There ARE cases where it’s not going to take 458,153,298 hours to resolve.
That was in a male dominated field, one of the few that currently exist. There is a bias in favour of men in male-dominated fields, and in favour of women in female dominated fields. On the whole, women don’t get paid less for the same work.
There is certainly a lot of racial bias, yes. Being a black man is the worst thing to be in society, and being a white woman the best.
I’m sorry, are you saying “Kim” is a female name? Perhaps you’d like to tell Kim Philby, Britain’s greatest ever spy, that? Or the eponymous Kim from Rudyard Kipling’s novel “Kim”, Kipling being the manliest author is human history? Or Kim Coates, the Canadian celerity and beard-wearer?
In any case, I refer you to the 2006 study in London by Riach & Rich, which showed that identical CVs with different names sent out were far more likely to result in an interview being given when the name was female, in a variety of female-dominated and gender-neutral occupations, with a small bias in favour of men in the male dominated occupation surveyed. There was a followup study in Australia in female-dominated industries showing the same thing, and another in Israel.
And women might work as hard, but not as long. Men in full time occupation average a higher number of hours. Men don’t do more “good jobs”, but more better paid jobs. Men are more likely to do dangerous and unpleasant jobs, and more likely to form and join unions to agitate for better wages.
Except part of the penis is cut off, and it’s roughly equivalent to the least extreme forms of female circumcision. On the whole female circumcision is much worse, but then cutting someone’s arm off is worse than cutting off their thumb, that doesn’t mean complaining about babies having their thumbs cut off without anaesthetic would make you a “whining pussy”. The benefits of male circumcision are controversial at best, and may be replicated in victims of female circumcision, but they’re not worth torturing new borns over.
One comment that sets my teeth on edge is anyone telling a little boy that boys (or men) don’t cry. Why shouldn’t they cry? It’s just the display of honest human emotions. Further, crying releases tension and is good for the mind and body. I don’t think of a man as being “less manly” when his tears are come easily. Who knows? Maybe men would live longer if they dealt with their feelings honestly.
Our neighborhood kids made it to the final rounds of the Little League World Series this year. When they finally lost, I don’t think there was a dry eye on the team or in the eyes of their parents.
I also think that men and women both should be considered for child custody. There are many, many men who would make the more nurturing parent.
And if I get to a door first, I open it for the next person – male or female. The world doesn’t fall down. And I’m not surprised when I see it. Why should women pretend that they don’t have the strength to open a door?
Be natural; be real; stop playing roles.
This is not nearly as bad as it’s portrayed, and actually, if anything men seem to be favored, overall.
The thing is, if a woman has custody, that’s just the way it is. If a man has custody, there’s a reason, and usually a very good one. Judges can totally see through things like guys who want custody so they can use the kids as a chick magnet, or so they don’t have to pay child support (never mind that it’s almost impossible to make a profit by having custody of your kids). They can also see through women who make false accusations of abuse against fathers, and doing so is a guaranteed way to lose custody themselves, especially if the kids say it never happened.
Honestly, how many men really WANT to be responsible for the kids 24/7/365, and why do you think so many divorced fathers got that way in the first place? Think about it. I’ve actually known several men who said they planned to treat their wives poorly after the kids arrived so they would be a divorced dad - i.e. all the fun and none of the responsibility.
(grabs flameproof suit)
Do you have a link more recent than 1990?
There is one inequality I feel compelled to accept, and that is reproductive freedom. I firmly believe that a woman has sole custody of her own body, and is therefore empowered to decide whether or not to carry a baby to term. A prospective father has every right to cajole, persuade and implore for the sake of a prospective child he has every right to consider his. But that’s all. If she decides otherwise, that’s it.
And no, that is not fair. Behold, the toughness of the noogies.
You mean cases where it’s totally one side’s fault and not the other’s?
Wow, I’d heard Scott Adams was a dickhead but I didn’t realize he was a supreme blue ribbon dickhead.
Good to know.
If men are disenfranchised by the legal system’s bias against them, the amount of men that keep at it doesn’t tell the whole story. My mother practices family law and primarily defends men in divorce and custody battles, and it’s absolutely ridiculous some of the stories of decent guys who cannot get custody for the stupidest of reasons. One vindictive wife falsely accused her husband of molesting the children, and he spent many thousands of dollars for examinations and evaluations including a probe up his urethra to prove that he was not aroused by children. If he had not pursued custody through this humiliation, he would show up as “not asking for custody” on the study.
Well, the linked page says
And then goes on to talk about cases where fathers went to court to keep the mothers away from the children.
What the blogger doesn’t say, or doesn’t know, is that most divorces are settled out of court: the parties eventually come to an agreement.
Looking at cases where fathers went to court to keep the moms away, without looking at the reasons they may have done that, and trying to draw some sort of conclusions from it seems sort of silly.
Looking at cases where moms went to court to keep dads away might be an apt comparison.
here’s a 2002 U.S. census report on who was awarded custody from 1994-2002 that involved 13.4 million parents and 21.5 million children, mother’s appears to be awarded custody about 85% of the time.
Women also appear to be the party filing for divorce 2/3 of the time. I understand just because it’s the woman filing divorce that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the man who initiated or wanted it in the first place.
This document says nothing about who is “awarded” custody. It only lists who has custody, not how they got it. The only things awarded in your cite is child support, not custody.
If the issue is a perceived bias in how the courts divvy up custody of kids, the cite should reflect this. A vast number of custody issues never make it to the courts and a majority of those that do are agreed upon. If you want to look into a bias in court rulings, you can only look at cases where a court ruled. It seems that men have a 50/50 shot to win in those cases.
Whoa. Around here, doing that would cost HER custody, and possibly unsupervised visitation rights as well.
Right, but the point is that to reach the stage where a dad is fighting for full custody, there is some reason behind it. Lawyers’ fees alone will add up to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. To say men are getting their “fair share” (whatever that means) of custody by looking at cases where mom is a crackhead isn’t really telling you anything.
Also, “requesting custody” and having a contested trial are not the same thing. One is saying, “I’d really like to see my kids as much as possible” during the negotiations that ultimately lead to some agreement. The other is spending many thousands of dollars (dollars many couples don’t have) so that a judge or jury can make the decision for them.
It could be that some men just don’t want to see their kids that much, or it could be that dads’ lawyers are telling them, “Look, the judge is going to give primary custody to mom unless she’s a crackhead, so unless you want to pay me thousands of more dollars to reach the same result, you might as well sign it as it is.”
I don’t know which is the case, but looking at cases where (for example) mom’s an alcoholic doesn’t tell you anything about what judges are likely to do in a run of the mill case,
Of course a father should have no right to force a woman to have an abortion. Maybe if the father was raped, but otherwise certainly not. Similarly, a mother should have no right to compel a man to pay for her choices through the child support system.