# Women Against Feminism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2015, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667 "2015-09-27T03:08:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/521 "2015-10-31T00:53:00Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > You’d said in some other thread that you don’t talk to women you don’t know. If you’ve forgotten about it, it doesn’t matter. It wasn’t this exactly – I said that I don’t talk to strange women in public places I pass by or happen to be near on public transportation. But there are many other situations in which I’m fine with talking to women I don’t know. Basically, I avoid trying to talk to any woman in a situation in which women have indicated to me (in the past) that being approached in such a situation makes them uncomfortable. This includes passing by on the street, being on public transportation, and things like that. It doesn’t include being in line at a movie theater, or being in a bar, or watching a game, or things like that. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/522 "2015-10-31T01:00:09Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Fine. Then let every case be different and evaluated on its own. That’s not the law in my state, however. The default in my state - and as far as I can tell - in other states as well, is every-other-weekend. > > There’s a reason why there’s a default. It’s because not everybody can afford to litigate. In fact, given that litigating a divorce costs tens of thousands of dollars, most people can’t afford to litigate. > > And then there’s the fact that all that money could have gone to the kids, instead of lawyers. Can you please cite this Texas child custody law that prescribes the default you are claiming here? Everything I have been able to find, for Texas and other States, does not mention that at all. Since you are a lawyer, I will give you the benefit of the doubt as you should know better. Why can’t I find these laws? Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/523 "2015-10-31T01:00:59Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > You need to look more closely. Whenever there’s a proposal to make 50/50 custody the default, instead of every-other-weekend, feminists have opposed it. Having done a little reading about this (I’ve never been divorced so I wasn’t familiar), I would probably oppose it too – not because I would want a different default, but because I would want NO default. I’d want to get rid of “every-other-weekend” too. It should be case-by-case. And since you mentioned inability to litigate, I’d say that’s a problem that should be handled by the system without just substituting a default settlement. And that’s not a position that you can pin on feminism or say is a feminist double-standard. I wonder if that’s the argument feminist groups have used against it. I would have to see before judging. Feel free to post a link. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/524 "2015-10-31T01:04:07Z")
Oops, **camille** beat me to it. I too would like to see evidence that “every other weekend” is the legal default in any state, let alone many. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/525 "2015-10-31T01:31:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sure, there’s nothing wrong with changing your mind about somebody as you get to know them. I never claimed that anybody is obligated always to want the same thing at all times. But they **are** obligated not to pretend they want one thing if they know that what they want is something different. > Nobody’s saying that anybody mustn’t or shouldn’t feel disappointed if a hoped-for relationship didn’t work out. But they shouldn’t automatically default to blaming the person who turned them down. \ We’re in perfect agreement. If you find yourself friend-zoned, your should extricate yourself from the situation and move on. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/526 "2015-10-31T01:40:50Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Can you please cite this Texas child custody law that prescribes the default you are claiming here? Everything I have been able to find, for Texas and other States, does not mention that at all. Since you are a lawyer, I will give you the benefit of the doubt as you should know better. Why can’t I find these laws? > > Thanks in advance. > [@](#): > > SUBCHAPTER F. **STANDARD POSSESSION ORDER** > > This section was amended by the 84th Legislature. Pending publication of the current statutes, see S.B. 821, 84th Legislature, Regular Session, for amendments affecting this section. > > Sec. 153.3101. REFERENCE TO “SCHOOL” IN STANDARD POSSESSION ORDER. In a standard possession order, “school” means the primary or secondary school in which the child is enrolled or, if the child is not enrolled in a primary or secondary school, the public school district in which the child primarily resides. > > Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1113 (H.B. 1012), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2009. > Sec. 153.311. MUTUAL AGREEMENT OR SPECIFIED TERMS FOR POSSESSION. The court shall specify in a standard possession order that the parties may have possession of the child at times mutually agreed to in advance by the parties and, in the absence of mutual agreement, shall have possession of the child under the specified terms set out in the standard possession order. > > Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995. > Amended by: > Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1113 (H.B. 1012), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2009. > Sec. 153.312. PARENTS WHO RESIDE 100 MILES OR LESS APART. (a) If the possessory conservator resides 100 miles or less from the primary residence of the child, the possessory conservator shall have the right to possession of the child as follows: > (1) on weekends throughout the year beginning at 6 p.m. on the first, third, and fifth Friday of each month and ending at 6 p.m. on the following Sunday; and > (2) on Thursdays of each week during the regular school term beginning at 6 p.m. and ending at 8 p.m., unless the court finds that visitation under this subdivision is not in the best interest of the child. > (b) The following provisions govern possession of the child for vacations and certain specific holidays and supersede conflicting weekend or Thursday periods of possession. The possessory conservator and the managing conservator shall have rights of possession of the child as follows: > (1) the possessory conservator shall have possession in even-numbered years, beginning at 6 p.m. on the day the child is dismissed from school for the school’s spring vacation and ending at 6 p.m. on the day before school resumes after that vacation, and the managing conservator shall have possession for the same period in odd-numbered years; > (2) if a possessory conservator: > (A) gives the managing conservator written notice by April 1 of each year specifying an extended period or periods of summer possession, the possessory conservator shall have possession of the child for 30 days beginning not earlier than the day after the child’s school is dismissed for the summer vacation and ending not later than seven days before school resumes at the end of the summer vacation, to be exercised in not more than two separate periods of at least seven consecutive days each, with each period of possession beginning and ending at 6 p.m. on each applicable day; or > (B) does not give the managing conservator written notice by April 1 of each year specifying an extended period or periods of summer possession, the possessory conservator shall have possession of the child for 30 consecutive days beginning at 6 p.m. on July 1 and ending at 6 p.m. on July 31; > (3) if the managing conservator gives the possessory conservator written notice by April 15 of each year, the managing conservator shall have possession of the child on any one weekend beginning Friday at 6 p.m. and ending at 6 p.m. on the following Sunday during one period of possession by the possessory conservator under Subdivision (2), provided that the managing conservator picks up the child from the possessory conservator and returns the child to that same place; and > (4) if the managing conservator gives the possessory conservator written notice by April 15 of each year or gives the possessory conservator 14 days’ written notice on or after April 16 of each year, the managing conservator may designate one weekend beginning not earlier than the day after the child’s school is dismissed for the summer vacation and ending not later than seven days before school resumes at the end of the summer vacation, during which an otherwise scheduled weekend period of possession by the possessory conservator will not take place, provided that the weekend designated does not interfere with the possessory conservator’s period or periods of extended summer possession or with Father’s Day if the possessory conservator is the father of the child. [Link](http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.153.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/527 "2015-10-31T02:05:03Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I don’t necessarily disagree, but would you also say that the fact that inter-gender friendships have the potential for attraction, and things can turn awkward when it’s unrequited, is part of Adult Friendships 001? Absolutely, and that’s not limited to same-gender friendships, either. Anybody who gets horrified or freaked-out or resentful just because one of their friends starts experiencing some sexual or romantic attraction towards them is also too immature and/or naive to be dating, IMO. **However,** that is not the same thing as requiring people to have telepathic awareness about a friend secretly being attracted to them. If your friend is attracted to you and doesn’t tell you about it, you shouldn’t be expected to guess their feelings. In particular, despite what some gender-traditionalist types claim, you should **not** automatically assume that all your opposite-sex friends (or all your same-sex homosexual friends) secretly want to bone you. (Can you imagine the shit women would get if they actually made that assumption about their male friends? Cue the cries of _“what a conceited bitch”_ and _“hell she’s not even that hot”_ and _“how sexist to take it for granted that a man can’t just want to be friends with a woman without being sexually attracted to her”_.) ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/528 "2015-10-31T02:26:50Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > [Link](http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.153.htm). Thanks, but that appears to be a default arrangement for a _visitation_ schedule (which is apparently called _possession and access_ in Texas). It doesn’t determine a default for who is the custodial and non-custodial parent, or if there is to be joint custody. Is there a legal default for that? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/529 "2015-10-31T06:08:18Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Having done a little reading about this (I’ve never been divorced so I wasn’t familiar), I would probably oppose it too – not because I would want a different default, but because I would want NO default. I’d want to get rid of “every-other-weekend” too. It should be case-by-case. And since you mentioned inability to litigate, I’d say that’s a problem that should be handled by the system without just substituting a default settlement. 95% of divorces are settled out of court. There are good reasons for that. One is that many people can’t afford it. Another is that even among those that can, many would rather spend the money on their kids - sending them to college, for example - than on lawyers. Nevertheless, to the extent that people are reasonable - and people aren’t always reasonable when they’re divorcing - they have to have some standard to determine what’s “fair”. When they do that, they look around them, and they look at the law. When they look around them, they see that women get custody about 85% of the time. When they look at the law, they see the standard is every-other-weekend. Which isn’t to say fathers can’t get custody. It’s to say that they’re looking at a long, expensive, drawn-out fight. And one they’re likely to lose anyway. But what I want to ask is, when you say there should be no standard, what do you mean by that? You used the phrase “default settlement.” But there is no default settlement. A settlement is whatever the parties have agreed to. What there is is a default **judgment**. If you look back at the law in my state: > [@](#): > > Sec. 153.311. MUTUAL AGREEMENT OR SPECIFIED TERMS FOR POSSESSION. The court shall specify in a standard possession order that the parties may have possession of the child at times mutually agreed to in advance by the parties and, **in the absence of mutual agreement** , shall have possession of the child under the specified terms set out in the standard possession order. [Bolding mine.] In other words, the standard possession order happens only when the parents **fail** to agree about custody. Shared parenting isn’t about forcing parents to share custody. It’s about making shared custody the standard order when the parents can’t agree about custody. Even then it would be a rebuttable presumption - meaning it would happen only if or when there was no good reason to do otherwise. That is what feminists are opposing. > [@](#): > > And that’s not a position that you can pin on feminism or say is a feminist double-standard. I wonder if that’s the argument feminist groups have used against it. I would have to see before judging. Feel free to post a link. Feminists have consistently opposed giving fathers a greater role in their kid’s lives after a divorce - if that’s what you’re talking about. (And by the way, women initiate divorce about 70% of the time.) > [@](#): > > The National Organization for Women, New York State, Inc. strongly urges the Assembly and Senate of New York to oppose this legislation. This bill seeks to “create the statutory of presumption of joint custody for all minor children whose parents are no longer married, so that both parents can continue to share in the responsibilities and duties of the children’s upbringing.” > > “Shared Parenting” is defined as “the award of custody to both parties so that both parties share equally the legal responsibility and control of such child and share equally the living experience in time and physical care of assure frequent and continuing contact with both parties, as the court deems to be in the best interests of the child, taking into consideration the location and circumstances of each party.” [Link.](http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html) > [@](#): > > OTTAWA - Women’s groups who boycotted nationwide government consultations on changes to divorce law because they refused to sit at the same table as men could get the female-only hearing they have demanded. > > Although the consultations ended last month, the Justice Department and its provincial partners are considering a special session for “women’s equality-seeking organizations” that are fighting proposed changes to the federal Divorce Act. Those changes would give separated and divorced parents an equal say in raising their children under a new concept called shared parenting. > > The women’s groups are urging governments “not to cave into a father’s rights groups agenda.” [Link.](http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0107/np010705.htm) > [@](#): > > NOW ACTION ALERT ON “FATHERS’ RIGHTS” > > WHEREAS organizations advocating “fathers’ rights,” whose members consist of non-custodial parents, their attorneys and their allies, are a growing force in our country; and > > WHEREAS the objectives of these groups are to increase restrictions and limits on custodial parents’ rights and to decrease child support obligations of non-custodial parents by using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers… [Link.](http://web.archive.org/web/20140328145946/http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1996/resoluti.html#alert) > [@](#): > > Pro-feminist sociologist Michael Flood states that supporters of shared parenting use it only as a symbolic issue related to “rights”, “equality”, and “fairness” and that the father’s rights movement is not actually interested in the shared care of their children or the children’s wishes, adding that fathers’ rights groups have advocated policies and strategies which are harmful to mothers and children and also harmful to the fathers themselves.[72] [Link.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers%27_rights_movement#Shared_parenting) > [@](#): > > The National Organization for Women turned 40 this summer, and formally celebrated its anniversary at its national conference in July. NOW President Kim Gandy has proudly recounted her organization’s successes in opening up opportunities for women, and says they are “never giving up the dream of full equality for all.” > > Unfortunately, on some issues – particularly in family law and child custody – NOW’s policies and actions contradict its ideals of “full equality for all.” This is most evident in the group’s dogged opposition to joint custody and shared parenting… > > Along with divorce attorneys, NOW is the largest organized group fighting shared parenting legislation. It has issued numerous warnings, including one that says fathers’ groups seeking joint custody laws are “using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers.” In their statements the words “husband” and “father” are generally preceded by the word “abusive.” > > Using these scare tactics, NOW has blocked shared parenting bills in several states this year, including New York and Michigan. Yet as even feminist firebrand Martha Burk notes, “With close to half of all marriages ending in divorce, it’s impossible to believe that the majority of divorcing fathers are violent, and it would be wrong to base public policy on the notion that they are.” [Link.](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1675242/posts) ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/530 "2015-10-31T07:55:59Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > 95% of divorces are settled out of court. There are good reasons for that. One is that many people can’t afford it. Another is that even among those that can, many would rather spend the money on their kids - sending them to college, for example - than on lawyers. Another good reason could be that these majority of cases are decided by mutual agreement. > [@LinusK](#): > > Nevertheless, to the extent that people are reasonable - and people aren’t always reasonable when they’re divorcing - they have to have some standard to determine what’s “fair”. When they do that, they look around them, and they look at the law. The standard isn’t about what’s “fair”. It’s about the best interests of the child. > [@LinusK](#): > > When they look around them, they see that women get custody about 85% of the time. When they look at the law, they see the standard is every-other-weekend. > > Which isn’t to say fathers can’t get custody. It’s to say that they’re looking at a long, expensive, drawn-out fight. And one they’re likely to lose anyway. If the majority of cases are settled out of court, then the majority of those women are granted custody based on a mutual agreement. You are assuming that all those men wanted custody but didn’t ask for it or fight for it because of the costs, or the idea that they would likely lose the case. What evidence is there that these are the reasons in these majority of cases? What evidence is there that men who do fight for custody lose more often than not? Aren’t you the same person who thinks sexual assault cases are particularly difficult to defend? Still waiting for your evidence for that assertion, by the way. > [@LinusK](#): > > Shared parenting isn’t about forcing parents to share custody. It’s about making shared custody the standard order when the parents can’t agree about custody. Even then it would be a rebuttable presumption - meaning it would happen only if or when there was no good reason to do otherwise. > > That is what feminists are opposing. Let’s go back to your argument about men not fighting for custody because of the costs of litigation. Wouldn’t that apply here as well? What if there _were_ good reasons to not grant shared custody, but the parent with that concern could not afford the litigation? Would that be in the best interests of the child? > [@LinusK](#): > > (And by the way, women initiate divorce about 70% of the time.) Women are more likely to file the papers first, but this tells us nothing about the reasons for the divorce, or the actions of the parties prior to filing the papers. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/531 "2015-10-31T08:11:01Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I said it that way because he said it that way. Yes, I acknowledged that in my response. I also indicated what a cheap stunt it is to attack LK’s particular phrasing (which we can charitably understand to be a tad hyperbolic) rather than to engage with the actual issues: genuine equality, shared parenting, what’s best for the child rather than the mother, etc. Defending the indefensible by criticising the wording of the accusation is cheap and shameful. It’s also telling. It’s not the approach of someone who wants equality, nor of someone interested in the best result for children. It’s the tactic of those who (possibly sincerely) believe their ideological goals to be more important than truth or any concept of justice. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Wow. > > It’s shameful to demand proof for a claim? Nope, that’s not what I said, but it was also cheap and shameful to suggest that’s what I’d said. Luckily for you, ideologues generally know no shame. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The article doesn’t even come close to proving what it claims. It cites a state NOW chapter here and there opposing certain versions of proposals that it might rightfully oppose for other reason, not just in principle, and babbles on about NOW refusing to “sit at the table.” I disagree with your inaccurate and misleading dismissal of evidence you don’t like, but I would, wouldn’t I - I posted it. Others can make their own minds up. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Find me a statement by national NOW, not someone else speaking for it, that says “we oppose X” and that will be just fine. I’m still waiting for the ‘all too easy’ evidence of leading feminists supporting shared parenting. Meanwhile, you just asked me to find a smoking gun in the hands of a group with plenty of practise at hiding their ideological firearms. Get real. What you were given (though you deceitfully dismissed it) was clear evidence that NOW (and other feminist groups) oppose any dilution (by sharing, by _equality_) of the power of the female parent. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I like your tactic of saying that I’m going to reject your link, thereby making it look like my standards are somehow too high or I can’t be satisfied, rather than it simply being a failure on your part. The closest fallacy I can think of for it is poisoning the well, but maybe there’s a better one. How could ‘you’ll dismiss anything Elam says’ make it look like your standards are too high? I like your tactic of suggesting I didn’t say what I actually said…no, hang on, I don’t like tactics like that at all, I want an honest debate. That’s alas not possible with highly invested ideologues. It may be that your standards are dismally poor (falling for feminism would suggest so) and that you _can_ be satisfied (you’re arguing for less than half, so perhaps you’re easily satisfied). And of course, since I suggested you’d just dismiss Elam, you’ve held off on that _tactic_ (but let’s not pretend it’s not the stock response with any prominent ‘mra’ or ‘mantivist’ or whatever insult you’re using these days). Meanwhile, there was no failure on my part. But if you _say_ so, you’ll get a good-boy pat and in this busy life maybe nobody will bother to find out for themselves. So many “tactics” (your choice of word tells us so much), so little interest in actual equality. As previously noted, you don’t fight for equality by grabbing everything you can for one side. You do it by disdaining sides. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/532 "2015-10-31T13:52:58Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > 95% of divorces are settled out of court. 62% of children already live with their biological parents, another 5% with bioparent and stepparent. Among cohabiting couples living with children, women spend about twice as much time on childcare as men. Some children’s biological parents were never married or even together. Among the children who live with only one parent because of divorce, according to you 95% of them came to this arrangement due to parents’ mutual agreement. So then why are you and other MRAs so obsessed with custody in contested divorces, which affects about 1% of children, instead of the vast majority of cases where the fathers are not putting in equal efforts in childrearing? Could it be that fathers participating more equally in parenting is not the main goal, but rather control? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/533 "2015-10-31T14:23:17Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Another good reason could be that these majority of cases are decided by mutual agreement. That’s what I said. > [@](#): > > The standard isn’t about what’s “fair”. It’s about the best interests of the child. You’re absolutely right. So then the question is: what’s best for the child? The facts are absolutely clear: [children are best off when they have an active involved father in their lives.](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201106/the-decline-fatherhood-and-the-male-identity-crisis) [ul] [li]Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics.[/li] [li]Over half of all children living with a single mother are living in poverty, a rate 5 to 6 times that of kids living with both parents;[/li] [li]Child abuse is significantly more likely to occur in single parent homes than in intact families;[/li] [li]63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census;[/li] [li]72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. 60% of America’s rapists grew up the same way according to a study by D. Cornell (et al.), in Behavioral Sciences and the Law;[/li] [li]71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes according to the National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools;[/li] [li]90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes;[/li] [li]Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes according to a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation.[/li] [li]85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes according to a study by the Center for Disease Control;[/li] [li]Of all violent crimes against women committed by intimates about 65% were committed by either boy-friends or ex-husbands, compared with 9 % by husbands;[/li] [li]Girls living with non-natal fathers (boyfriends and stepfathers) are at higher risk for sexual abuse than girls living with natal fathers;[/li] [li]Daughters of single mothers are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 111% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages.[/li] [li]A large survey conducted in the late 1980s found that about 20% of divorced fathers had not seen his children in the past year, and that fewer than 50% saw their children more than a few times a year.[/li] [li]In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed “greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households,” according to a study published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.[/li][/ul] Some women do everything they can to limit their ex- (or soon to be ex-) husband’s access to their children, even to the point of trying to turn their children against their fathers. They hate their ex, so they want their children to hate them too. What they may not realize is they’re hurting their children too. > [@](#): > > If the majority of cases are settled out of court, then the majority of those women are granted custody based on a mutual agreement. Yes. That is what I said. > [@](#): > > You are assuming that all those men wanted custody but didn’t ask for it or fight for it because of the costs, or the idea that they would likely lose the case. What evidence is there that these are the reasons in these majority of cases? What evidence is there that men who do fight for custody lose more often than not? I’ve already given my evidence. You’re just not listening. But in the interests of fairness, why is it you think fathers don’t want to be with their children? > [@](#): > > Aren’t you the same person who thinks sexual assault cases are particularly difficult to defend? Still waiting for your evidence for that assertion, by the way. Are you the same person who randomly throws shit around, because you can’t handle the actual topic? > [@](#): > > Let’s go back to your argument about men not fighting for custody because of the costs of litigation. Wouldn’t that apply here as well? What if there _were_ good reasons to not grant shared custody, but the parent with that concern could not afford the litigation? Would that be in the best interests of the child? The best interests of the child are to have an actively involved father in their lives. > [@](#): > > Women are more likely to file the papers first, but this tells us nothing about the reasons for the divorce, or the actions of the parties prior to filing the papers. The fact that women file for divorce more often tells us nothing? Ok. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/534 "2015-10-31T14:47:13Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Yes, I acknowledged that in my response. I also indicated what a cheap stunt it is to attack LK’s particular phrasing (which we can charitably understand to be a tad hyperbolic) rather than to engage with the actual issues: genuine equality, shared parenting, what’s best for the child rather than the mother, etc. It’s not a cheap stunt. He shouldn’t say things he can’t support. > [@](#): > > Defending the indefensible by criticising the wording of the accusation is cheap and shameful. It’s also telling. It’s not the approach of someone who wants equality, nor of someone interested in the best result for children. It’s the tactic of those who (possibly sincerely) believe their ideological goals to be more important than truth or any concept of justice. Now you’re pulling a “cheap stunt.” > [@](#): > > Nope, that’s not what I said, but it was also cheap and shameful to suggest that’s what I’d said. Luckily for you, ideologues generally know no shame. Do not speak for me or tell me what I think. You have no idea. If you want to know, ask. > [@](#): > > I disagree with your inaccurate and misleading dismissal of evidence you don’t like, but I would, wouldn’t I - I posted it. Others can make their own minds up. Explain why you disagree then. I did. > [@](#): > > I’m still waiting for the ‘all too easy’ evidence of leading feminists supporting shared parenting. Meanwhile, you just asked me to find a smoking gun in the hands of a group with plenty of practise at hiding their ideological firearms. Get real. What you were given (though you deceitfully dismissed it) was clear evidence that NOW (and other feminist groups) oppose any dilution (by sharing, by _equality_) of the power of the female parent. Nope. Your article doesn’t support that assertion. > [@](#): > > I want an honest debate. That’s alas not possible with highly invested ideologues. If you want honest debate, stop calling me an “ideologue.” You have no idea what my ideology is or how strongly I hold it. > [@](#): > > It may be that your standards are dismally poor (falling for feminism would suggest so) and that you _can_ be satisfied (you’re arguing for less than half, so perhaps you’re easily satisfied). And of course, since I suggested you’d just dismiss Elam, you’ve held off on that _tactic_ (but let’s not pretend it’s not the stock response with any prominent ‘mra’ or ‘mantivist’ or whatever insult you’re using these days). I don’t even know what “mra” or “mantivist” are. Never heard them before. Again, if you want honest debate, stop putting words in my mouth and ideas in my head and just have a discussion. You don’t even know if I’m a feminist or not - I haven’t told you either way. > [@](#): > > As previously noted, you don’t fight for equality by grabbing everything you can for one side. You do it by disdaining sides. I agree completely. Does that surprise you? Maybe you should stop talking so much and start listening and you’d be more up for “honest debate.” ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/535 "2015-10-31T15:18:12Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics. Correlation, meet causation. This needs to be controlled for income, education, age, etc. > [@](#): > > Over half of all children living with a single mother are living in poverty, a rate 5 to 6 times that of kids living with both parents Maybe that would be lower if more people paid their child support? Again, needs to be controlled for things like age of childbearing. Younger moms are more likely to be single and more likely to be broke. > [@](#): > > Child abuse is significantly more likely to occur in single parent homes than in intact families Duh. Do you think people stay married to child molesters? > [@](#): > > 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census > > 72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. 60% of America’s rapists grew up the same way according to a study by D. Cornell (et al.), in Behavioral Sciences and the Law; > > 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes according to the National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools 46% of kids life in families with two heterosexual parents, so 54% of these numbers are accounted for right there. If you control for income, etc. I expect you’ll account for much of the rest. > [@](#): > > 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes Control, please. Also note that marriages with special-needs kids are more likely to breakup. > [@](#): > > Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes according to a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. Finally, a control! Can we also control for education? > [@](#): > > 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes according to a study by the Center for Disease Control Control, and account for the fact that marriages with special needs kids are more likely to break up. > [@](#): > > Of all violent crimes against women committed by intimates about 65% were committed by either boy-friends or ex-husbands, compared with 9 % by husbands Duh. People tend not to marry or stay married to abusers. > [@](#): > > Girls living with non-natal fathers (boyfriends and stepfathers) are at higher risk for sexual abuse than girls living with natal fathers; . Control, please. > [@](#): > > Daughters of single mothers are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 111% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages. Control? Especially for age? > [@](#): > > A large survey conducted in the late 1980s found that about 20% of divorced fathers had not seen his children in the past year, and that fewer than 50% saw their children more than a few times a year. Perhaps one of the reasons they divorced is that they were disinterested fathers? > [@](#): > > In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed “greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households,” according to a study published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. Control? > [@](#): > > But in the interests of fairness, why is it you think fathers don’t want to be with their children? Because many don’t? Being a parent is hard, especially when you actually do the diaper changing and soccer driving. Dating, for example, is not easy with kids. Many men (and plenty of women) are eager to restart their lives. > [@](#): > > The fact that women file for divorce more often tells us nothing? Ok. Correct. To give an extreme example, some men like cheating but still enjoy coming home to a hot meal and clean house. When the woman finally get sick of that, is it her fault the marriage ended? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/536 "2015-10-31T20:36:41Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’ve already given my evidence. You’re just not listening. You have not given evidence that men who ask for or fight for custody are not likely to get it, so cut the crap. > [@LinusK](#): > > Are you the same person who randomly throws shit around, because you can’t handle the actual topic? Actually, I’m the person who answered the actual topic as per your OP (Who are these women in the women against feminism tumblr?) You obviously didn’t like the answer (the tumblr is a PR campaign organized by A Voice for Men’s social media director), so you have been throwing out random shit ever since. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/537 "2015-10-31T21:58:33Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Correlation, meet causation. This needs to be controlled for income, education, age, etc. \ So… your point is: children don’t need fathers? If that is what you’re trying to say, why not say it? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/538 "2015-10-31T22:08:22Z")
Time for the Women Against Feminism[link of the day](http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/post/128851998812/click-here-to-submit-your-picture-visit-us-on). I’ve been thinking about it, and **Camille** is right: a lot of these women are young and pretty. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/539 "2015-10-31T22:14:49Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > So… your point is: children don’t need fathers? > > If that is what you’re trying to say, why not say it? No more than they don’t need mothers. Kids need a stable, loving family, and they thrive in stable, loving, well-resources, highly educated families. A two parent family is a relatively reliable way to get there. But it’s not the only way, and it’s not automatically the best way (say, if one parent is abusive.) ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2015, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/540 "2015-11-01T15:03:24Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > No more than they don’t need mothers. > > Kids need a stable, loving family, and they thrive in stable, loving, well-resources, highly educated families. > > A two parent family is a relatively reliable way to get there. But it’s not the only way, and it’s not automatically the best way (say, if one parent is abusive.) I don’t know about “educated,” but I agree with the rest of it. It follows, then, that if - for whatever reason - parents divorce, _both_ parents should continue to be actively in their children’s lives - right? Not just one? Barring abuse, of course. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667.md?page=28)