Another view of Male Activism

Post Reply New Topic

I am surprised by this line of reasoning from you LKL. The idea that because some one's situation is statistically less likely does not mean that society is not obliged to take a view to avoid systemic bad outcomes for them. Gay people represent a minority of the population, those who chose to marry within that group are a minority of that minority; yet you would argue until you are blue in the face that we ought to change large aspects of our society in order to ensure discrimination against them does not occur. Your logic is at odds with itself; unless of course you think it is acceptable for society to privilege a certain group as a basic starting point,

Darling, I'm not saying that the only-working provider should never get child custody, just like I would not argue that gay people should never get married. However, the assumption that the parent who doesn't work is the one who provides the care is just as statistically valid as the assumption that two newlyweds are heterosexual.

Here is your original statement, so you can appreciate my point;

"My personal take: it's probably an ok assumption that the 'primary care provider' is the best person to take the children in the event of a split, but it's not an ok assumption that the primary care provider is the female partner in a male/female partnership, especially if both parties work. Most of the time it will be the woman (though less so with younger couples), but often not."

Please don't call me darling, especially when it is an expression of condescension. I did not base my statement on the assumption that you would support the idea that the only-working provider should never get child custody. I expressed a fundamental issue with your consistency. It seems you are prepared to argue at great length to adjust national laws for a minority but seem content with there being an assumption that works against another minority group.

As to your statistically valid judgement, you are in favor of systemic exceptions, so your point is mostly moot. It does not matter, on that worldview, if the minority is small, only that they face a systemic obstacle towards a favorable outcome.

You have fundamentally missed my point and responded in a high handed fashion as well. Perhaps if you did not place yourself so high above the conversation you might find it within your grasp.

I'm glad that you caught that it was an insult; I don't think that I missed your point at all, and frankly the comparison that you're making is an idea that deserves derision.

I stand by my previous statements: it's valid for the courts to assume that the stay-at-home parent is the one who spends the most time and effort caring for the child(ren). They can make this assumption without, in any way, preventing a working parent from challenging the assumption and requesting primary custody. Making the assumption in no way infringes on the rights of the working parent; all it says is, 'in the absence of any challenge, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, this is how we'll do things.'

That is a very different thing from saying, 'these people don't fit the stereotype, therefore we will disallow their particiaption completely.'

I like it when people stand by their silly statements, especially when this is the second time you have paraphrased what you think I am saying instead of just quoting. The assumption that the stay at home parent is the one best equipped to take care of the children in the event of a split is not the same statement you are engaging with in the quote above. This is the second time in the space of a day that you have responded to the point you want to be aimed at you instead of dealing with the point being made. Perhaps you missed your vocation as a spin doctor.

If however, you did escape from your position of haughty derision for the better part of five minutes you would be able to ask the question of why you need any assumption at all? Unless it is to make a prejudgement in what are always individual cases. The only justifiable assumption in a court of law is that of innocence. In a family court, there seems to be no justifiable reason to make any assumptions at all. The assumption you are making should actually be reshaped as a question; 'who is best equipped to take care of a child in the event of a split?' I have no issue with the stay-at-home parent making their case as to why they ought to receive primary custody and I have no problem with a court imposing child-support payments on the other parent. What I take issue with is the automatic assumption that you are advocating; especially since it was the basis of a great deal of unnecessary harm in the case of my father.

Darling, maybe you should stop to think why I consider all of those statements to be making roughly the same point.
As for why we should make assumptions - because it takes less time. As long as the assumptions are flexible and not cast in stone, they harm no one and help everyone by saving time.

If you want to save time in the justice system; assuming the point certainly does create expediency. There is a large gap between expediency and justice. What you do not realize is that the road from where you are to tyranny is shorter than you think. I support equality before the law, for men and women; from those nowadays rare, admirable, stay at home parents (of any gender) to those who have to work to pay the bills. The women's liberation movement was supposed to end tyranny, but before you can blink, it can all start up again with different victims.