I really hope I'm misunderstanding you, and you don't actually think manspreading is a bigger issue than suicide.
You're a fucking idiot. I never said that and you know. I simply stated that "men's issues" as a whole tend to get more credence than when women object to social phenomenon.
Well, according to this study, the mother gets sole or primary custody 58.7% of the time. Fathers only get it 8.9% of the time.
Fuck me... I need everclear. No, literally, I took a shot of it because this is too much stupid for me to handle at once.
First, read your fucking source before making someone else read it. First page it says
Over time, state placement laws have moved from a regime in which placement with the mother was the explicit preference (through most of the past century), through a period in which placement laws tended to be gender-neutral, to the present, where many states have made sharing
placement of the children between the divorcing parents the preferred option (Buehler and Gerard, 1995).
Which is exactly what I said a few posts ago, that my experience working for a judge indicated that modern child custody determinations were more gender-neutral.
Second
Several researchers (Seltzer, 1990; Fox and Kelly, 1995; Christiansen, Dahl, and Rettig, 1990) found that mother-sole placement accounted for over 80 percent of arrangements in various Upper Midwestern states in the mid-1980s; father-sole placement accounted for about 10 percent of cases, and joint placement arrangements accounted for only 2–6 percent of cases. Cancian and Meyer (1998) found that from 1986 to 1994 in Wisconsin the rate of mother-sole placement in divorce judgments fell from just over 80 percent to 74 percent, while joint placement rose from 7 percent to 14 percent. They also found that during this period, shared placement was more likely in cases with higher parental income, when the mother had previously been married, or when the mother was younger. They also found that in cases where the father had legal representation but the mother did not, shared placement or father-sole placement was more likely, but if only the mother had an attorney, then mother-sole placement was the more likely outcome.
Now, there are several things going on here. Look at the first sentence. It states that mothers get custody about 80% of the time. Now, if you read my source, you would know that 91% of custody hearings DO NOT go to court, but are decided by the parents, with the mother getting custody most of the time. So the 80% figure is intentionally misleading for you to cite to.
Second, look at how determinative factors like income and legal representation are.
Third, when it says that in "divorce proceedings" custody was reduced from 80% to 74%, that is another misnomer. In divorce proceedings, the judge assigns a parent to handle the child until a
custody hearing can take place at a later date. Which my cite to Chesler shows that men win more often when contested in court.
So, the portions that look like they support your side do not, but actually reinforce mine, and you should really read your work since I'm expected to do so.
As for the pay gap, while it's not an outright myth, it's often misunderstood.
Please, don't go on... I feel stupid approaching.
Well, I'm sure you wouldn't object if I gave mine:
http://www.evawintl.org/images/uploads/BasicDataFindings_12-07-09.pdf
According to this study, 15.6 of reports can reliably be determined as false.
I don't think you know how to read. Seven percent of rapes accusations be "
unfounded/false." The number drops to six percent by the time of prosecution. In fact, 15.6 only shows up twice in the pdf: once to state that the men plead guilty to a lesser offense and the second to show that 15.6% of rape victims did not have microtrauma associated with the rape. Which, is considerably different from "determined as false."
But, I think that this graphic is helpful
Did you know that there's evidence to suggest that women rape men at about the same rate that men rape women?
http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
Yes, Time magazine... Unfortunately, the
Department of Justice says otherwise. Specifically, on page 5 it says,
Federal statistical series obtaining data on arrested or convicted persons Uniform Crime Reports, National Judicial Reporting Program, and National Corrections Reporting Program show a remarkable similarity in the characteristics of those categorized as rapists: 99 in 100 are male, 6 in 10 are white, and the average age is the early thirties
Child support?
Let's start with one of the most grotesque: rape victims having to pay child support to care for their rape babies.
In Hermesmann v. Seyer, Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support, even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman. This has been used as a precedent. Repeatedly.
I looked up that case. To say it has been "used as precedent. Repeatedly." is a bald-face lie. It is still the law in Kansas, to be sure. But the case has been cited 109 times according to westlaw, 69 of which are secondary sources: law journals and other academic work (which looks to be very critical of the result). The portion relevant has been cited by 4 courts, three of which rejected it's logic. One court in Delaware in an unpublished opinion upheld it, finding that a mother who was a victim of an incestuous rape had a common law duty to provide for the resulting child when the father/ her brother had custody.
But I'm not here to play oppression olympics. Fact is, courts aren't perfect, some of them make mistakes. Some mistakes are terrible. Jim Crow for example. However, I do not see this as a male problem, but instead as part of a larger problem in which courts grant rapists parental rights. In something like 22 states, a rapist can rape a woman, and retain custody. Courts often rely on case precedence, and when they extend these rights to male rapists, they set the stage for the same outcome for female rapists.
Could I have a source?
I GAVE YOU THE SOURCE. IT'S CALLED WESTLAW YOU DOLT. Unfortunately, you have to pay to use it. I get it free as a perk of being in the super secret lawyer's club.
ETA: I am in full agreement with Davedan. In reality, I question posts in this thread so often because I do want to confine it to the "worst of" part. When it first started, I enjoyed laughing at little kids in mommy's basement threatening people. But now, I don't feel like there is any standard. Gray areas, such as what McIntosh posted, are ridiculed as SJW because they espouse a position on social justice that someone here disagrees with. That isn't a solid standard to me. And, when that happens, the practical effect is that any amount of caring for social justice carries the risk of being an SJW if someone to the political right of you disagrees. I think that, practically speaking, when gray areas in social justice arise, it is better to be on the social justice side of that gray area. That doesn't mean you cannot think critically of the situation, but to say that if there is gray area, and you disagree with someone, that doesn't make them a rabid SJW that hates all white cis-men.
