Are American Husbands Slackers?

Are American Husbands Slackers?

This is the latest article from Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks.

Excerpts:

Warner, Hirshman, and other feminist critics compare the work men and women do at home but fail to properly account for their disparate obligations outside the home. Census data shows that only 40% of married women with children under 18 work full-time, and over a quarter do not hold a job outside the home.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2004 Time Use Survey, men spend one and a half times as many hours working as women do, and full-time employed men still work significantly more hours than full-time employed women.

When both work outside the home and inside the home are properly considered, it is clear that men do at least as much as women. A 2002 University of Michigan Institute for Social Research survey found that women do 11 more hours of housework a week than men but men work 14 hours a week more than women. According to the BLS, men’s total time at leisure, sleeping, doing personal care activities, or socializing is a statistically meaningless 1% higher than women’s. The Families and Work Institute in New York City found that fathers now provide three-fourths as much child care as mothers do—50% more than 30 years ago.

Feminists’ persistent criticism of men has combined with women’s traditional expectations of their husbands to place men in a double bind. A man may be a devoted caretaker of his children or a talented cook, but if he is unable to provide for his family, he is not respected. Yet when a man works long hours to fulfill the breadwinner role which he is still expected to perform, he is blamed for not contributing as much at home as his wife does.

Feminists are right to complain that with long work weeks, the high cost of child care, scant union protections, and inflexible workplaces, working women often face a trying juggling act. But they’re wrong to place the blame on husbands, who do their fair share and often make great sacrifices to provide for their wives and children.

Report: Men need some help - NH

Concord Monitor

Report: Men need some help
Trouble areas: health, schools, legal system

Excerpts:

In the group's first report, New Hampshire's Commission on the Status of Men recommends that the state devote more resources to correcting the gender biases men face in divorce and domestic violence cases, as well as promoting the role of fathers in families.

The commission, the first of its kind in the country, was established in 2002 as a counterpart to the state-funded women's commission. Most of its seven members have some background in social welfare, mental health or family law.

Much of the report is concerned with what commission members describe as the biases leveled against men in divorces, child support arrangements and custody disputes. In research and in meetings held over the last year, the commission found that many fathers feel they are treated unfairly in family court disputes. Many complained of judges who automatically side with mothers, child support guidelines that leave the father with little income, and a general lack of understanding of the benefits of a father-child relationship.

Citing numerous studies that show children who spend time with their fathers are better-adjusted, the report recommends that the state provide funding to the men's commission so it can launch a public awareness campaign to support bringing fathers and children together. The commission does not receive any public money.

The report also discusses domestic violence. Men told the commission that some women accuse men of assault so that the judge will award the woman custody of the couple's children. Judges tend to take the woman's side, the report states, which can make it difficult for the man to dispute the charges later.

The commission also studied the traditional assumption that all domestic violence is caused by men, and it found studies suggesting that women assault men just as often. Domestic violence education and advocate training programs tend to compound the bias by referring to perpetrators of violence in male terms.

"Efforts to get relief from the domestic violence problem have been unduly influenced by special interests who have successfully sold the problem as solely a responsibility of males over the years," the report states. "The whole truth on this emotionally charged dichotomy isn't being fully revealed."

Spousal Notification for Abortion?

I stumbled upon this discussion of whether there should be a law requiring a woman to inform her husband of her intent to get an abortion...

Interesting to say the least.

This is difficult for me as on one hand I am in full agreement that the law needs to refrain and withdraw from issues of family.

On the other, provided at least one willing parent should we not value the life of that child and the relationship with the willing caretaker? Yes, obviously, this will require that the unwilling party (in this example the woman) to also at least financially care for the child until the age of 18-24 depending on various factors but is that not exactly what women expect from men when they choose to have children irrespective of their partners wishes?

The idea of enacting a law that further legislates families is extremely frightening. However, regardless of your ultimate stance on abortion, isn't is always preferable to err on the side of life?

You can visit the thread here: Your Scalito Random Reader

Divorcing parents should consider their kids, teen says

DenverPost.com

Dear Amy: I am a 13-year-old girl, but I think I've got some valuable advice for an adult who wrote to you recently.

I read the letter from "Good Mom but Tired of Being a Wife," who wanted a divorce because she and her husband were "drifting." My parents are going through the same thing.

It hurts worse than anything I've ever gone through. It's an awful blow, especially when my parents seemed completely happy before, and then all of a sudden my dad is moving out.

Guess what, if you are not a happy person, moving out isn't going to magically make you happy. In fact, it will make you more lonely and sad. It will make everyone sad.

This lady needs to work on the problem instead of blowing up her kids' lives. It is her job to take care of them. Their trust for her is on the line.

- Feeling Sad and Betrayed

Destruction of family a step toward fascism

Journal Gazette 07/05/2005 Destruction of family a step toward fascism

Excerpts:

This family dissolution has been gradual and incremental, occurring almost without our notice. First, we demonized men and made women into martyrs and victims. We didn’t do this halfheartedly, but with gusto. We codified the concept “men bad, women good” with laws that gave women supremacy over men: child custody awards in divorce; acceptance of drive-by, sperm-bank impregnation and single motherhood; and finally, special status in new laws such as the “Violence Against Women Act.”

Violence against women, though indefensible, is presumably no more unacceptable a crime than violence against men. Nevertheless, we created a special law just for women?– funded by taxpayers?– that institutionalized female victimhood and cemented the image of man as predator.

Then, we turned child-rearing over to day-care workers and public institutions where parental control over the moral content of their children’s lives has been diluted. From sex education to diversity training, public educators increasingly have decided what and when children should learn, sometimes without parental approval.

Finally, we “advance” toward the “de-institutionalization” of marriage, as David Blankenhorn (president of the Institute of American Values and author of “Fatherless America”) recently described the move toward same-sex marriage. As same-sex marriage becomes law in other countries, and perhaps, inevitably, here, power is being shifted from the natural family to the state.

Today’s family portrait as a collage of individual snapshots is not a happy or promising picture: no fathers; single?– busy and stressed?– mothers; no-fault divorce and “marriage” that means everything and therefore nothing; children depressed and dosed in dumbed-down schools where the least common denominator dictates curriculum.

In such a state, someone has to take charge, for better or worse. When the state takes over, you can bet on worse.

More on Domestic Violence

In response to a reader who seemed to be so interested in statistics regarding women and domestic violence, I provide this link:

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

this one

TGB's Links Pages - Domestic Abuse & False Accusations Links

and this one

Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse

Child-abuse rates remain unchanged

Child-abuse rates remain unchanged - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - April 19, 2005

I am not going to post anything pointed here - any child abuse is terrible and this article shows that both parents are involved in abusive actions. What is interesting to me is the breakdown of the percentages...

Excerpts:

About 63 percent of child victims suffered neglect, 19 percent were abused physically, and 10 percent were abused sexually. Infants and toddlers had the highest victimize rates.

Eighty percent of abusers were parents. Women were more likely than men to maltreat children, 58 percent to 42 percent, respectively.

The new maltreat report includes data on the most tragic consequence of maltreat: the death of a child.

At least 1,000 children have died of abuse or neglect every year since 1986, according to figures published in the House Ways and Means Committee's "Green Book."

The new maltreatment report shows that the number of child fatalities has grown from 1,100 in 1999 to 1,500 in 2003. Almost 79 percent of these deaths occurred before a child's third birthday.

Mothers acting alone were involved in 31 percent of these fatalities. Both parents were involved in 20 percent of deaths; 18 percent of deaths were caused by fathers alone.

Child Custody Policies and Divorce Rates in the US

I'm fairly certain I have linked to this before but I'm feeling too lazy to go back and check....

Child Custody Policies and Divorce Rates in the US
Richard Kuhn, John Guidubaldi, D.Ed.

Summary and Conclusions

The evidence reported in this paper indicates that widespread acceptance of joint physical custody will not increase the divorce rate, and may in fact reduce divorce. States whose family law policies - either by statute or through judicial practice - encourage joint custody have shown a much greater decline in their divorce rates than those that favor sole custody.

Both social and economic factors may explain the differences between divorce rates. Sole custody allows one spouse to relocate easily and to hurt the other by taking away the children. Potentially higher child support payments with sole custody may provide an economic motive for divorce as well. With joint physical custody, both social and economic motives for divorce are reduced, so parents considering divorce may simply decide it is easier to remain married. States whose policies result in more joint custody and less sole custody should thus see a reduction in divorce rates. The findings reported in this paper indicate that this is in fact happening.

Joint Custody: Bonding and Monitoring Theories

Joint Custody: Bonding and Monitoring Theories
Margaret F. Brinig & F.H. Buckley

Excerpts:

This Article discusses two possible benefits of joint custody. Under bonding theories, fathers permit themselves to grow more attached to children when they do not fear a complete break with them on divorce. With the increased emotional ties, divorce becomes less likely. This greatly benefits children, as divorce is one of the greatest tragedies which can befall them.

Under monitoring theories, joint custody addresses an agency-cost problem that arises under sole custody. The noncustodial parent cannot easily see how his financial contributions are spent, and therefore assumes the risk that some moneys will be misspent. With joint custody, by contrast, the parent can monitor for such problems through his increased access and responsibility.(2)

Some feminists argue that joint custody ill-serves children. In the move from maternal custody, it is said, fathers who really did not want to raise their child have been awarded joint custody.(19) The move to joint custody has also been seen as unfair to women. In the stress on the child's well-being, the mother's contributions during marriage are devalued. The father's newfound interest in child rearing is heralded and welcomed, while the more faithful mother's longtime contributions are ignored.(20) More radical feminists see joint custody as a tool to control former wives.(21) The debate is often highly politicized, and joint custody is indeed strongly supported by a fathers' rights movement.(22)

These concerns suggest a useful empirical agenda.(26) However, it is wrong to conclude that screening problems occur only under joint custody. Courts may also err under sole custody, and award exclusive custody to an unfit parent. There is indeed little reason to think that these problems are more severe under joint than sole custody. We might fear a grant of joint custody to unfit fathers if male family-law judges, under the grip of a humanist ideology, systematically favored men. But can anyone seriously think that this describes family-law courts in America? Moreover, given the better monitoring available through shared custody, joint custody's self-correcting tendencies are plausibly stronger than those of sole custody.

We therefore hypothesize that a move to joint custody will decrease divorce rates. Fathers will react to the change in the law by permitting themselves, through a thousand quotidian acts, to grow more attached to their families. And as a consequence, they will find themselves less ready to leave them. (I have to interject here and say it is EXTREMELY unfortunate the authors choose to omit the fact that most divorces are initiated by women. Research has shown that joint custody states do have lower divorce rates - possibly because both parties take the marriage/divorce/custody more seriously. It is asinine to assert than men will be less likely to leave and completely neglect that women will ALSO be less likely to leave which is of paramount importance considering their recent *affinity* for divorce)

Reducing divorce rates would almost certainly be in the best interests of children. Thirty years ago, before the run-up in divorce rates, liberationist philosophers, both male and female, argued that divorce did not harm children. Indeed, they argued, children might be better off after divorce if the parents have been fighting. But very few people, ideologues apart, still believe that increased divorce levels are benign. Children are surprisingly resilient in getting over parental fights.(50) What children do not get over is divorce.

Children of divorced parents lose more than financial resources.(59) Most no longer have two parents who are actively involved in raising them.(60) The children (particularly if young) may blame themselves for the divorce.(61) If the parents continue to squabble over visitation and finances or who caused the marital dissolution, the children necessarily witness a pathological adult relationship. Even if the separation is peaceful, the custodial parent may be so overwhelmed by the heavy demands of full-time employment and single parenthood that there is simply little energy left for the children. Discipline may be neglected, and the children left largely to their own emotional and intellectual resources.(62) The picture becomes decidedly more complicated if either parent begins a new adult relationship: the children may feel (or even be) rejected for the new romance or a new half-sibling.

The costs of divorce for children have been studied in longitudinal comparisons between children of intact families and those of divorced parents. Short-term studies report that children are confused and depressed, sometimes clinically so.(63) They fare worse in school,(64) have problems in their peer relationships, and are more apt to "act out."(65) Over the longer term, researchers report that the children of divorce are more likely to drop out of school.(66) Girls, especially, are more likely to be promiscuous.(67) Boys are more likely to become delinquents or criminals.(68) Both sexes have a higher rate of marital failure when they grow up.(69)

If children spend more time with their fathers under joint custody, this may benefit them in other ways. In general, two parents are better than one.(71) Fathers will see their children as part of their normal life, and may dispense with the joyless search for "quality time" with them on weekends or vacations.(72) The parents will be better able to perform their complementary roles,(73) and to balance each other's power.(74) They may also more easily serve as exemplars whom the children may emulate as they mature.(75)

Joint custody also formalizes a more normal bond between ex-spouses. The rancor of a divorce may be less bitterly felt and remembered when one knows that a common tie will remain and cannot be ignored. The joint deliberation over the child's future might also reduce the level of acrimony, even from the start.(76) This also will ease the pain of divorce for children.


There is much, much more... Link to the article above to read it in its entirety.

Case Law & Other Constitutionally Related Stuff

This is a link to a site that highlights relevant case law:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT

And PARENTING AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

Should Divorce Be This Easy?

Excepts below, full article available at OpinionEditorials.com

Should Divorce Be This Easy?
Nathan Tabor

But frankly, the real threat to traditional marriage in America does not lie with the future social change agenda of the homosexuals. This column isn’t about gay marriage, or even about homosexuals. This is about the demise of traditional marriage — and that occurred more than three decades ago with the advent of “No-Fault Divorce.”

When the no-fault doctrine was established as law in the 1970s, the idea of marriage as a permanent bond became less important. “’Til death do us part” became passé, and divorce rates quickly doubled nationwide.

According to the National Center on Health Statistics, 43 percent of all first marriages now end in divorce within 15 years. Second and later marriages fall apart at an even higher rate. Overall, more than 50 percent of all marriages break up in divorce courts. No-fault divorce is a big problem because there is no longer anything to keep a spouse from simply walking out on a marriage.

Children suffer the most. “Only acts of war and the events of natural disasters are more harmful to a child's psyche than the divorce process,” states the Newsletter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Honest people know that no-fault divorce has been an unmitigated failure, as Dr. Diane Medved candidly admits in her book, The Case Against Divorce:

“I have to start with a confession: This isn't the book I set out to write .... For example, I started this project believing that people who suffer over an extended period in unhappy marriages ought to get out. . . . I thought that striking down taboos about divorce was another part of the ongoing enlightenment of the women's, civil- rights, and human potential movements of the last twenty-five years. . . . To my utter befuddlement, the extensive research I conducted for this book brought me to one inescapable and irrefutable conclusion: I had been wrong."

We can stop the soaring divorce rate in America by discarding the failed no-fault divorce model and toughening the laws on getting a divorce. Laws proposed in many states say that when a couple has children under 18, they can only get a no-fault divorce if they both consent to it. Specific information is available on the website of Americans for Divorce Reform (www.divorcereform.org).

Judge: Divorce cases skewed toward women

This article is from the New York Daily News and could be accessed here but I believe they only leave articles available for a short time.


Judge: Divorce cases skewed toward women
BY JOE MAHONEYDAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF

One of New York's top judges started tongues wagging after suggesting divorce leaves men with the short end of the stick when it's time to divvy up the dough.

In a speech last week, Court of Appeals Judge Robert Smith suggested courts aren't always gender-neutral - and the marriage contract is often skewed in favor of the woman, according to the New York Law Journal.

In divorce cases involving working women and stay-at-home husbands, Smith said he suspects men still don't get their fair share.

"I read a case where the wife was a dental hygienist and the husband said, 'That's marital property.' The court said, 'You're right, it is marital property. You are getting 7%,'" the Law Journal quoted Smith saying Thursday in a speech to the Family Law Section of the New York State Bar Association.

A spokesman for the Court of Appeals said Smith had no additional comments about the controversial speech.

"It's not something he wants to comment on further," spokesman Gary Spencer said.

Claims of a pro-female tilt ignore the harsh financial realities of divorce, said Marcia Pappas, head of the New York State chapter of the National Organization for Women.

"Judge Smith is out of touch with real families," Pappas said. "How he thinks the system favors women is really surprising to me. I'm not sure what he's basing his personal opinions on."

But prominent New York divorce lawyer Eleanor Alter, whose clients have included Christie Brinkley and Mia Farrow, hailed Smith for adding some spice to the "discussion and disagreement" over matrimonial law.

"It's great that he said it," Alter said. "If we get to the point where we can only say what's politically correct, then we're in pretty bad shape."

New Truths About Real Men

From the Boston Globe. I am not going to say much about this article except that I think this information you have been presented in a MUCH BETTER fashion.

New truths about real men

By Rosalind C. Barnett and Caryl Rivers January 1, 2005

THE NEWS about men in the year just past was dismal. A high-profile court case saw a husband (Scott Peterson) convicted of murdering his pregnant wife. CEOs at Enron and Worldcom stand accused of defrauding employees and investors. NBA players waded into a crowd, fists flying. Then, to put the icing on this poisonous cake, the Department of Labor reported that the working woman spends twice as much time, on average, as the working man on household chores and care of children.

It gets worse. At home men are seen as lazy slugs and at work are viewed as old-fashioned, kick-butt bosses. In school, boys' verbal abilities lag far behind those of girls. As parents, males are thought to lack parenting abilities. Expanding paternity leave is pointless, since males are programmed to have little emotional attachment to their kids.

Males lack empathy with others. If a friend approaches them to talk about problems, they change the subject or make a joke. In relationships they don't have a clue. They are faithless wretches "hard-wired" by their genes to be promiscuous.

Is this picture accurate? Happily, new research shows that it is not. Indeed, real men manage to escape the stereotypes much of the time. For example:

The lazy slug label is unfair. In fact, in dual-earner couples -- the dominant family form in the United States -- men's housework chores and child care have increased steadily since 1977, says the 2003 National Study of the Changing Workforce. The "gender gap" in hours declined by more than 70 percent, from 2.4 hours per day in 1977 to one hour a day in 2002.

Men are also doing more child care. Between 1977 and 2003, employed fathers in dual-earner couples narrowed the gap by 57 percent.

Are men really "command-and-control" types in management style? The most effective manager, it's now believed, is "transformational," one who gains the trust of followers and empowers them to reach their full potential. Psychologist Alice Eagly of Northwestern University found that women managers were indeed more "transformational" than men. But the difference was very small: 52.5 percent of females and 47.5 percent of males.

Do boys lack the "natural" verbal skills of girls? An analysis by psychologists Janet Hyde of the University of Wisconsin and Marcia Linn of University of California at Berkeley found the difference between boys and girls was trivial. Boys overall don't suffer from an inability to speak and write.

Do men lack a natural ability to parent young children the way women do? No. And when men are the primary caretakers of young children, they "mother" in the same way women do, reports North Carolina State sociologist Barbara Risman. And for the first time, fathers now spend more time with their kids than on their own pursuits and pleasures, reported the US National Study of the Changing Workplace in 2002.

Do men duck and run when others approach them with problems? In fact, a 2004 study of "troubles talk" finds that both men and women largely provide support by giving advice and expressing sympathy.

Are men impelled by their genes to be natural rovers? Psychologists Kay Bussey of Macquarie University and Albert Bandura of Stanford found that most males mate monogamously. "If prolific, uncommitted sexuality is a male biological imperative," the researchers write, "it must be a fairly infirm one that can be easily overridden by psychosocial forces."

In terms of fidelity, men and women are quite similar. In 2002, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago reports, 15 percent of women said they cheated, while the number for men was 22 percent. It's time to jettison the idea that males are clueless oafs who come from the planet Mars. Men, like women, are perfectly able to be people-oriented leaders, caring parents, good listeners, and true friends in time of need.

Rosalind C. Barnett is director of the Community, Families and Work program at Brandeis University. Caryl Rivers is a professor of journalism at Boston University. They are the authors of "Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and Our Jobs."

Father Still Searching For Children After Seven Years

This is a horrible story about a father falsely accused of abuse, eventually given custody of his children only to have his ex wife take off with them. NWAnews.com

Standard of Living After Divorce

There has been a widely circulated (though completely erroneous) statistic that says after a divorce women suffered from a 73% decrease in standard of living while men enjoyed a 43% increase in their standard of living. We all have Lenore Weitzman and her book The Divorce Revolution to thank for this nugget.

Even though years ago this discrepancy was found to be due to a computer error - efforts are still being made to debunk this assertion. For example (source info here) David Popenoe (a feminist masquerading as a impartial proponent of marriage and fatherhood - author of (among others) Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society - sounds good, right? Think again) attempts to clarify the issue like this:

5. Myth: Following divorce, the woman's standard of living plummets by 73 percent while that of the man's improves by 42 percent.

Fact: This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman's loss was 27 percent while the man's gain was 10 percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades.

Unfortunately, even that information looks to be incorrect, due largely in part to using an extremely small and unrepresentative sample of people.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Lenore Weitzman takes a very comprehensive look at this entire issue. From a sample of roughly 7,500 people (compared to Weitzman's > 300 sample), "According to their data, women in the first year after divorce experience on average a 22 percent decline in family income, with professional women's family incomes declining the least (12 percent) and unskilled laborers declining the most (30 percent). Instead of the 42 percent increase reported by Weitzman or the more common 10 percent figure, the data indicated an average 10 percent decrease in income, with professional men experiencing a decline of 8 percent and less-educated workers a drop of 19 percent."

Weitzman touted this finding all over the country, all while refusing to allow anyone to inspect her data. "Her figures were cited in over 170 newspaper and magazine articles, 350 social science articles, 250 law review articles, 24 state appellate and supreme court cases, and one U.S. Supreme Court decision. The American Sociological Association awarded The Divorce Revolution its 1986 Book Award for "Distinguished Contribution to Scholarship." Weitzman repeated the statistic when she testified before the U.S. Congress, and legislatures across the nation revisited their divorce laws in response to her claims. (Weitzman herself takes credit for influencing 14 laws in California alone.) The attention culminated with the statistic's appearance in President Clinton's 1996 budget proposal."

The article goes on to highlight other "discrepancies" in Weitzman's data - very interesting read - and extremely depressing all at the same time. Most frightening that these stats were cited so widely and used as justification for increased child support.

As an aside, David Popenoe also wrote this in the article linked above:

10. Myth: It is usually men who initiate divorce proceedings.

Fact: Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower. Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be "badly behaved." Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.

Although Popenoe is presenting factual information about divorce initiation - and just for a second you think he might do the right thing by talking family courts to task - he then reverts back to the same feminist BS. What facts does Mr. Popenoe have to demonstrate that mothers "more strongly" want to keep their children with them or that fathers are more prone to "bad behavior." If he has any, he certainly did not cite it. I am not sure how you qualify "strong feelings to keep your child with you." When I read men who write about divorce in this fashion I always have the same thought- God help them if their wives ever decided to split.

Scottish Poll on Lying or 96% of women are liars, honest

There is an article in The Scotsman about a poll given to 5,000 women about lying. I am copying the most relevant parts below but you can access the article here: The Scotsman Keep in mind this is just a poll...

NINETEEN out of 20 women admit lying to their partners or husbands, a survey on attitudes to truth and relationships has found.

Eighty-three per cent owned up to telling "big, life-changing lies", with 13 per cent saying they did so frequently.

Half said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby’s real father.

Forty-two per cent would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, no matter the wishes of their partner. And an alarming 31 per cent said they would not tell a future partner if they had a sexual disease: this rises to 65 per cent among single women.

Nineteen per cent of women with a long-term partner said they had cheated on him, while 30 per cent of all women have had an affair with a married man. Sixty-eight per cent said they did not trust their partner.

I'm A Woman And I Think NOW Sucks

I just visited this NOW site and I have a couple things to say. Why do you have to be a Democrat to believe in women's rights? I believe women should receive equal pay, be free from sex discrimination and harassment - but I'm an independent. I think we should all be Independents as you should vote based on your feelings of the positions of each candidate. Neither of the two main parties provide platforms that I unilaterally agree with.

Does this make me a bad woman?

Moreover, I am staunchly opposed to NOW's general take on custody cases. On this site there is a page called: Demand Justice for Mother's & Children. (You can get to it from the home page under DEMAND JUSTICE, right column, towards the bottom of the page) My favorite parts from this page are the following:

As many as 50% of divorces involve family violence--and 70% of the men who abuse women abuse their children as well.

Furthermore, the vast majority of fathers who contest custody rulings are men who are abusive.

Umm, bull shit. Just so you know the first statistic came from: An analysis of the Canadian Violence Against Women (1) survey. The citation at the end lists no date. Who did they survey - only victims of abuse, reported victims of abuse, or did they cold call women? And I'm not sure who did the analysis - if it was NOW that definitely seems like a conflict of interests. Further, the statistic says 50% of divorce involves family violence - it does not qualify which party was violent. There is no direct link to back up the other two claims so...

I LOVED THIS:

What does all that mean exactly?

The most frightening of the Father's Rights groups are not content with returning to an era when it was believed that "father knows best." Rather, they seek to turn the clock back on women's rights, including their reproductive freedom, rescind the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which grants women the right to vote, and force women to return to a subservient role in the family. Janet Normalvanbreucher

Rescind the 19th amendment!! Did you all hear that - I am doing this because I no longer wish to have the right to vote and I want to stay home, make cookies and rub my husbands feet while he watches the news after dinner. Damn it - they figured me out!

This is the kind of crap I hate. Dads want to be dads to their kids - they have no interest in any of those other things, but in order to get women riled up we have to scare them that unless they resist these groups they stand to lose all of their rights and return to a barefoot and pregnant state. Many people want to overturn Roe v. Wade - they include men and women, Republicans and Democrats. Some people think abortion is murder - that is their position - and it is not because of a genetic predisposition.

Finally - and this may be the most atrocious, scrolling at the top of this site are articles like this: Man Gets 3 1/2 Years for Rape of Girl, 12. I've got a news flash for NOW - people suck! This is not gender specific either! There are bad people of every gender, race and creed.

I could use this blog to highlight all the horrific things mothers have done to their children. In fact, just looking through today's news I could cite the following:

Children starved in home filled with food - Room littered with beer cans; Kent woman had blood-alcohol concentration of 0.40 percent

Mom charged with failing to protect boy

Mom pleads guilty to caging twin sons

Teen 'divorces' mom after being sold for sex (since they cited Canada, I figure I can use Australia)

Mom gets life for starving girl

All of these articles were published in the last 24 hours.

So, I could make this blog a vendetta against women and try to utilize stats and news articles to show how cold, selfish and horrible they can be. But I don't because sadly enough there are members of both genders that could be described in that manner. I am not trying to eviscerate women - I am woman!

I am a woman from a divorced family and married to a divorced man. My own experience with my father is more than enough to show me how important a dad is - I simply cannot imagine my life without seeing my dad regularly and eventually moving in with him - as did my siblings. Witnessing what my husband has had to go through in the custody battle for his child just reinforced this for me. I don't know why this has to be a gender war. Women should have equal rights - AND SO SHOULD MEN.

Trish Wilson

I have been intrigued by Trish Wilson for some time. She writes and covers many issues outside of child custody and there are times when I find her thoughts on political issues well founded and insightful. However, I remain confused about how someone who is obviously intelligent can be such a blind cheerleader for an unjust system of law.

The discrepancies in treatment of people by our family courts is not, to me at least, an issue of gender. I would be just as outraged if the courts consistently and systematically favored men in their custody determinations. To me this country was founded on equality and justice and we should expect nothing less from all three branches of government, though for this issue we primarily focus on the judiciary and legislative branches.

I often get slammed for having the opinions I do. Apparently being born a woman allows me to throw out common sense and reasonableness when discussing hot topic feminist issues.

I refuse to discount the fact that there are two people involved in the creation of a child. I do not believe that because my biology chooses that I am the one to carry said child that I have been endowed with superior rights to that child. I do not believe that I have the unilateral right to terminate a pregnancy.

This is not to say that I am pro-life, I am in fact pro-choice, I just simply do not believe only the woman has the choice. Here this gets a little tricky and I know abortion is a very heartfelt issue for many so I will try and lay out my position as specifically as possible.

I am pro-choice very simply because I believe there are people out there who just have no business having children. May they not have the financial or emotional resources to care for their children, may they be a substance abuser, may they be a teen who did not listen very well in sex ed... there are people who are simply not prepared or able to care for a child. I realize the first argument to this is adoption and I agree that it is a good alternative. It is my hope that all unwanted pregnancies would choose to have their children adopted but would care adequately for their baby until birth. However, I still feel that in the case of the addict who will continue to use during their pregnancy or the teen who will ignore all needed prenatal care, abortion should remain an option.

I firmly believe in extensive counseling prior to making that decision and only performing abortions in the first trimester. I do not believe in abortion as birth control and would quickly support legislation that allowed sterilization of any parents who attempted to use it as such. And yes, I did say parents. I believe if a woman is getting an abortion she should have to name the father and he should have to go through counseling as well. This serves three purposes; it solidifies for the father how serious of a decision this is, it mandates that all fathers be made aware they are in fact a father and gives them an opportunity to raise the child, it facilitates the creation of a list of people, both male and female, who are utilizing abortion. I would support some type of 3 strikes law, if you go for a third abortion, you will then be sterilized. I know this sounds crazy in our current PC environment, however, these people have demonstrated undeniably that not only are they not able to be responsible parents, but they are also not able to check their urges and master birth control. Therefore that option should be taken from them. (I know I am going to get so much hate mail for that, people aren't even for sterilization of sexual criminals, pedophiles. etc...)

All of this aside, I believe that if a father offers to raise a child, the mother should not be able to terminate the pregnancy. I do not believe in abortion when there is a parent willing to be a parent to their child. As much as the idea of immaculate conception might excite our feminist population, it still takes two people to create a baby and therefore both people should be afforded the same rights and responsibilities relative to that child.

The argument of biology seems so terribly convenient. Obviously one of the parties will carry the child and as witnessed through almost all of nature, generally this is the female. The argument that this biological absolute equates to the incontrovertible right to chose whether or not to have a baby and further to who should be awarded custody upon a divorce, is one of the most inequitable declarations I have heard. By this thinking, a woman who offered her womb as a surrogate in an in vitro scenario (where the surrogate would simply be the womb, the egg and sperm would come from the parents), would have more rights to the child than the biological parents. Even though the parents had contributed the DNA, the surrogate used her body to carry the child. This is how feminists treat fathers... even though it is half their DNA, they lack the "biological bond" therefore their rights are non-existent.

I find it terribly ironic that the feminist movement began as a plight for equal rights and it has largely evolved into an organization that asserts women's rights over those of men and children.

I am not a man or woman hater. I know there are lousy parents. However, I am able to admit that there are lousy mothers as well as lousy fathers. I believe our courts should be set up equitably and that means giving both parents as equal access to their children as possible. In some cases a 50/50 split just may not be feasible but the courts should try to come as close as possible. Obviously there will be cases in which one party is not asserting their right to parent their child, but in those cases where both parents want to be involved, there is no justifiable reason (biological, theological, legal, moral or otherwise) to not institute a joint arrangement.

I love both of my divorced parents and I will be the first to admit that I am who I am because of both, because of how they both raised me, what they both taught me, how they both loved me. It just seems so ridiculous. What good mother would want to keep her child from having a positive, meaningful and frequent relationship with their father? In my opinion, only a pretty sick one. Children need and deserve two parents. There is a reason women are not able to impregnate themselves.

If you want to see what started this you can visit Trish at: TRISH WILSON'S THE WOMEN'S NETWORK

Another Mother Takes Her Children's Lives

In an another case, a mother has admitted to killing her three children. She and her husband had separated and were going through divorce proceedings. Her husband had attempted to get custody of the children citing grave danger for the children after an attempted suicide by his wife.

This is a terrible tragedy and while my heart goes out to the family, one thought keeps nagging me - Could this all have been averted if the courts were more just in their custody decisions?

Articles: First Coast News, Bradenton.com