Why Men's Issues Matter

Post Reply New Topic

I was able to provide valid, verifiable evidence that my children's mother was under the care of a physician for bipolar disorder and borderline schizophrenia, and that she was taking anti-psychotic medication for her conditions. The judge dismissed my evidence with the words "Regardless, she is the mother, so she gets custody of the children". Very old-school, she was.

Women are awarded custody of the children more often than not solely by virtue of their gender

How long ago was this? I don’t think this is so much the case now.

My uncle fought to get custody of his kids under similar conditions and he won.

I don't advocate awarding custody based upon "gender."

But I believe it is true that a mother and a baby form a bond based upon the fact that the child grew up inside the mother. As a result of this, the mother acquires hormones which induce a bond with her baby. Nature as well as nurture.

The father does not acquire those hormones; the bonds that are formed with the baby are more purely experiential/nurture, rather than biological.

Obviously, this is a gross generalization. And, obviously, there are women who are unfit mothers, and men who are great fathers.

But I believe the notion of a "biological bond," is why judges might be slightly more inclined to grant custody to a woman, when all other things are equal.

Men and women face different types of discrimination, one should not be ignore or overlooked just because another exists.

I am quite passionate about trying to tackle the levels of suicide in young men (along with everyone, obviously) and have worked for a charity in the past to do what I can to help. I feel there needs to be quite a culture shift in society about people looking after themselves (and each other) more from a mental POV and life not just being about chasing money and material items.

I believe you. But it was not a situation of her sexually enticing the judge as you initially presented it now was it? It was a situation of a gender role bias of the judge. I think presenting the situation as you just did now is a lot more powerful and will win you a lot more allies than your previous representation of women winking at the judge and getting almost everything.

You wanted custody, you presented evidence that the mother might not be a fit parent, and rather than basing her ruling on anything pertaining to that, she based it on the idea that mothers should have custody by virtue of the fact that they are the mother, without regard for the safety of the child.

If you don't tell it exactly how it was people won't know exactly how it was. The "winking at the judge" thing just sounds like resentful, bitterness of a hypothetical situation. It's like if I were to say "Men just have to show their man bits and get half a billion dollars in funding for their business.". There might be some truth to that but it's buried under what sounds like resentment, is probably unrelatable to most men, even the ones who seek and have obtained funding because how I have presented it is inconsistent with their experience (they probably actually gave a presentation of some sort that they thought was pretty good, and so don't see that their sex might have had something to do with it), and most importantly, it speaks nothing of what I was subjected to and observed when seeking finding. It just makes me sound like a bitter, possibly man hating, woman without any context.

But when you present it as an experience you had and detail exactly what facts you presented and what the judge's response was to that, you give the situation a lot more credibility and give people a lot more understanding in a much more relatable way.

Now I can say, yes, there is a bias in family courts against male caregivers or men who attempt to become the care giver, and that needs to end because it jeopardizes the safety of the children (I believe that custody should be about the rights and safety of the child not the rights of the parents).

Last edited by Chronos on 08 Aug 2018, 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm sure that is a big part of it. The child also often has more of a bond with the mother by virtue of imprinting and I am sure judges don't want to cause emotional trauma to the child by removing them from the parent they have most imprinted on. But we are not in the position to judge Fnord's case specifically and can only take his word as to his experience. If the judge did indeed gave him the reason ahe did for her ruling and that was the only reason she provided, then it's understandable that a person would conclude it is unjustified sex discrimination. We can speculate that judge had more in depth reasons but it's speculation and if the situation is as Fnord presented it, she didn't share them, and we can't assume they existed.

That's all that I need to know. Going all parental and giving a gender-biased lecture were completely un-necessary. I presented two separate issues; the first was observational, and the second experiential. These things happen.

I have no issue, obviously, with Fnord's particular case.

I've been around courts, and around judges. Judges tend to be a cynical and crabby bunch, especially when they are overworked. And especially when they are relegated to the Family Court. Maybe a few male judges might be swayed by some woman making goo-goo eyes at him----but I find that to be extraordinarily rare.

Even when the female parent is an abusive, bipolar alcoholic on anti-psychotic medication.The only thing that can reasonably be assumed is that the female judge was under the influence of gender bias when she made her ruling. She placed greater importance on the gender of the parent than on any conditions in the home.

Epilogue: The kids are now in their 30s, and they have little to do with their mother -- performing only those "duties" required by a sense of filial piety.

Concerning the gender biased lecture, I was just trying to illustrate how the winking comment sounded, because I would like more people to believe you. I apologize if you found it unwarrented. From my perspective I thought it would be helpful.

Of course not. I am going to assume though that you replied before reading my comment about the safety and rights of the children needing to take precedent in custody cases.



That is what I was saying. It is not reasonable to consider explanations that weren't given over one's that were.

Anyway DarthMetaNight,

Do you see why we should not be upset about feminists not becoming MRAs and MRAs not becoming feminists? Because even when a woman is not a feminist and a man is not an MRA, it can be difficult for them to provide the other side with sufficient support even when they are attempting to be supportive, and it can be difficult for the other side to see that the other is attempting to be supportive. I as a woman cannot reasonably be a leader in men's rights. I can be an ally if men accept me as such but some men will refuse to accept me as such for various reasons whether that be perceiving women in general as the enemy or the perception that I do not and cannot provide the level of support they want, notions that I can't really understand their problems or the idea that my support is not needed.

Mansplaining (v): what occurs when a man talks condescendingly to someone (especially a woman) about something he has incomplete knowledge of, with the mistaken assumption that he knows more about it than the person he's talking to does.

... such as when a man tries to explain to a woman what it's like to experience menstruation, for example.

A man trying to school a man on women's issues is also engaging in mansplaining.

Femsplaining (v): what occurs when a woman talks condescendingly to someone (especially a man) about something she has incomplete knowledge of, with the mistaken assumption that she knows more about it than the person she's talking to does.

... such as when a woman tries to explain to a man what it's like to experience an inflamed prostate, for example.

A woman trying to school a man on men's issues is also engaging in femsplaining.

My attempt was not to school you on men's issues if that is how you perceived it. My attempt was to school you on how you sounded to me (and possibly other women) when you first presented the issue of your custody battle using the winking comment, and how your more in depth explanation was something that actually helped me understand the situation and allowed me to offer my support.

Concerning my comment on men not often petitioning for full custody and the burdens they have when doing so, I was attempting to acknowledge that I am aware of some difficulties men often face, not teach you about them, though I can see how I might have come across that way.

Anyway I am sorry you had to experience what you did.

I think my point to DarthMetaKnight is now well illustrated.

Another issue that arises when one group attemps to take up issues faced by another group. The concept of ownship.

I don't have ownership of men's issues, and I may be seen as the enemy until proven otherwise, so I must be significantly more careful in my wording so I am not misinterpreted, or do not unintentionally misrepresent myself. Sometimes, however, it is impossible if a person has strictly defined you as an enemy as they will find a way to interpret anything you say in a negative light.

I guess that depends. I like it when men get involved in women’s issues and activism.

I think when both genders are involved in improving social issues there will be less men and women bashing. We can educate each other and find practical ways to improve a variety of issues.