14 points

“Logical” next step

permalink
report
reply
47 points
*

If this is the case women should be able to blap men on sight. Sexual advances? Your honor it was self defense

permalink
report
reply
26 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

:sicko-no: :stalin-gun-1::sicko-fem:

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

If anyone ever tells you capitalism stymies innovation just remind them it was capitalists who came up with the birth to prison pipeline

permalink
report
reply
18 points

“If we don’t have enough prisoners, who will build all the prisons?”

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
9 points
*

Anecdotal, but I know a couple where the father had to get a restraining order against the mother after she assaulted him repeatedly (culminating in attempted murder with a knife), and the judge insisted they split custody 50/50.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

Yeah I’d speculate that most judges in US family courts are:

  • conservatives that believe in “traditional” gender roles (cuz of some kind of 1950s nostalgia, reactionary stuff, etc.) or

  • liberals that also believe in “traditional” gender roles (likely due to holdovers from 2nd wave feminism and/or TERF stuff).

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

When men actually contest, they get at least partial custody an overwhelming amount of the time.

Problem is, a lot of men hear that men never get custody and don’t bother contesting

permalink
report
parent
reply

There was something called the “Tender Years Doctrine” in law that mandated that a child in their “tender years” should be given to the mother. It was basically a patriarchal concept that “women are natural caregivers” and “men are tough dudes who should work for the family” type of shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine:

The tender years doctrine is a legal principle in family law since the late 19th century. In common law, it presumes that during a child’s “tender” years (generally regarded as the age of four and under), the mother should have custody of the child. The doctrine often arises in divorce proceedings.

The doctrine has been increasingly going out of favor but it still exists in many states (in the US I mean). Even if it’s not official, many family court judges still kinda believe it and it affects their decisions:

Critics of the family court system, and in particular fathers’ rights groups, contend that although the tender years doctrine has formally been replaced by the best interests of the child rule, the older doctrine is still, in practice, how child custody is primarily determined in family courts nationwide. Despite this, in 1989, the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s Gender Bias Study reported that “Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.”[citation needed] However, others argue the 70% figure is highly misleading because its definition of joint custody was so broad as to include visitation rights, among other issues.[6]

Critics maintain that the father must prove the mother to be an unfit parent before he is awarded primary custody, while the mother need not prove the father unfit to win custody herself, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause.[7]

Yeah I know it’s wikipedia but it tracks this particular issue pretty well. Feel free to find other sources to confirm yourself.

permalink
report
parent
reply

partial custody where the dad gets the kids every other weekend is probably what they mean by not getting to see their kids enough. That is only 4 days a month so it’s not unreasonable for them to be unhappy about it

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply

the_dunk_tank

!the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net

Create post

It’s the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances’ admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

Community stats

  • 1

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 432K

    Comments