Danger said:
Danel,
You are basically saying "Sacrifice the Fathers to save the Children". I call bull$hit. We have had millenia of existence where we never had to have such sacrifices. The only reason we are trying to do it now is to enable the mothers to choose whatever lifestyle catches their eye at a certain point in time.
Needs of children should be above the needs of fathers. That was what I was saying originally. I was concern by the neglect of children in our battle of sexes. Recently in my country Father movement score some big points -equal share of children act. In the whole debate before the law, there was lot of shouting about rights of fathers, equality etc. But to my amazement no mention or study of what is actually better for children. And I'm missing it in this debate too.
Extreme examples of violent spouses, alcoholics and abusive partners aside, I don't see many divorced women with children adopting other lifestyle than that of the mother who has to include her parents or babysitter when she needs to work late, travel or whatever. Certainly not a bliss. But I guess it is better than cohabitation with a partner they do not love anymore.
Certainly we can criticize that lack of devotion and loyalty these days. It is true that some years back women had less options and had to think hard before they would divorce. Do we want that back? Or should we, men choose better or be the DJs who have the respect, loyalty and love of their wives?
Frankly from what I hear here are the cries after making the law the way women will have trouble leaving us.
Not happy with your current life? Divorce your husband, take the kids (and thus the money with it) and join the ranks of cougardom.
I don't know about that. Life of a cougar is pretty sad, especially when you have children to care for and women know it.
Sacrificing fathers for the sake of the children is a battlecry embraced by the entitlement feminist complex of modern times. It enables and promotes divorcing the sex with lesser rights and is even based on the predisposition that he is incapable of raising his children. I hate to say it Danel, but you are brainwashed.
Well, I have to disagree but I would say that if I was brainwashed, so I can only appeal on your objective mind. I do see the inequality before court but I'm not brainwashed by leftists to demand equality for whatever the price. And I don't want to fight the feminists by their own weapons (EQUALITY solves all). We are not equal in all departments.
Answers to your statements below.
Is paternal instinct any less authentic, deep and powerful than maternal instinct? What you are espousing is that there is a "better parent", when in actuality children need both parents.
Not unlike "Working Mom", maternal instinct is another catch-phrase to show the strength of women that men also lack.
Do you believe there is no such thing as "Paternal instinct"? We more commonly know that as "Protect the tribe", but of course, you will never hear that out loud in today's society, as it implies women are weak.
I believe in paternal instinct but I also believe that maternal one is much stronger and better suited for taking care of the child on everyday basis.
They are used as human shields EVERYWHERE. More importantly, it is only the females who use them as shields when it comes to family court. I argue that children are better served by a system that promotes justice and SIMULTANEOUSLY does not reward a divorce state through giving the children and the money to the mother by default.
I am all for equal care of both parents. But not mandated and forced by state. It has to mutual agreement. And indeed in many cases parents make an agreement. Court is fast and everyone is happy. I understand that when the woman is the primal care giver and wants to revenge on the father through children sharing issue, it is bad. But will it be better if court forced equal care? Yeas, absolutely...for the ex husband. And children are where in this picture? Do they need both parents? Absolutely. Do they need to travel between hostile parents? I don't think so.
And it is even more hostile if we promote divorce by giving incentive to the women for the filing of divorce, wouldn't you say?
Incentive is given by our prosperity. And I prefer personal freedom to walk above staying in unhappy marriage for existential reasons.
Again, there would be even less damage if we do not promote divorce by virtually guaranteeing the mother gets everything and loses nothing.
what is the goal here? Make them suffer more after divorce or make it more risky so they will think harder before leaving us?
If you are right about the value of maternal instinct (being it just propaganda) we will certainly see boom in divorce when fathers will receive the children in court. Mothers will be free of children and the lack of alimony will certainly be compensated by full time jobs and sugar daddies.
Nor would I feel pain giving money to my children, but you and I both know that the money does not go to the children. It goes to the mother who spends as she sees fit without any accounting for where that money goes.
I agree they should be held accountable for this. In the age of electronic payments and bills it could be easily achieved without bureaucratic over head . No more hand bags from alimony.
Should and can't are two very different terms. Don't you think it makes sense to ensure the children are getting the full benefit of child-support payments and that alimony is altogether wiped out BEFORE you point the finger at men when it comes to divorce and children????
Men have a more than valid point here, it is time to make the women accountable.
I do agree. No alimony for wives who did not bare our children. It's 21st century, they can get a job.
Again, what "should" occur and what "does" occur are two vastly different things. Do you find it odd that no matter how much the woman gets angry, she still gets the children? Not matter how unstable she may appear, she still gets the children. The Father walks away to not inflame things, and his reward? A big fat paycheck to the ex and very limited time with the kids.
I'm not sure you are being objective. I know many cases when mother was found unfit to take care of the child.
If she is unstable and angry towards the children, she will be find unfit. If not, then it is a mistake to give her the children. However in most cases she is unstable and angry only towards the husband.
Sounds like a good reason to see him more than every other weekend, wouldn't you agree?
That's probably one of the reasons why my mother did not divorce him I guess. His attitude does bring respect and he can diffuse conflicts not fuel it.
If she would divorce him and even was mad enough to block him for us. My father would certainly hold his ground, he would want us but he wouldn't prolonged the pain for us by fighting to death. Therefore not losing our respect for him and eventually we would persuade our mother to see him.
Positive effects of his fathering would be otherwise silenced by the roar of battle of endless divorce, mother's nagging every time a visit should occur.
This is a great quote, but I think you are picking the wrong gender to point it at.
Unfortunately we can't change them. We can only teach by example. Consciousness is contagious. As well as unconsciousness aka ego.
Again, your viewpoint boils down to "Sacrifice the Father for the Children". I call bull$hit. In no way is it beneficial to sacrifice the father for ANY reason. Such a mentality can only come to be in a society of cannibals. Unfortunately, when it comes to men, that is what civilization has come to in this modern age.
I just don't see how a judge can make our relationships better.
Frankly, I do think most of the court children care battles are just a revenge and hurt ego driven on both sides and I try to stop it at least on our side. I also see the call of men for state to bring the artificial safeties of yesterday when divorce was more complicated. It is unrealistic and I don't think it is even desirable. Everyone should be more free to decide, not limited by circumstances.
Some AFC's even cry for sharia to make their lives easier, heh.
I agree with your point that the freedom should not be financed from men's purse. I am against alimony other than for the children. And those should be more accountable. However I don't think alimony do entitle to visits and man who does not pay them should be held responsible (I refuse to finance strange children from my taxes if they just have a father on ego trip).
Demanding on state to resolve our relationships is double edged sword. State will never make good decisions in these matters. Unless one example of king Solomon ;-)
I guess, it was what I was trying to say. Will we cut the child in half, just to make feed our image of a good father? Or are we willing to swallow our pride in order not to prolong the hostilities?