“As a father, I'm surprised you don't know lots of divorced dads who were basically stripped of their children. After all, the standard divorce outcome in America is: Custody to the mom, dad gets to have the kids every other weekend (4 days a month) and pay child support.
How can anyone be much of a father when allowed to see his own kids four days a month? No wonder 1/3 of divorced fathers lose contact with their kids within three years.
I can easily rattle off thirty divorced dads in just these circumstances. Of course, anecdotal doesn't count, but the US Census tells us moms get custody 84% of the time and that percentage hasn't appreciably budged in fifty years and the Census is NOT anecdotal.
Sorry, but I don't see women being treated as 2nd class citizens at all - the vast majority of all government social programs (44 federal offices, from VAWA to White House Council for Women and Girls) are for women. There are NONE for men. Women are subsidized by men at every level, from Social Security/Medicare, educational grants, Obamacare, etc. Men only spend 15 cents out of every dollar spent in America.
Again, I suggest you read The Myth of Male Power -
Best of luck as a fellow dad. May divorce never come your way.”
kevinpat on Dec 9, 2013 at 17:43:21
“Nope. I can't think of any dads in that situation. In fact I don't know many divorced dads, except for those who separated after their kids got older. Actually I do know a dad who left his family for a more lucrative job. I was a teacher for 35 years and I did know tons of kids who never saw their dads, and it was usually moms who came for conference. It would be a nice surprise when a dad would show, and often they wouldn't speak or at times were argumentative. That is certainly not to disparage dads, but it does evidence the efforts made by moms. the fact that "government social programs" are for women is probably misleading. They are for children (SNAP, welfare, social security disability, ACA) and because so many are raised by single moms the benefits go to them. These benefits are not intentionally created for women, and if they are it's not because they are women but because women qualify more than men. Again, I'm sorry for your troubles, but I think you are painting a broad brush through your frustration with a system that has not been perhaps fair to you. Good luck to you.”
But I soon realized he was just "Bush Lite" - beholden to the same big corporation/military industrial complex/banking interests that his predecessor was. And after his Afghan "surge" was implemented (against all common sense) - I realized he's just as warlike.
There was never, never, any "Hope and Change"....”
Gloria VanBibber on Dec 9, 2013 at 13:45:45
“The point was that we were in one of the worst recessions possible since the twenties. That is not the time to be anti business. The economy is picking up in spite of the obstruction by the Republicans on the Job Act. President Obama is a man, he is not a magician and what inherited was egregious. Try not to give up. He has accomplished many many things for progressives. Are you forgetting them or I you just a Republican trying to diss him by saying you voted for him when you really did not. Lots of those out there for sure.”
Level headed ex-liberal on Dec 9, 2013 at 13:15:28
“If you consider this and the expanded Patriot Act, you actually have Bush-on-Steroids.”
“The .77 cent figure bandied about relentless has long been updated to .81 cents. And strictly taken as an average of ALL wages of ALL men and women, the .81 cent gap is true.
Christina Hoff Sommers: Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists
However, what feminists like Gillibrand don't won't admit when they pass on that statistic is that:
Men work an average of ONE MORE HOUR PAY DAY than women, work late shifts that pay more due to the hours, commute longer distances to work, are more likely to work away from home (truckers) and do more dangerous/dirty jobs (logging/commercial fishing/etc.) which rightly pay more. Men are far more likely to be killed on the job (287 to 1) than females.
Women tend to choose careers that are: closer to home, in climate controlled offices, and are part time - not to mention many drop out of their careers to have children, which puts them at a disadvantage.
Several studies now show young, single women 33 and under are out earning young men by an average of 8% in all 200 of our largest cities, and with the plethora of college degrees advantage women now own, that gap will only increase in the coming decades, especially as older boomer women (in their low wage jobs) retire.
I share your concern about Women's rights to birth control and abortion. Do you share my concern about the lack of father's rights to their own children?
But we''re getting far”
kevinpat on Dec 9, 2013 at 10:52:43
“I believe in equal rights for all. All. I don't know about situations where fathers have lost "their rights to their own children". Sounds like something you may have personally experienced, and if so, as a father myself, I feel terribly saddened and angry for you. And although I would think you have legitimate reasons to feel resentment, I'm not quite sure I'm ready to blame all of womanhood for that. Men are in control in this country. Women are treated as second class citizens by many (GOP) and I for one am happy to see them come forward. It wouldn't ruin us to have a little sensitivity when it comes to running this country. I'm not ready to put Kirsten Gillibrand in the front but it's refreshing to see women get attention in Congress for good reasons. (Michelle Bachman and Marsha Blackburn don't count.)”
“I'm glad to hear the senator mentioned males in the hearings - I've only ready her columns in Huff Post and they've been exclusively about feminist issues: rape, wage gap, STEM, women in politics - she's tapped all the "talking points".
It will be interesting to see how she votes if congress tries to re-enact GLASS/STEAGALL.
As for believing males have economic/political/educational advantages over women -
You obviously have never been before a Family Court as a father trying to get custody or shared parenting - women get custody of their kids 84% of the time.
Women have received the majority of college degrees since 1980 and now also receive the majority of advanced degrees (PhD's) at a 59/41 ratio.
Women also own nearly 2/3s of the the wealth in America and spend 85 cents of every dollar spent in the country.
Women cast the majority of votes in the last three elections - 54% - and can vote into office anyone they seem fit.
Using a few hundred men at the very top of the pyramid as examples of male privilege conveniently ignores the vast base of the pyramid which consists of regular men, who have no such advantages.
I recommend you read: The Myth of Male Power, by Warren Farrell.”
kevinpat on Dec 9, 2013 at 08:09:58
“Thank you for the respectful and interesting reply. Points well taken. However is it not a fact that women make 77cents for every dollar a man is paid? When we look at Congress do we not see a majority of males, white males. I am thinking of the photo of the Republicans who were waiting for the President to meet with them and it was 12 white men. In Congress there is a Professional Black Caucus, an Asian American caucus. Why shouldn't there be a caucus for women? When we consider the battles in Congress right now we see a vigilant attempt to shutdown women's health centers and to demoralize them with talk of "probes" and "baby-killers". We look at poverty and we see single mothers (yet fathers were once a part of the picture) struggling to find employment that provides a decent living. Date rape drugs, Sexual assaults. Missing women who are never found. No, fortunately I have never been before Family Court but I mostly hear about "single moms" struggling to take care of their kids. Where are the dads? Why are they not responsible to provide? And why aren't they just doing it because they are somebody's dad?....I don't see Senator Gillbrand as a one constituent representative. Her issues for women do not disadvantage men and I think it would be a shame to discredit someone who is actually trying to get things done in Congress that we would all benefit from, directly or indirectly. :)”
“You make an excellent point about helping raped males in the military (and there are more of them than female victims), however, Gillibrand never mentions the male victims - EVERY word is played to female audiences and their male benefactors. Helping men would be a total byproduct for her.
Being a Wall Street lawyer brings with it her connections to Wall Street and the power brokers who rule behind the scenes. It's no coincidence that Gilllibrand was appointed in Hillary's place.
I'm from Washington state and voted for our two female senators, so I don't have a problem with women in office. But I have a problem when those women turn out to vote only for female concerns and ignore males. (How about Gillibrand introduce legislation that promotes reading fitness for young boys nationwide, so they can catch up with young girls? - It will never happen)”
kevinpat on Dec 8, 2013 at 11:09:11
“With all due respect that's actually not true. Senator Gillibrand spoke to the sexual abuse of males in the military a number of times in the Senate hearings. She didn't reference them separately because the issue is about sexual abuse, not women in the military. Statistic show that more males than females claim to have been sexually abused, but more women have come forward. That is certainly not to dismiss any claims that men have also been the subject of such horrendous treatment. But I wholeheartedly disagree with you that Senator Gillibrand has focused specifically on the abuse of women at the expense of men.
Being a senator comes with all sorts of life experiences. The fact that Senator Gillibrant worked on Wall Street is no more alarming to me than other experiences congress people have had, i.e.: represented the NRA, worked for big oil, gigged for talk radio..... To me it is how she votes as a senator. So far there is no claim that she has been prejudiced to Wall Street.
What is "reading fitness for young boys"? I'm not sure what that is. But there is no denying that males in America have an economic, political and educational advantage over women in this country, especially white males. Thank you for the respectful response.”
“Lots of males are feminists too, but I faintly recall there was a nucleus of five females who spearheaded the drive to omit some disorders. (I could be wrong, that was at least a year ago that I read the article).”
It overlooks her background as a Wall Street lawyer, her disinterest in controlling GMO food labeling, backing big pharmaceuticals against supplement companies, and total lack of any program or legislation that might help failing boys or males. And the article writes off Gillibrand's aisle swaps on guns/immigration/gay rights as if they were nothing serious but as simple as changing one's mind on a pair of shoes.
I'll give this to Gillibrand, she's a genius at tapping feminist organizations and media for support and dollars - and for promoting all kinds of benefits for women. She's politically smart - riding the feminist horse can pay big dividends and result in positive fluff opinion pieces like this one in Huff Post.
Like the article says:
"She has also added to her growing list of credits as a champion of women."
Actually, that's about all she's done. But I thought a good legislator fought for BOTH sexes?”
kevinpat on Dec 7, 2013 at 23:09:42
“Nonsense. Fighting against the Military for non-military investigations of sexual abuse would benefit both females and the males you speak of. So what if she was a Wall Street lawyer? Unless she's taking money from Wall Street now, the point is mute because it does not reflect in her record as a senator. "Aisle swaps"?? When and how? She's been unwavering as a senator on equality and the proof is in her record. How has what she supported only "promote" women? Seems to me you have more an issue with the fact that she's a successful woman senator than you have with what's she's done.”
barrycourage on Dec 7, 2013 at 22:00:25
“I didn't know many of the things discussed in the article. But I am much less impressed with Gillibrand now.
Call me cynical or call me a realist, but I don't think there are any politicians who aren't at least somewhat Machiavellian.”
“Yes, I've been keeping track of those developments.
The diagnostic panel which overseas changes in DSM-V apparently has a core of strong feminists who wished to protect the feelings/public alarm of female patients diagnosed with certain disorders - along with denying that Parental Alienation exists.
It's really sad when gender politics displace science.”
DissidentShake on Dec 7, 2013 at 21:52:19
“ok, still this is science. Most of the researchers are male anyway. www.hare.org”
Men are the majority of psychopaths - but Huff Post seldom runs articles warning about Borderline Personality Disorder - because mostly women have it - and it's just as bad (if not worse) than being a psychopath.
“Mmm, a lot of these descriptions could also fit Borderline Personality Disorder - which affects many more women than men and is more common than psychopathic behavior (but which woman-friendly Huff Post seldom mentions - they prefer to run anti-male articles)
Especially watch for "mirroring", "devaluation", "great sex", and "switching" (you are either 100% good or 100% evil - with no gray area between).
Whether the person has Borderline or is Psychopathic, this article has the best advice - disengage and avoid.”
DissidentShake on Dec 7, 2013 at 18:15:38
“In the upcoming DSM-V many of the personality disorders in the current DSM-IV will be removed. Psychopathic Personality Disorder is actually 1 of the few that has a tremendous amount of concrete scientific evidence, including abnormal brain function, to demonstrate its validity.”
“"But the point is that her male colleagues that have science channels on Youtube are not subjected to these type of sexist comments"
How do you know they don't? Surely some insulting and sexist comments are applied to males too (nerd type comments if nothing else).
I just think males dismiss the few oddball jibes, while women are taught by feminism to be victims.”
JadeLoud on Dec 7, 2013 at 06:25:04
“Why is that your knee-jerk response, though? Why wouldn't you take the experiences of which people speak at face value? Obviously, she isn't the only person who has noticed this trend towards female content-creators. And in respect to women being "victims," there is nothing victim-like about seeing a problem, acknowledging it, and looking to make changes.”
“I carefully read the Capital New York article and it only says:
"One of the first things she did after being named managing editor was to assess the salaries of women within the organization and make sure those salaries were comparable with what men of equal stature were making."
This article still does not tell us if Gibbs found any signs of wage discrimination or acted upon it - only that she assessed salaries of women. Or if Gibb found men who were not paid as well as some women.
So Gibbs could be getting credit from the media for "correcting wage gaps" that did not exist. She may have found nothing unfair - no one tells us. This is good, but hardly worth the headlines she is receiving which imply she's corrected wage inequities.”
“The guy in the boat is lucky - he could at last lay down on a bunk and cook a meal.
After my divorce, I had to live in my 1996 Honda mini-van for two years out in the woods near Seattle. Cold food and colder showers - standing naked outside and pouring water over myself from one gallon plastic jugs even in the dead of winter.
The worse part was that I'm a tall man and the van was so small I could never stretch out all the way to sleep.
Onwardiwent on Dec 6, 2013 at 11:38:43
“Jeez, sorry to hear that sad tale MF. The worst is behind you, I'm guessing.
Now that I think about it....my ex got the 24' sailboat in his first divorce. We sailed together on it for years and sold it. His second divorce (ours), he wrote into the contract that he gets the 17' canoe that still sits in my backyard waiting for him to pick up.
If he marries again, which is a sure shot, he'd be wise to put in the pre-nup that he wants the noisy jet ski that his current babe and him have together.
I guess he's luckier than you though. We both have roofs over our head.....due to my intelligent and savvy financial decisions during our marriage. He was so poor with finances that he thinks getting the boats was a big score.”
ljb860ljb on Dec 6, 2013 at 10:32:52
“What I was thinking, along with the house she also got the mortgage and upkeep while he may have upkeep he can pull up and enjoy at a moments notice. Given a choice I'd take the boat, however, I'd rather it had sails.”
“"I can say that I've never met a man who has contributed to the household chores, child-rearing duties and care of elders with the same energy, hard work and caring as their female counterparts. I have lived it. I know. So have my friends and family. Yet the men have usually claimed equal responsibility. It is unrealistic and sad."
Your claim is anecdotal and, even if accurate, would only hold true among your small circle of acquaintances.
2010 US Bureau of Labor and Statistics show men help around the home and with children within 20 minutes of women per day - and men work average an extra hour per day at work more than women.
It's not 1950 - and hasn't been for decades.
TIME magazine did a cover story about it - CHORE WARS.