Governmental policies deny individuals federal aid based on gender and life choices.

There is a group of individuals today who are denied the right to vote, denied student loans, banned from holding state and governmental offices, and denied federal aid based on their biological sex, age, and a personal life choice.

That is males between 18-24 who chose not to enlist with selective service.

This does not apply to women. If men and women are completely equal in all things and women can do everything a man can do, why isn’t she forced to enlist for the draft or be denied access to federal student loans? Why is the new father, but not the new mother, denied financial governmental aid if they don’t enlist? Am I wrong? Here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I was thinking about that man from Google who posted an assessment in gender equality and political ideology. There has been a notable movement to ensure women become more involved with STEM. There is a disproportionate number of men in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Fantastic. You know what pays about the same amount as the STEM field? Sanitation. Where’s the notable movement to ensure women become more involved with sanitation? There is a disproportionate number of men in Waste Management, Sanitation, Pluming, Hazardous Waste Removal. Why isn’t there a movement to involve more women in cleaning raw sewage? I mean we should see 50% of the worker base be 50% of the population, right?

There has been a notable movement to see women in leadership positions that pay at least 100k/year. Marvelous. A crewmember on a deep-sea crabbing vessel can earn 100k a year plucking these delicious critters from the sea floor, but I noted that there is a heavily disproportionate amount of men working this field. Sure, it is one of the most dangerous jobs in the entire world, and you likely will lose fingers, toes, life, limb… but there should be plenty more women on those crabbing vessels! Working 30 hour shifts in subzero temperatures. I see that Fiji is trying to ensure that women participate, but strangely (even with governmental incentive) it seems that they top out at 10,000 women for the 121,000 men – with women taking primarily administrative roles in fisheries… should more be done?

People, we can’t have it all ways. We are either equal and should be pushing women to clean up raw sewage as well as developing the new iPhone app, get drafted as well as serve in the marines, and be CEOs as well as deep-sea fishers. But we don’t. Why? There’s a general consensus that women tend not to wade through human waste because they don’t really want to. I don’t think making the sanitation field ‘more inviting to women’ will really resolve this. Phoenix has tried to recruit more women with limited success. They state they 'feel' it is stereotypes but admit studies have been inconclusive on the motivation factor. It doesn't mean they do not, but it means they tend not to. But the thought process goes beyond this diversity memo into other areas.

Here’s a general thought exercise. Ideological Disclaimer: There is no disclaimer. It does not matter what some random person on the internet (me) believes, address the argument.

Gender = the outward expression or internalization of how an individual feels/perceives their own identity.

Sex = the biological chromosomal make up that comprises of X and Y chromosomes overwhelmingly resulting in a binary system of either XX or XY known as male and female usually resulting in corresponding genitals, hormonal balances, and other biological features.

Argument One: Gender and sex are distinct attributes but on a spectrum and one chooses where they fall in that spectrum.
Assumptions: One can choose their gender and sex.
Thought Exercise: Since patriarchal oppression is the manifestation of a power dynamic which places the masculine as a dominate feature. If one can choose their gender and sex, then sexism cannot continue to exist. This is because people who are marginalized or disadvantaged based on gender identity can simply switch their gender, thereby shifting their power dynamic. In other words, women choose to remain women (and refusing to be men) had every opportunity to not be oppressed by a patriarchal system by becoming a man. Even if gender is a spectrum which a person can select their position within this spectrum – then then still can chose to be ‘less like’ or ‘more like’ either end of this spectrum imbuing them with more or less power in a true patriarchal society. Yes, there will be a transitional period which men who were once ‘women’ in the patriarchy will be considered ‘lesser men’ and men who become women ‘lesser women’, but this eventually will fade (as evidenced by study in human system dynamics and normalization) as the norm is accepted and sexisim CANNOT continue to exist.

Argument Two: Binary biological sex and gender exits.
Assumptions: There are distinct, yet generalized, differences between men and women. Choice is irrelevant.
Thought Exercise: If there are distinct differences between male and female minds, then certain traits, attributes, strengths, and weaknesses will develop in patterned behaviors. These generalizations contribute to the societal acceptance of what it means to be ‘male’ and ‘female’ associating these traits with either/or, with various ‘spectrum’ in between. These traits are influenced by biology but also independently influenced by society, nurture, and individual thought and perception. This indicates the transition from one sex/gender to the other is a personalized choice based on perceptions of where the individual is on the binary spectrum. Further, there will also be a disparity between things such as career choice, earnings, physical strength, critical thinking skills, and even political affiliation based on a combination of factors usually beyond an individual’s control. This influences how the two groups also interact and perceive one another. Certain general traits indicate one gender or the other is better suited for certain tasks, but not always.

Argument Three: Gender is a social construct and there is no spectrum or binary format.
Assumptions: All sexes and genders are completely equal in all ways.
Implications: Gender and sex and not ‘real things’ but determined largely by customs and arbitrary expectations. Therefore, gendered activities will eventually be abolished. In addition to both implications above: Women’s help groups will serve no purpose and reduced to simply ‘help groups’. Sex based scholarships will serve no purpose and need to be abolished. Demographics measuring male/female participation will be pointless and will be abolished. Feminism which promotes female rights will no longer have a place in society and will be abolished. Women’s sports and gender specific tiers (in things such as the Olympics) have no purpose and will be abolished. Targeted marketing for one gender or the other serves no purpose and will be abolished. The determination between identifying as a ‘man or woman’ will serve no purpose as there is no difference and will be abolished. Sexual orientation is meaningless as both men and women are identical, and will be a thing of the past.

a reply to: KaDeCo

I agree with the first part about enlisting. We have a paid, professional army. Draft shouldn't be a thing, period. And yes, as it is, it is sexist towards men and should be corrected.

But the rest just sounds like MRA blogs by men who whine about friend zones and shout "but not all men" while complaining about women not liking "nice guys" (like themselves, of course).

But again, that first part of your post is spot-on.

And they said the 14th Amendment is absolute.

Great points.

The truth is the feminists movement as it is today is not about equality; its about supremacy.

(Note I do not think that all people that call themselves feminists are supremacists, but that is where the movement as a whole is at)


Whats more important in life than ones kids? Yet somehow in this supposed "patriarchal" world, men are heavily disadvantaged when it comes to custody decisions.

And feminists groups not only don't demand equality in these battles, they lobby against attempts at reform. They spout off about how children are better off being with a mother. But wait a minute, I thought there was no difference between men and women. Oh, that argument only applies when they want it to.

And lets not forget the legal system.

Many feminists also fashion themselves to get into other identity politic disputes (thanks to intersectionality). So while people may go over the statistics of one identity group, race, with a fine tooth comb to look at sentencing discrepancies, the truth is the difference in all areas: likely hood of arrests, likely hood of convictions, sentence severity; the difference in how much worse it is for men than women outpaces all other categories (race, religion, even wealth).

Yet you never hear feminists groups calling for stiffer treatment of women or softer for men in the legal system.

Its all so transparent to anyone who is willing to look at it in an honest manner.

a reply to: KaDeCo


Great post. I didn't know that about the Selective Service. That must be what Phage was asking ATS's "big strong men" about, earlier this week.

a reply to: Grambler

I always say the feminists already won. Dont believe me- Try your hand at a custody or divorce battle.

If you're lucky, you lose half your income and never see your kids, sans vacations.... If you're unlucky, you are labeled a villain and its believed.. Cause youre a man. And lose everything.

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

I always say the feminists already won. Dont believe me- Try your hand at a custody or divorce battle.

If you're lucky, you lose half your income and never see your kids, sans vacations.... If you're unlucky, you are labeled a villain and its believed.. Cause youre a man. And lose everything.

I unfortunately don't have children (hopefully I will some day) but I can only imagine that the pain that must come with some of these custody decisions that make men merely visitors in their childrens lives has to be one of the most painful things a person can go through.

I am not saying that pay or work issues aren't important, but as long as these custody battles are weighted so heavily to favor women, I find feminists calls for "equality" in areas like STEM to be very suspect.

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

I always say the feminists already won. Dont believe me- Try your hand at a custody or divorce battle.

If you're lucky, you lose half your income and never see your kids, sans vacations.... If you're unlucky, you are labeled a villain and its believed.. Cause youre a man. And lose everything.

If it comes to a custody "battle" (which is rare), the court sides on who gives the most "primary care" for the child(ren). So if a stay-at-home father fought for custody, it is likely he would win and then the mother would pay child support.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

I always say the feminists already won. Dont believe me- Try your hand at a custody or divorce battle.

If you're lucky, you lose half your income and never see your kids, sans vacations.... If you're unlucky, you are labeled a villain and its believed.. Cause youre a man. And lose everything.

If it comes to a custody "battle" (which is rare), the court sides on who gives the most "primary care" for the child(ren). So if a stay-at-home father fought for custody, it is likely he would win and then the mother would pay child support.

That is not the case. Mothers are heavily favored.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), nearly 75 percent of all child custody awards are made to the mother. Only about 10 percent of child custody awards are made to fathers. The rest of the child custody awards involve some sort of joint custody arrangement.

According to the Census Bureau, parents who owe child support are more likely to pay the ordered child support if they either share custody of or have visitation rights with their children.

Recent Census Bureau child custody statistics also indicate that nearly 40 percent of all noncustodial fathers have no access to or visitation rights with their children.

www.childcustodycoach.com...

And eta.

40 % of non custodial divorce fathers (which is 75% of all fathers in a custody dispute) don't even get to see their children.

Thats around 30% of all fathers that walk into a custody court will not even get visitation right to their kid. This is a truly astounding travesty.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

I always say the feminists already won. Dont believe me- Try your hand at a custody or divorce battle.

If you're lucky, you lose half your income and never see your kids, sans vacations.... If you're unlucky, you are labeled a villain and its believed.. Cause youre a man. And lose everything.

If it comes to a custody "battle" (which is rare), the court sides on who gives the most "primary care" for the child(ren). So if a stay-at-home father fought for custody, it is likely he would win and then the mother would pay child support.

That is not the case. Mothers are heavily favored.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), nearly 75 percent of all child custody awards are made to the mother. Only about 10 percent of child custody awards are made to fathers. The rest of the child custody awards involve some sort of joint custody arrangement.

According to the Census Bureau, parents who owe child support are more likely to pay the ordered child support if they either share custody of or have visitation rights with their children.

Recent Census Bureau child custody statistics also indicate that nearly 40 percent of all noncustodial fathers have no access to or visitation rights with their children.

www.childcustodycoach.com...

And eta.

40 % of non custodial divorce fathers (which is 75% of all fathers in a custody dispute) don't even get to see their children.

Thats around 30% of all fathers that walk into a custody court will not even get visitation right to their kid. This is a truly astounding travesty.

I don't want to get into the statistics here as it's a long debate I don't want to engage in again. But the definition of "custody awards" is more broad than you might think. If you look into it more deeply, you will discover that mothers gain custody uncontested the majority of the time and the rest of the time, it's based like I said in the previous post; favoring the child's primary caretaker.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

I always say the feminists already won. Dont believe me- Try your hand at a custody or divorce battle.

If you're lucky, you lose half your income and never see your kids, sans vacations.... If you're unlucky, you are labeled a villain and its believed.. Cause youre a man. And lose everything.

If it comes to a custody "battle" (which is rare), the court sides on who gives the most "primary care" for the child(ren). So if a stay-at-home father fought for custody, it is likely he would win and then the mother would pay child support.

That is not the case. Mothers are heavily favored.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), nearly 75 percent of all child custody awards are made to the mother. Only about 10 percent of child custody awards are made to fathers. The rest of the child custody awards involve some sort of joint custody arrangement.

According to the Census Bureau, parents who owe child support are more likely to pay the ordered child support if they either share custody of or have visitation rights with their children.

Recent Census Bureau child custody statistics also indicate that nearly 40 percent of all noncustodial fathers have no access to or visitation rights with their children.

www.childcustodycoach.com...

And eta.

40 % of non custodial divorce fathers (which is 75% of all fathers in a custody dispute) don't even get to see their children.

Thats around 30% of all fathers that walk into a custody court will not even get visitation right to their kid. This is a truly astounding travesty.

I don't want to get into the statistics here as it's a long debate I don't want to engage in again. But the definition of "custody awards" is more broad than you might think. If you look into it more deeply, you will discover that mothers gain custody uncontested the majority of the time and the rest of the time, it's based like I said in the previous post; favoring the child's primary caretaker.

So you are honestly going to tell me that women aren't favored in custody battles?

Unfortunately for you, neither the statistics or common anecdotal knowledge back that up.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

I always say the feminists already won. Dont believe me- Try your hand at a custody or divorce battle.

If you're lucky, you lose half your income and never see your kids, sans vacations.... If you're unlucky, you are labeled a villain and its believed.. Cause youre a man. And lose everything.

If it comes to a custody "battle" (which is rare), the court sides on who gives the most "primary care" for the child(ren). So if a stay-at-home father fought for custody, it is likely he would win and then the mother would pay child support.

That is not the case. Mothers are heavily favored.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), nearly 75 percent of all child custody awards are made to the mother. Only about 10 percent of child custody awards are made to fathers. The rest of the child custody awards involve some sort of joint custody arrangement.

According to the Census Bureau, parents who owe child support are more likely to pay the ordered child support if they either share custody of or have visitation rights with their children.

Recent Census Bureau child custody statistics also indicate that nearly 40 percent of all noncustodial fathers have no access to or visitation rights with their children.

www.childcustodycoach.com...

And eta.

40 % of non custodial divorce fathers (which is 75% of all fathers in a custody dispute) don't even get to see their children.

Thats around 30% of all fathers that walk into a custody court will not even get visitation right to their kid. This is a truly astounding travesty.

I don't want to get into the statistics here as it's a long debate I don't want to engage in again. But the definition of "custody awards" is more broad than you might think. If you look into it more deeply, you will discover that mothers gain custody uncontested the majority of the time and the rest of the time, it's based like I said in the previous post; favoring the child's primary caretaker.

So you are honestly going to tell me that women aren't favored in custody battles?

Unfortunately for you, neither the statistics or common anecdotal knowledge back that up.

What I am saying is that the perceived "favor towards mothers" is founded in practicality. Yes, mothers usually gain custody but that is either because it is uncontested or because the mother is statistically more likely to have been the primary caretaker.

I didn't say it's not lopsided. I was explaining why it is so and it's not entirely rooted in misandry like many MRA kids claim it is.

a reply to: KaDeCo

If there was equality, true equality we wouldn't have gender separation in sports.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: KaDeCo

If there was equality, true equality we wouldn't have gender separation in sports.

Or at least have it as a third option. It likely wouldn't be 50/50 ratios but I think it would be rad to see the occasional female quarterback on an otherwise male team. Or goalie. Or anything, really.

I did just watch Shaolin Soccer, though.

a reply to: Abysha

I had to look up your acronym! MRA. Men's Rights Activists. Gotcha. I tend not to frequent their sphere of the interwebs. I am aware the sanitation argument was used before, but notably in the posting I provided it was primarily based on recruitment feelings "We believe", "we think", "we feel" were the determining language throughout the article posted. When it came to statistical inquiry as well as human motivational practices the studies were 'inconclusive'.

The thought arguments were produced in diversity courses I have taken over the last year in university one being very similar to the thought exercise taken directly from the text book but it was applied to 'transgender individuals' so the verbiage was a bit wonky for the point. The exercise is applicable for a thought on gender equality itself.

Yes, the post has pointed out typical arguments. Further, the arguments listed still have merit. How can sexism be a thing in the future if there is no such thing as gender or sex? How can sexual orientation be a thing, if men and women are identical in every way? How can a pure binary gender construct with rather rigid definitions be a thing when self-determination overwhelmingly contributes to success?

It is the selective service argument that really got me thinking. In the end, my opinion doesn't matter when the arguments are presented, but in reality I think it's closer to: I don't care as long as we can define what this thing is we are tackling.

I tend to be anti-feminist, and did a huge rant on awhile ago. Despite this, I would still adopt a widely different political ideology when it came to gender - if what I perceive as hypocrisy were to be eliminated. I am not immobile in my opinion, just convince me! When I ask people 'Please convince me' suddenly it becomes 'not their job', so I say it's not my job to agree. Yet, I still want to learn. I still want to improve, which is why I continue to ask. But, over the last two years something has become starkly clear. It's not just the feminists. Neither side seems to offer consensus. It becomes ever complexly frustrating.

Another example:

Organizational privilege – My political belief is that every organization has the privilege (not right as it is regulated) to do as they please in setting minimum standards as so long as this does not discriminate on demographics (age, sex, gender, orientation, religion, political affiliation). Should an agency desire to use this privilege, these standards must be a) related to the effectiveness within the organization in a measurable quantifiable way (e.g. an IT firm can prove hiring people who do not know various coding languages negatively impacts the effectiveness of their organization), b) applied equally to everyone who is tested for membership for the organization in direct relation to the desired skill-set (e.g. the same IT company cannot arbitrarily choose when and when not to apply these standards), c) all individuals desiring membership have the same test to measure standards and given the same clear understanding of what these standards are (e.g. the IT company cannot have one test drawing doodles and another testing C++ and Python code application - and expectations cannot be arbitrarily changed), and d) discriminate only on the basis if these standards are met / not met (e.g. same IT company must consider the results of this test or other qualifying factors determined as essential to effectiveness in the organization - and not other qualifiers). Notable examples are: places of employment, credential testing, the military, education enrollment, and other sectors.

Why is this wrong? How can this thought process be improved?

Notable exceptions to privilege are bodies which are based solely around demographics as a group of individuals who have established the body as a mean for fellowship/companionship/activism. Example: The DNC has privilege to determine membership based on if the person is a Democrat. Senior Living Centers have the privilege to determine membership based on the status of being a senior. The NRA has the privilege to determine membership based on the individual’s views on gun rights. MENSA has the privilege to determine membership based on the individual’s IQ.

Why is this wrong? How can this thought process be improved?

In thinking of these things the selective service begins to bother me more and more. You want a merit based society, fine! Then what does it matter who serves in our military at all if they can pass the tests everyone else can pass. I see no reason to exclude anyone. If you want an equitable society, fine! Then it needs to be based on the concept of ensuring all fields have the same results as seen drawn from the general population.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

I always say the feminists already won. Dont believe me- Try your hand at a custody or divorce battle.

If you're lucky, you lose half your income and never see your kids, sans vacations.... If you're unlucky, you are labeled a villain and its believed.. Cause youre a man. And lose everything.

If it comes to a custody "battle" (which is rare), the court sides on who gives the most "primary care" for the child(ren). So if a stay-at-home father fought for custody, it is likely he would win and then the mother would pay child support.

That is not the case. Mothers are heavily favored.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), nearly 75 percent of all child custody awards are made to the mother. Only about 10 percent of child custody awards are made to fathers. The rest of the child custody awards involve some sort of joint custody arrangement.

According to the Census Bureau, parents who owe child support are more likely to pay the ordered child support if they either share custody of or have visitation rights with their children.

Recent Census Bureau child custody statistics also indicate that nearly 40 percent of all noncustodial fathers have no access to or visitation rights with their children.

www.childcustodycoach.com...

And eta.

40 % of non custodial divorce fathers (which is 75% of all fathers in a custody dispute) don't even get to see their children.

Thats around 30% of all fathers that walk into a custody court will not even get visitation right to their kid. This is a truly astounding travesty.

I don't want to get into the statistics here as it's a long debate I don't want to engage in again. But the definition of "custody awards" is more broad than you might think. If you look into it more deeply, you will discover that mothers gain custody uncontested the majority of the time and the rest of the time, it's based like I said in the previous post; favoring the child's primary caretaker.

So you are honestly going to tell me that women aren't favored in custody battles?

Unfortunately for you, neither the statistics or common anecdotal knowledge back that up.

What I am saying is that the perceived "favor towards mothers" is founded in practicality. Yes, mothers usually gain custody but that is either because it is uncontested or because the mother is statistically more likely to have been the primary caretaker.

I didn't say it's not lopsided. I was explaining why it is so and it's not entirely rooted in misandry like many MRA kids claim it is.

Where did I say entirely rooted in misandry?

But your attempts to totally downplay any undue advantage that woman have in these battles is telling.

a reply to: Abysha

Or at least have it as a third option. It likely wouldn't be 50/50 ratios but I think it would be rad to see the occasional female quarterback on an otherwise male team. Or goalie. Or anything, really. I did just watch Shaolin Soccer, though.

This is a genuinely great solution. 50/50, full integration. It is not to say that there can't be a female quarterback, and co-ed teams are usually very interesting to me (visually, thoughtfully). Having a third way is a nice marriage of having to eliminate the either/or argument. Yet, what happens say if you go beyond the team sports and say end up with running. Just pure, 'the best runner' integrated 50/50. Yes, some of the women will be faster than the men, but overwhelmingly men tend to be faster than women. The equality in result will be absent which then begs the question why? If they are identical?

The current men's world record is 9.58 seconds, set by Jamaica's Usain Bolt in 2009, while the women's world record of 10.49 seconds set by American Florence Griffith-Joyner in 1988 remains unbroken.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

I always say the feminists already won. Dont believe me- Try your hand at a custody or divorce battle.

If you're lucky, you lose half your income and never see your kids, sans vacations.... If you're unlucky, you are labeled a villain and its believed.. Cause youre a man. And lose everything.

If it comes to a custody "battle" (which is rare), the court sides on who gives the most "primary care" for the child(ren). So if a stay-at-home father fought for custody, it is likely he would win and then the mother would pay child support.

That is not the case. Mothers are heavily favored.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), nearly 75 percent of all child custody awards are made to the mother. Only about 10 percent of child custody awards are made to fathers. The rest of the child custody awards involve some sort of joint custody arrangement.

According to the Census Bureau, parents who owe child support are more likely to pay the ordered child support if they either share custody of or have visitation rights with their children.

Recent Census Bureau child custody statistics also indicate that nearly 40 percent of all noncustodial fathers have no access to or visitation rights with their children.

www.childcustodycoach.com...

And eta.

40 % of non custodial divorce fathers (which is 75% of all fathers in a custody dispute) don't even get to see their children.

Thats around 30% of all fathers that walk into a custody court will not even get visitation right to their kid. This is a truly astounding travesty.

I don't want to get into the statistics here as it's a long debate I don't want to engage in again. But the definition of "custody awards" is more broad than you might think. If you look into it more deeply, you will discover that mothers gain custody uncontested the majority of the time and the rest of the time, it's based like I said in the previous post; favoring the child's primary caretaker.

So you are honestly going to tell me that women aren't favored in custody battles?

Unfortunately for you, neither the statistics or common anecdotal knowledge back that up.

What I am saying is that the perceived "favor towards mothers" is founded in practicality. Yes, mothers usually gain custody but that is either because it is uncontested or because the mother is statistically more likely to have been the primary caretaker.

I didn't say it's not lopsided. I was explaining why it is so and it's not entirely rooted in misandry like many MRA kids claim it is.

Where did I say entirely rooted in misandry?

But your attempts to totally downplay any undue advantage that woman have in these battles is telling.

I'm not downplaying. Like I said, if you research cases where the father was a stay-at-home parent, it almost always goes to the father.

If there is sexism involved, it is the sexism inherent in the nuclear family structure which leaves men more likely to be holding down the job while the mother cares directly for the child. There are exceptions in both cases (involving alcoholism or mental illness).

All I'm saying is that, under the surface that looks super sexist, there's a lot more to it than meets the eye.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

I always say the feminists already won. Dont believe me- Try your hand at a custody or divorce battle.

If you're lucky, you lose half your income and never see your kids, sans vacations.... If you're unlucky, you are labeled a villain and its believed.. Cause youre a man. And lose everything.

If it comes to a custody "battle" (which is rare), the court sides on who gives the most "primary care" for the child(ren). So if a stay-at-home father fought for custody, it is likely he would win and then the mother would pay child support.

That is not the case. Mothers are heavily favored.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), nearly 75 percent of all child custody awards are made to the mother. Only about 10 percent of child custody awards are made to fathers. The rest of the child custody awards involve some sort of joint custody arrangement.

According to the Census Bureau, parents who owe child support are more likely to pay the ordered child support if they either share custody of or have visitation rights with their children.

Recent Census Bureau child custody statistics also indicate that nearly 40 percent of all noncustodial fathers have no access to or visitation rights with their children.

www.childcustodycoach.com...

And eta.

40 % of non custodial divorce fathers (which is 75% of all fathers in a custody dispute) don't even get to see their children.

Thats around 30% of all fathers that walk into a custody court will not even get visitation right to their kid. This is a truly astounding travesty.

I don't want to get into the statistics here as it's a long debate I don't want to engage in again. But the definition of "custody awards" is more broad than you might think. If you look into it more deeply, you will discover that mothers gain custody uncontested the majority of the time and the rest of the time, it's based like I said in the previous post; favoring the child's primary caretaker.

So you are honestly going to tell me that women aren't favored in custody battles?

Unfortunately for you, neither the statistics or common anecdotal knowledge back that up.

What I am saying is that the perceived "favor towards mothers" is founded in practicality. Yes, mothers usually gain custody but that is either because it is uncontested or because the mother is statistically more likely to have been the primary caretaker.

I didn't say it's not lopsided. I was explaining why it is so and it's not entirely rooted in misandry like many MRA kids claim it is.

Where did I say entirely rooted in misandry?

But your attempts to totally downplay any undue advantage that woman have in these battles is telling.

I'm not downplaying. Like I said, if you research cases where the father was a stay-at-home parent, it almost always goes to the father.

If there is sexism involved, it is the sexism inherent in the nuclear family structure which leaves men more likely to be holding down the job while the mother cares directly for the child. There are exceptions in both cases (involving alcoholism or mental illness).

All I'm saying is that, under the surface that looks super sexist, there's a lot more to it than meets the eye.

Look I disagree but we are getting no where.

How about the rest of the legal world. Do you acknowledge that men are treated far more harshly in arrests, convictions and sentencing?

originally posted by: KaDeCo
a reply to: Abysha

Or at least have it as a third option. It likely wouldn't be 50/50 ratios but I think it would be rad to see the occasional female quarterback on an otherwise male team. Or goalie. Or anything, really. I did just watch Shaolin Soccer, though.

This is a genuinely great solution. 50/50, full integration. It is not to say that there can't be a female quarterback, and co-ed teams are usually very interesting to me (visually, thoughtfully). Having a third way is a nice marriage of having to eliminate the either/or argument. Yet, what happens say if you go beyond the team sports and say end up with running. Just pure, 'the best runner' integrated 50/50. Yes, some of the women will be faster than the men, but overwhelmingly men tend to be faster than women. The equality in result will be absent which then begs the question why? If they are identical?

The current men's world record is 9.58 seconds, set by Jamaica's Usain Bolt in 2009, while the women's world record of 10.49 seconds set by American Florence Griffith-Joyner in 1988 remains unbroken.

There's a weird phenomenon that happens in sports. Men with men's competition and women with the women's. Decades might go by with a record that is unbroken. Once it gets broken, it's sometimes followed quickly by more athletes who then break the new record.

I think if men and women were integrated, it would eventually balance out after a couple of generations of women aspiring to be athletes against men and growing up training that way, as well.

Humanity has an amazing ability to rise to challenges given but not much further. Having sports with men and women both competing would serve as a new challenge to many new generations of athletes.