of you hope the Family Responsibility Office won't find you!...
Sun, 2009-07-26 20:59
#7
Maysie
drugbuster is gone.
A reminder that if anyone notices a troll, for more immediate attention, please email the moderators rather than use the "flag as offensive" button.
Sun, 2009-07-26 21:58
#8
Martin, Martin, Martin: Is this how you debate - resorting to hyperbole and name calling. Do you do this when translating for your customers. Do you really believe dads who love their children and want to be equal in their lives are mysogynists? I've seen many members of the curreent flavour of feminism called victim feminists - and you are cleary in that category - resort to this silly denunciation of people who disagree with you. Surely you can rise above that fairly low bar in explaining your cause. I always wondered why people like you display publicly your inability to seriously debate an issue without losing it. Its a pattern by some of your acolytes on board this thread too. How do you conduct yourself in your family environment. Do you yell and call them names too? Isn't that DV by your own definition? How about you remind do you abuse your children like this as well?
Thats like saying people who don't like Obama or Jessey Jackson or Al Sharpton hate Blacks. That would be racism! Personally I am ambivalent toward all 3 but not every one is. I don't dislike women - just professional victim feminists like remind and folks like you who spread myths which then categorize and smear all men and fathers as unworthy of parenting.
What ever happened to the original feminism where equality for all was the goal?
Mon, 2009-07-27 00:09
#9
What ever happened to the original feminism where equality for all was the goal?
That's kind of rich. Equality is the goal but the differences between men's and women's incomes following relationship breakdown, especially when there are children, is striking. Women make substantially less, overall, than men and part of that lower figure has to do with the fact that most single parents are women and those women do not have the same kind of freedom that their exes do upon separation and cannot pursue work-place opportunities, cannot generally work over-time, and often can't go away for extra education or training in other communities. Even when support is factored in, many women have given up work opportunities to raise children and have lower incomes than their former partners. That's not equality, and it is what family courts often have to consider when looking at the well-being of the children.
Equality for all would also mean that fathers did share equally in parenting and we know that's not true in many, many cases.
Mon, 2009-07-27 00:25
#10
And even if they did, as I hope they would, the paid work they do in the workforce would still be paid 143% of what women are paid (when they're paid) for their work (since women are still making seventy cents for every dollar men make. So it still wouldn't be equality.
Worse: if the patriarchalists ever managed to insert a shared parenting presumption in the law, men would do even less of the domestic work in families, knowing that whatever they have done or not done before a breakup will be treated the same by the court (or the rubber-stamp process that will replace it), their "rights" guaranteed by this presumption that will act as a disincentive to actual sharing before divorce or separation.
Mon, 2009-07-27 02:09
#11
Loretta: I would greatly appreciate the sources where you are basing your determinations, so that they can be reviewed with the same vigor that you and Mr. Dufresne apply to the bill we are discussing. Post them here if you will.
Dufresne: Can you also provide some numbers or reports that back up the claim that in territories or countries that have an equal parenting presumption in the law, that men do less domestic work than before the law was in place?
Martin, as the leader of "Montreal Men Against Sexism" does it not seem ironic, if not maddeningly hypocritical of you to carry on in this fashion while under the guise of someone, who by definition should be against the very thing that you are pervading?
Idle banter is one thing, and while mildly amusing, I have yet to see any real material from anyone on your side of the fence to give us anything substantial to discuss.
Mon, 2009-07-27 06:43
#12
Maysie
Troll update from me:
They are all gone, including Justin.
I hadn't read the previous thread when I closed it for length. It's not always possible for me to do so. But what an infestation! Holy troll patrol batpeople. This issue clearly brings out the entitlement in the father's rights folks. Ick.
I will let the other mods know to keep an eye on this thread.
Mon, 2009-07-27 07:24
#13
Thanks, Maysie, I didn't see the last thread at all...and I'm not sure I want to look now. :)
Okay, I looked. The thread WAS a bit of a cesspool, but I'm still not clear on what the bill actually says. If it says that courts should start with the assumption that both parents are capable and should share custody unless they see evidence that this would be a problem, then I don't see what the problem is with that - and in fact, I thought that's what was happening already.
A lot of people in the other thread also trotted out the idea that apparently the courts are all biased in favour of women and "assume" the woman should have custody from the start. This has not been my experience at all. And I believe Martin when he says that most contested cases are won by fathers - this has been my personal experience, and anecdotal experience from people I've known who have gone through contested cases. And even those people who have actually EXPERIENCED cases where fathers won custody over mothers think that somehow it was an anomaly that the father got custody. I deal with this assumption all the time - people are amazed when they find out that, while I have joint custody of my son, that he stays with his dad during the week and me on weekends. They assume I must have done something "wrong", when in fact it's just that the child has to live with someone during the week, and in this case, it's the father.
Furthermore, I have found out from talking to counsellors who deal with parental alienation that, in fact, most perpetrators they come across are MEN. So I also think that feminists who try to say that parental alienation doesn't exist are also shooting themselves in the foot - and are not standing in solidarity with those of us women who have experienced it and whose children have been victimized by their fathers.
I think, basically, that a lot of people hold a lot of mistaken ideas about what happens currently in court, especially the fathers' rights nutjobs. But I think even a lot of progressive people don't really understand what happens in family court when it comes to ugly divorce and custody cases. Certainly I didn't - until I started navigating the system myself!
Sun, 2021-11-28 20:46
#14
.
Mon, 2009-07-27 11:29
#15
remind
Thank you, and it must be a joy living in a FR home.
In other news on father's rights, a murder suicide family of 4 was discovered in AB yesterday.
Mon, 2009-07-27 14:44
#16
Troll update from me:
They are all gone, including Justin.
I hadn't read the previous thread when I closed it for length. It's not always possible for me to do so. But what an infestation! Holy troll patrol batpeople. This issue clearly brings out the entitlement in the father's rights folks. Ick.
I will let the other mods know to keep an eye on this thread.
Just got onto this thread and I was just curious why you banned those folks. It seemed like it was the people they were countering that were slinging the insults. In particular, wasn't that Justin character just asking for proof behind their claims. Kind of seems weird that you would let the insulters carry on while the insultees got banned, and it does kind of give weight to the fathers rights folks when you just punt them instead of providing intelligent response and counter arguments.
Just my .02 cents, hopefully there is more discussion to follow.
Mon, 2009-07-27 15:03
#17
remind
Just got on to this thread? You just got onto babble period.
I hope not
Mon, 2009-07-27 15:15
#18
I sure hope you think you're kidding someone, "binrev": it would be a waste to waste let that smarmy rhetoric go to waste, wouldn't it? And if you want the proofs behind our "claims", just go back to the earlier thread and check the hyperlinks in post #47. They were ignored by your camp, predictably.
Michelle, I am out of the house for 2 days but working on a response to your questions.
Mon, 2009-07-27 15:16
#19
I didn't realize the length of membership diminished the value of comments.
Mon, 2009-07-27 15:20
#20
I didn't realize the length of membership diminished the value of comments.
Actually, it's the other way around.
Mon, 2009-07-27 15:26
#21
Okay, let's not bicker.
binrev, if you have concerns about how the site is moderated, contact the moderators. Don't derail the thread.
Mon, 2009-07-27 15:28
#22
remind
Good Point GPie, it is the shortest that diminishes.
Mon, 2009-07-27 16:31
#23
I sure hope you think you're kidding someone, "binrev": it would be a waste to waste let that smarmy rhetoric go to waste, wouldn't it? And if you want the proofs behind our "claims", just go back to the earlier thread and check the hyperlinks in post #47. They were ignored by your camp, predictably.
Michelle, I am out of the house for 2 days but working on a response to your questions.
Just taking a peek at that thread, and I tried to track down those reports:
Schafran, Lynn Hecht, "Gender Bias in Family Courts," American Bar Association Family Advocate, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 26Ruth I. Abrams & John M. Greaney, Report of the Gender Bias Study of the Supreme Judicial Court [of Massachusetts] 62-63 (1983)
The first one (since the ABA Family Advocate is at Vol 31) would mean that the report is dated in or about 1993-1995. The second report is 25+ years old, using data I am sure that is even older than that. If you have copies of them (hopefuly I don't get booted for asking) then perhaps I could look at them.
Post the links please, I think it might be interesting for the fathers rights people to see the "other side".
Mon, 2009-07-27 16:53
#24
remind
Perhaps find your own other side links?
Mon, 2009-07-27 17:55
#25
I actually tried to find the documents, but I couldn't. I toured through the ABA site and tried to find the second document, but to no avail. That's why I was asking if someone had a local copy they could either post or send to me. It would be interesting to read the reports. I would think that such a hot topic we should encourage both sides to present as much material as possible. Once I get some more time later, I'll do a second search and post the results here.