Replies

With regards to custody, too often the family court takes the gender-feminist position, which is that women are the owners of the children, children are chattel subject to maternal possession, and fathers are ATMs and "visitors"

This perspective is antithetical to both the reality of situations of any given family, and a virtual deification of motherhood in concordance with the feminist peripheralizing of fatherhood.

And in the last 30+ years of the movement to peripheralize fatherhood, just look what has happened to society: drugs, crime, immorality, "alternative lifestyles", abortion....

The co-incidence is not coincidental.

It is cause and effect.

I'd like to note also that within the father's rights movement, those who are in it primarily for financial reasons form a distinct minority.

The vast majority want equal time with the children they love, and need protection therefor enshrined in law. The vast majority would trade every dime they have for equal time with their children.

And here is a critical point.

Too often, the rhetoric of "best interests of the child" is proferred with zero substance thereto attached.

The best interests of the child in reality, as opposed to in women-first fathers-last feminist philosophy, is for their time spent with each parent after the divorce to as nearly as possible reflect the time spent with each parent within the marriage.

Any objections to this are based upon a women-first perspective, not a child-first perspective.

i>Feminist men, whom I abhor, would disagree with everything I contend.

I agree with you, and so would my husband!!! I have seen many sides of this issue - the woman using the kids to get what she wanted from; the woman using money to give the man what he wanted; and the man using control and manipulation to keep the woman from getting what she knew she wanted.

The absolutely absurd part of this - it was all just one man. Three different women, but the same man. How do I know this - I was the 3rd woman!!!