Ah, racism, the accusation of the loser. Being concerned about a black v white war in South Africa is not being racist.
When did you disprove yours? Until you do, I don’t think anyone should lend credence to your racist jabberings
A stupid lie: I am honest about my political sympathies and sensibilities; you just don’t like them. I’ve described a number of times how I’ve voted in the past. I don’t drink the Democrat / Labour Kool-Aid and that’s apparently enough for you to condemn me. That I don’t drink the Republican / Conservative Kool-Aid either is something you appear to ignore.
I pitted DavidMich because I thought he was a bot. You can go back and check the thread yourself. But you know that already since you were a contributor to the thread and you posted in the thread just three months ago. So why did you keep the thread alive after two and a half years instead of closing it as a zombie? And wasn’t I instructed to leave him alone? And is it not the case that I have done so?
Only being concerned about the White side in everything South Africa-related, however, is. Also, cheering on White nationalists doesn’t help the optics.
Sometime in 1999, I think it was
I’m not the one obsessively posting the race-baiting threads…
You’ve not updated it in 19 years? You’re probably being all kinds of racist that have been developed in the meantime.
No, I’m pretty sure the proof is still viable.
Nihil sub sole novum potissimum discriminationum stirpis
If you stick your pinkie in them, do you have to penis swear?
Did you just Hex me? Jaysus will save me from your witchy ways!
Retuning to this, your argument is that the treatment of men versus women (before the law, before the public?) is analogous to the treatment of blacks (before the law?). This is ridiculous, ludicrous, insulting to everyone involved. You realize that reality is biased against you, right?
“Men” as a category don’t get a raw deal. If you really think they do, why don’t you start a thread on that instead of oozing around the edges of a conversation you never admitted to having?
To stave off the inevitable responses: yes, there are certain ways in which men are at a disadvantage compared to women, some of which are significant. Where these arguments usually take a double-gainer into the nearest cesspit is in using that point to conclude that 1) men are the real victims here, and 2) that the only way for men to get justice is to keep women down. Whereas quite a lot of those areas would more effectively be dealt with by women having far more equality, which would then become a tool in levelling the playing field for all.
We now return you to your previously scheduled dickhead excoriation.
You do a proper imitation, then.
You don’t really believe that, right? Start with divorce, why do courts still favor preference for women over men when it comes to child custody, despite some states passing laws trying to end this favoritism, it hasn’t happened. Across the board, men still only receive primary custody 8-14% of the time, equal custody awarded in only 2-6% of cases.
ahem
I repeat: yes, there are ways in which men are unfairly discriminated against. But if this thread is going to turn into yet another attempt to compare the ways men are victimized in Western society against the ways women are victimized in Western society, even with recent gains the women’s list is still going to be a lot longer.
I swear, it’s the “white privilege” argument all over again. Everyone has to eat a shit sandwich sometimes, but some groups get second and third helpings.
…in some places, at some times.
What is the percentage of divorces* where the men actually petition for custody*? And also, given only 20% of custody arrangements are contested, that percentage doesn’t look out of line…
We can’t just look at who was awarded custody. We need to look at who asked for custody, what the laws are surrounding who is supposed to get custody, and the behaviors of parents and what impact that may have on court decisions.
For example, if custody is supposed to go to the primary caregiver, how many men are the primary caregiver for their children? I am guessing this is much below 50%. Do you have another guess? If I’m right, why would men be less likely to be primary caregivers? Is that just a result of a neutral happenstance? I think that’s very unlikely. I think it’s more likely that a combination of personal, societal, religious (in some cases), and job pressures make it more likely for women to be primary child caregivers. Men and women are not perceived or treated as equals when it comes to anything else, why would they be treated as equals in this?
Is a law that gives precedence to the primary child caregiver wrong? Do we assume that it was written facially neutrally but with the intent to give custody to women, or do we assume it is actually meant to be in the best interests of the child? Should a parent who never provides child care be given custody, all else being equal? Is there a principle here we can tease out?
Do judges think women are better child caregivers? They probably do. Why? For those same societal, personal, and religious reasons? What is the cure for that? How do we move toward treating women and men as equals?
Briefly, all good points, you raise, wonky. Perhaps, many men may not petition for custody if they think the odds are already stacked in their disfavor. That still didn’t stop my friend from trying to get custody of his daughter. All the lawyers he sought out were not optimistic, so he represented himself. After it was all over, even the judge told him, he was very impressed with how well he had represented his case, but despite all what he had done, the judge still awarded custody to mother. My friend saved all of the boxes of papers. He just didn’t want his daughter to grow up and think that he didn’t even try. It’s been decades ago, I believe he got every other weekends with her, don’t remember all of the details.
I doubt it is really doing mom’s much of a favor either when they are awarded sole custody. It may make her even more dependent on the dad financially for alimony and child support, and to prevent her from finding a job. Quite a task for either parent to do so mostly by themselves. I don’t know all of the nuances involved. Just was interested if SD wanted to qualify her statement a bit more.
Here is a good article about how the perception of how the courts will rule in a custody case can actually shape how the courts will rule in a custody case. If the clients and lawyers think that courts as a rule greatly favor mothers, then this will guide how they present their case.
Its worth realizing that anything that happened decades ago is unlikely to reflect the current state of child custody arrangements in court. Every one of the divorced couples (or kids of divorced parents) I know in the past fifteen years have involved dual or shared custody - usually 50/50. This is Minnesota, and family court tends to differ by state, but its my understanding that courts have become much more egalitarian and interested in shared custody.
(As for Quartz, he’s been a rape apologist for years and one of the contributors to the overall feeling of misogyny on these boards)
None of this explains your expressed concern about people bad-mouthing Trump on the board, and even though you claim not to be a supporter.
A stupid lie. Or if not a lie, extremely stupid. If you really though he was a bot you should have notified the mods instead of Pitting him so they could have checked it out. But if you really thought that, you’re a complete idiot, since even a casual look at his behavior would refute that. Despite the evidence presented in the thread, you continued to insist he might be a bot.
If he wasn’t a bot, then he deserved an apology. By not admitting you might have been wrong, you stood by all the assholish things you said about him.
Now this is completely moronic. The thread was bumped by another asshole like you. Pit threads about particular posters are often allowed to stay open over a long period of time. In any case it’s not my forum.
Where were you “instructed” to leave him alone? You were rightly ridiculed for your attack. I told you, as a poster, you were an asshole for Pitting him. I never gave you any instructions, as a moderator, to leave him alone, and as far as I know no other mod did either.
I can see why you would want that thread closed, since it does highlight what a stupid asshole you are. But better not to post such shit in the first place, and if you really want to control the damage it would be best to apologize and admit you were wrong for Pitting him rather than whine about the thread still being open.