Join TSR now for chat about life, relationships, fashion and more…Sign up now

Do you think marriage makes a difference? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    you actually believe that men aren't majorly disadvantaged in divorce/ custodial hearings? And being a stay at home dad? What women would ever aggree to that? She'd have to be on crack.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I do think men are disadvantaged in court decisions deciding custody. But i think it's important to look at the actual statistics/real life scenarios instead of gross exaggerations/misrepresentations and/or blaming a gender (creating a new stereotype) instead of blaming the stereotypes and expectations actually responsible for this inequality.

    Clearly the situation for both men and women in terms of work, finances, children is unequal, and in some cases this general inequality results in injustice (toward both men and women) - men are more likely to take the fall with children, women are more likely to take the fall with careers. Would financially punishing/ignoring a woman who has made the sacrifices to raise children help men who deserve full custody though? No. Does villainising women help these men? No.

    I hope that you see where I am coming from. It's no more fair to make a villain out of all/most women ("just get into marriage to walk away with everything like heartless *****es!") because of an inequality that men face (less likely to be taken seriously as parents by custody courts) than it is to villainise all/most men ("lecherous, cheating scumbags!") just because women face an inequality (acceptability of being groped/harassed/intimidated in the street). In actuality, attitudes prevalent amongst people of both male and female people are responsible for the inequality. By all means be a "masculinist" and defend men's rights, but it's no more okay to be a misogynistic masculinist than it is to be a misandric feminist.

    EDIT: Incidentally, it's my aspiration to share parental responsibilities with my future (male) partner on a non-gendered basis. As it's likely I'll be the higher earner, it's not unrealistic/undesireable for him to be more likely to take time off for childcare etc, if that is what he chooses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigling)
    So you obviously can't follow my point at all :facepalm:

    That isn't 95.1% of custody awarded to mother in court.

    That's 95.1% of children living with their mother, most of which as a result of mutual agreement by both parents outside of court.

    If you can't understand the difference there isn't much point in me engaging with you. Women hardly take the blame for "stealing the children" in the majority of cases where both parents agree that's for the best/ what they both want.

    EDIT: Even a statistic of court-awarded custody would have to be compared to the proportion of cases in which the mother actually was the most suitable parent. Given that women are more likely to take leave from work, work part time, and fulfill childcare responsibilities at least >50% would not be unreasonable nor unexpected.
    In court it's about...90% of the time the woman gets custody.


    When you say agreement you mean: man being pressured into decision, and when you say mutual you mean: the mother's decision? Yeah you're right very much so.....

    Wait, women work less hours than men? And what do you mean women take more childcare responsibility? Of course they would, considering that women are more likely to get custody of the kids :facepalm:



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    In court it's about...90% of the time the woman gets custody.
    a) you've just made that up
    b) and in what percentage has the woman taken most time off work and provided the most care for children, making the decision to award her custody the fair one?

    (Original post by jreid1994)
    When you say agreement you mean: man being pressured into decision, and when you say mutual you mean: the mother's decision? Yeah you're right very much so.....
    So you think women can pressure men into unfair divorce agreements outside of court, more than men can? The truth is that nasty people of all genders can pressure unfair decisions outside of court, but I can see no reason to suppose that most/all of these people are women.

    Again, it's something you have made up. We can argue anecdotes all we like, it's fairly pointless. You won't accept mine and I won't accept yours.


    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Wait, women work less hours than men? And what do you mean women take more childcare responsibility? Of course they would, considering that women are more likely to get custody of the kids :facepalm:
    I mean before the divorce. Don't be intentionally dense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigling)
    a) you've just made that up
    b) and in what percentage has the woman taken most time off work and provided the most care for children, making the decision to award her custody the fair one?



    So you think women can pressure men into unfair divorce agreements outside of court, more than men can? The truth is that nasty people of all genders can pressure unfair decisions outside of court, but I can see no reason to suppose that most/all of these people are women.

    Again, it's something you have made up. We can argue anecdotes all we like, it's fairly pointless. You won't accept mine and I won't accept yours.




    I mean before the divorce. Don't be intentionally dense.
    This is hysterical, no man on the western side of the world would aggree that diviorce and custody cases should be biased towards women only a filthy chauvinist would say that, by this logic the pay gap between men and women don't matter as men have to pay women in divorce anyway. No it's not acceptable to say that split custody should not be awarded 95% of the time, split custod of children should be a default in divorce and custody agreements unless the man or woman was abusive or the woman and man aggree(not get pressed into by the woman) it's not for the best. I can't even believe that you can say divorces are fair on men and then say this. It's HYSTERICAL!!
    Edit:It's almost as if you want women and men to distrust eachother. What a noble goal.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    This is hysterical, no man on the western side of the world would aggree that diviorce and custody cases should be biased towards women only a filthy chauvinist would say that, by this logic the pay gap between men and women don't matter as men have to pay women in divorce anyway. No it's not acceptable to say that split custody should not be awarded 95% of the time, split custod of children should be a default in divorce and custody agreements unless the man or woman was abusive or the woman and man aggree it's not for the best. I can't even believe that you can say divorces are fair on men and then say this. It's HYSTERICAL!!
    I think you misunderstand me. I think some form of joint custody is desireable, but remember it is actually increasingly the norm - the preference of the courts. There is no evidence that 95% of cases are settled with sole custody awarded to the mother. That, is an hysterical assumption. Need I remind you again that most custody decisions are made together by parents outside of court.

    I don't dispute however, that there is a bias in the courts against men, or that this isn't unfair. I just don't see the point in ridiculously exaggerating it or villainising women.

    You are confusing primary joint custody (children living with most of the time) with sole custody (other parent not entitled to any custody), and even then when sole custody is awarded, it is usually done so on grounds of stability for the children, and visitation rights/time to see the children are virtually never denied.

    I'm not talking about custody being biased towards women, I'm talking about it being biased towards whomever, of whatever gender, has been the main provider of care for the children/ is the most suitable parent. That isn't sexist, even if it happens to be true of the mother more often than it is of the father. Please read my other post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigling)
    I think you misunderstand me. I think some form of joint custody is desireable, but remember it is actually also the norm - the preference of the courts. There is no evidence that 95% of cases are settled with sole custody awarded to the mother. That, is an hysterical assumption.

    You are confusing primary custody (children living with most of the time) with sole custody (other parent not entitled to any custody).

    I'm not talking about custody being biased towards women, I'm talking about it being biased towards whomever, of whatever gender, has been the main provider of care for the children/ is the most suitable parent. That isn't sexist, even if it happens to be true of the mother more often than it is of the father. Please read my other post.
    If Sweden can manage it why can't the UK?
    No one should get primary or sole custody unless the child was adopted!! It's just stupid, all it causes is sexism, towards women in employment and towards men in divorce and custody hearings, who is it ohh so horrible for me to want to have as much part in my child's life as a woman does? All you would cause by doing this is justified pay gaps to women and justified biased divorce courts and custody courts. Is it really that horrific for a man to want to be a father? This is what causes sexism at the work place. I don't think you realize it but this would shrink the paygap and men and women would be a lot happier.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigling)
    I do think men are disadvantaged in court decisions deciding custody. But i think it's important to look at the actual statistics/real life scenarios instead of gross exaggerations/misrepresentations and/or blaming a gender (creating a new stereotype) instead of blaming the stereotypes and expectations actually responsible for this inequality.

    Clearly the situation for both men and women in terms of work, finances, children is unequal, and in some cases this general inequality results in injustice (toward both men and women) - men are more likely to take the fall with children, women are more likely to take the fall with careers. Would financially punishing/ignoring a woman who has made the sacrifices to raise children help men who deserve full custody though? No. Does villainising women help these men? No.

    I hope that you see where I am coming from. It's no more fair to make a villain out of all/most women ("just get into marriage to walk away with everything like heartless *****es!") because of an inequality that men face (less likely to be taken seriously as parents by custody courts) than it is to villainise all/most men ("lecherous, cheating scumbags!") just because women face an inequality (acceptability of being groped/harassed/intimidated in the street). In actuality, attitudes prevalent amongst people of both male and female people are responsible for the inequality. By all means be a "masculinist" and defend men's rights, but it's no more okay to be a misogynistic masculinist than it is to be a misandric feminist.

    EDIT: Incidentally, it's my aspiration to share parental responsibilities with my future (male) partner on a non-gendered basis. As it's likely I'll be the higher earner, it's not unrealistic/undesireable for him to be more likely to take time off for childcare etc, if that is what he chooses.
    :rolleyes: yes because I don't support anything that feminism even say! I aggree with a lot of it acually :facepalm: to shink the paygap you have to let men have more split custody of children, how is that hard to even understand? If the women had less parental responsibility, they would work more, how is it that difficult to comprehend?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    If Sweden can manage it why can't the UK?
    No one should get primary or sole custody unless the child was adopted!! It's just stupid, all it causes is sexism, towards women in employment and towards men in divorce and custody hearings, who is it ohh so horrible for me to want to have as much part in my child's life as a woman does? All you would cause by doing this is justified pay gaps to women and justified biased divorce courts and custody courts. Is it really that horrific for a man to want to be a father? This is what causes sexism at the work place.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think I probably agree with you there. Under most circumstances I think it is probably more beneficial for a child to have close, living contact with both parents - even at the cost of consistency.

    But you have to be realistic - there may be some cases where the child has a great relationship with one parent, who does all of the parenting, provides the stability, the support and always has - and a very distant relationship with the other. Should they actually have to spend more time with that parent after the divorce, at the cost of the disruption of moving house twice a week, than they did before it - particularly (as in majority of cases) if both parents agree that primary/sole custody is for the best? And I make that point regardless of the parents' genders.

    I don't think our views are that different at all. In my ideal world there would also be no difference (aside the unavoidable biology of pregnancy) in how women are men are treated in childcare, I also idealise the swedish system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    :rolleyes: yes because I don't support anything that feminism even say! I aggree with a lot of it acually :facepalm: to shink the paygap you have to let men have more split custody of children, how is that hard to even understand? If the women had less parental responsibility, they would work more, how is it that difficult to comprehend?
    No I actually really agree with you about that. Equalise parents' responsibilities for childcare, equalise wages - better for everyone.

    I just think it's a bit late for all these principles after somebody has already made years of career sacrifices for childcare - they deserve recognition of that regardless of their gender.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigling)
    I think I probably agree with you there. Under most circumstances I think it is probably more beneficial for a child to have close, living contact with both parents - even at the cost of consistency.

    But you have to be realistic - there may be some cases where the child has a great relationship with one parent, who does all of the parenting, provides the stability, the support and always has - and a very distant relationship with the other. Should they actually have to spend more time with that parent after the divorce, at the cost of the disruption of moving house twice a week, than they did before it - particularly (as in majority of cases) if both parents agree that primary/sole custody is for the best? And I make that point regardless of the parents' genders.

    I don't think our views are that different at all. In my ideal world there would also be no difference (aside the unavoidable biology of pregnancy) in how women are men are treated in childcare, I also idealise the swedish system.
    Yes, you actually understand but no, it should be a default of shared custody if men spent more time with the children then the women could work more, and the pay gap would start to disappear, and then both parents are equally involved in the child's life.

    Yes, there is a few cases where one parent aren't going to be as good a parent as the other, but 95% of the time that's not true! It should be split custody parent one for the first week and parent two the second week, if that were the case then it's quite possible sexism would dissipate in society like in Sweden.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In the eyes of the law, and when it comes to property division, whether you are married or
    not makes a big difference.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    :rolleyes: yes because I don't support anything that feminism even say! I aggree with a lot of it acually :facepalm:
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Really? I seem to recall a whole thread not too long ago in which you bashed pretty much everything to do with feminism, stating the UK has no need for it. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigling)
    No I actually really agree with you about that. Equalise parents' responsibilities for childcare, equalise wages - better for everyone.

    I just think it's a bit late for all these principles after somebody has already made years of career sacrifices for childcare - they deserve recognition of that regardless of their gender.
    Yeah, for this generation its a bit late, but there's no reason it can't start to be implemented, it's easy, give maternity and paternity leave equally both parents get to bond early on with the child properly, and also have both parents allowing a certain number of days off of work for spending time with the child. If that happened, the parents would both have equal involvement in the child's life, and split custody would make sense.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    Really? I seem to recall a whole thread not too long ago in which you bashed pretty much everything to do with feminism, stating the UK has no need for it. :rolleyes:
    I only aggree with it on very certain topics. The ones on that thread? no way in hell. Only two times feminism is right, and that is when it comes down to the slut walk, about victims in clothing, and the pay gap and divorce/custody courts.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    theres a change if you're religious. if not then i don't know how it would be different apart from legal stuff
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Not as much though as the wife would struggle to contest a will from father to son in a marriage rather than a father to *******. In the past this made more sense if a guy accidentally knocked up some kid who turned up later in life demanding things, where as now peoples mentality is very different.
    Well I'll just be grateful that I'm not a ******* in the 19th/20th/whatever century we had no rights then.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It does make a difference, in my opinion. If you are married, you have committed yourself to this person for life. Unless you divorce (should only be used in extreme cases), marriage is more demanding because you have to make it work. Cohabiting can end more easily and sometimes more amicably (no legal issues), because a formal and legal commitment hasn't been made.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    I only aggree with it on very certain topics. The ones on that thread? no way in hell. Only two times feminism is right, and that is when it comes down to the slut walk, about victims in clothing, and the pay gap and divorce/custody courts.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Really? I recall you saying this?

    "The slut walk is pointless, blaming a man for committing rape the same way as blaming someone for murder, is right, but blaming men in general for rape? No, you don't exactly see all men standing out on the streets sexually assaulting women like it's a casual thing, it's just abhorrent to say this stuff."

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...age=26&page=26
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    It makes a huge difference legally and emotionally as it forces couples to sort out problems they have or face consequences. Also as I said, legally it makes a huge difference eg. any child would have no legal ties to the father and would be a *******. That's pretty bad
    are you sure about this? My parents aren't married, but are together, very similar to the OPS story actually minus the university bit, and my dad has signed for me to have major surgery when I was to young to do so myself. In fact pretty much anything that has ever been signed for me was by my dad as I have his name not my mums and it causes less hassle. :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Feminism will soon fade away. Make no mistake about that.

    Whilst I don't condone rape, women walking around with their tits on show isn't helping, is it now? And before you neg me, hear me out. I should have the right to leave the doors and windows to my house open, however, I know by doing so I am inviting a thief into my home. That's the way the world works unfortunately.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 2, 2013
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.