fratsarerats [none/use name]
The Democrats will literally send people to their death just to stomp even the most lukewarm change:
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/03/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-coronavirus-primary-voting/
Did you vote for Brandon?
Yeah it’s really good. I’m not sure if the objectors in this thread actually read the article, or even a tiny bit of it. The author isn’t talking about singularity doomerism or whatever. The author is talking about how currently existing tech could lead to massive job loss in many rote white collar jobs. I wonder if the prevalence of humanities in a lot of leftists makes them dismiss this issue (which is kinda weird considering they “trust the science” on climate change).
I’m so glad people here feel this way. In my experience even the most progressive people suddenly turn into some kinda weird traditionalists when it comes to child support. I think there was a thread a while back that got nuked cuz of this (b/c the person suggested that the state take care of children instead of putting the burden on a parent that didn’t want the child). It seems the opinion has changed tho, thank god.
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court system, and in particular fathers’ rights groups, contend that although the tender years doctrine has formally been replaced by the best interests of the child rule, the older doctrine is still, in practice, how child custody is primarily determined in family courts nationwide.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.
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).