Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Some feminist memes and toons. [View all]ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)23. Sure. Here's some supporting data.
Please note, I'll not get into a duel of anecdotes, as that's not useful at all. There are terrible one-off decisions being made around custody cases every day. So let me point you to this. I think it's reasonably balanced:
"In the old days, the courts used "the best interest of the child" as the explanation for why they gave custody to one parent or the other. Old Bureau of Census statistics indicate that in the early 90s the custody continued to be 90% to the mother, 9% to other family members or child shelters, and 1% to the fathers. Usually, "best interest of the child" was shorthand for "the kids go with mom and dad gets to see the kids ever other weekend, split of the holidays, and a week or 2 in the summer."
In those days, it was exceptional for even those fathers whose ex was verifiably drug addicted, alcoholic or mentally ill, to win custody of his children. (To be fair, it should also be said that some fathers got the court to believe this even when it wasn't true--I have met many women who didn't have custody, who didn't seem to fit any of these categories.)
The courts in the old days weren't particularly shy about what they were doing with custody. One judge in the South was quoted on the record as saying he never gave custody to fathers because in his experience on the farm he had never seen a calf follow a bull around in the pasture; the baby calves only followed their mothers."
Look at that first Bureau of Census statistic. 90% vs 1%. If there was a Bureau of Census statistic that said that nationally, whenever police went to break up a bar-fight, they arrested black people 90% of the time, vs 1% of the time for whites, would you suspect the police might be possibly racist? Or, would you be a Rush fan and say that that blacks are 90 times to cause violence as whites do?
There are people who do evil and hurtful things all the times in custody cases. Including both sides lying. Constantly. I will also say that courts are being a bit more even-handed these days - which is actually a good thing. But gender roles are still heavily in play in many parts of the country concerning this. And if you're entirely in favor of gender roles when it helps you, only against it when it doesn't, then you're very much a hypocrite.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
34 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
if he can't force her to have sex with him, he can force her to listen to him
geek tragedy
Jan 2014
#7
"the Violence Against Women Act which portends the widescale curtailment of men’s civil liberties"
redqueen
Jan 2014
#31
I have a problem with it if it's going to print something an editor didn't actually check.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2014
#29