That was a difficult (long) post to get through, but I think we end up agreeing a lot more than I expected.
Doesn't look like it.
To say that one side doesn't get screwed more often is disingenuous at best. Your anecdote does not equal data, for the narrow purpose of this discussion your experiences are irrelevant.
Untrue. My experiences are typical, expected even.
If the data says the entire system is strongly biased against men, which is entirely demonstrable by statistics and data, then yes Virginia, that is called men getting screwed.
Um. It isn't. That's kind of what I said.
Why does it matter who loses more in the game that everyone loses at? Because incentives matter, even perverse ones.
Huh? So the point of divorce is to win? Yes, if the point of divorce to one side is to win, then that side will lose.
You agreed with every major point:
Women are the 70% filers of divorce.
Which does not mean that men are being screwed. It actually doesn't mean anything, other than that women file first 70% of the time.
Yet, women are given the children
No. Being abandoned together with the children is not the same thing as being given the children.
assets
Not sure where I said that women are given more of the marital assets than the man. What I said was that the attitude that by default all the property belongs to the man is setting the man up for bitterness at the result. Not because the court is biased, but because the man has failed to notice that it's not his property, it's their property.
and child support
You get the children, you get the child support. I have a very hard time seeing how it would somehow be more fair for a man to not be obligated to contribute to supporting his children.
in the overwhelming cases (approaches 90% if I remember correctly).
What percentage of men are seriously willing to take on full or primary custody? 90% of men are not getting custody does not equal 90% of men being screwed where 87% of men don't want custody.
Don't miss the point, which is that the system is clearly biased.
Nope. Isn't.
Readily agreeable with all the major indicators of gross bias, but just can't make the leap to accept it?
Um. No.
So then comes the flood of rationalizations, except they ring hollow:
Well, rationalization could mean "to make some logical sense of" a thing, so in that sense, yep.
Men and women cheat at approximately the same rate.
This is not an established fact. It is speculation, and it is heavily demographic-dependent.
Women are just as likely to commit domestic violence.
Women are substantially less likely to cause serious injury or to kill their partners.
Assets are white elephants? Thats not even a serious comment.
Yes, it is. Assets that are worth nothing when they are sold, and cost more than one can afford in time, strength, energy, and money are not a glorious victory. They're not a victory at all. They're the recognition that the kids need a place to sleep, and their house is ideal for this purpose, and dad sure doesn't want to be dad 24/7.
To say that men are not interested in their own kids is a fairly outrageous statement. You have any real data to back it up?
Nope, I'm not tracking down stats. Don't like using 'em, definitely am not spending my evening doing research.
Didn't say they're not interested in the kids. Said they're not interested in being the full-time parent.
What often happens is that men know they have no legal recourse for interacting with the kids.
They're wrong.
As someone trained in law, you should know the phrase "negotiating under shadow of the law".
I love it when people toss around law-related phrases with that patronizing lil' "you do know about this, don't you?" or similar.
Men are now resigned to passively accept whatever visitation the women will give out of their graciousness. There is no other choice for it.
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.
Don't miss this part:
Even when a court supports visitation rights for the father, there is rarely any actual enforcement.
I don't know what you mean here. Does he file a motion? Does he argue the motion? Does the judge throw him out? Does he demand a SWAT tream appear and wrestle the kid away? What kind of enforcement is lacking that should be implemented?
On the other hand, child support/welfare is strictly enforced. A man who is unable or unwilling to provide the court determined amounts is delivered to debtors prison or levied with liens on income until it is paid.
Yeah, that's why I've thus far worked pretty hard to avoid Friend of the Court. Seems counterproductive.
But, as a practical matter, it's a lot easier for the court to manage money transfers than child transfers.
So, um...no. We do not agree. We do not agree on what constitutes a screwing or on what factors may be weight and how much weight to give them.
