For all those that think women and children SHOULD NOT be first, should women and men have an equal

[Snake Alchemist]

chance at custody for children during a divorce? If so then what criteria would you use for your decision?

[hlthe2b]

1. he can have the kids... just don't touch my dogs

I keed, I keed.

[Snake Alchemist]

2. I have 4 dogs.

Let me know if you want another .

[Honeycombe8]

91. I'd like to see someone try and take my Rosie (my alpha dog). They'd be sooorrrrreeeeee. nt

[ZombieHorde]

3. The criteria for child custody should be desire and history.

What do the parents want? What do the children want, assuming they are old enough to know what is going on? Is there anything disturbing in the parents' known history?

[HockeyMom]

4. As a 5'1" 100lb woman,

what chance am I going to stand against almost any MAN? If they are rushing and pushing to save themselves, I would be doomed.

[Snake Alchemist]

5. According to some that is your own fault.

Survival of the fittest and all that.

[MellowDem]

9. If people are rushing to the boats...

then that's going to happen regardless. I doubt saying "women and children first!" will stop them.

But I think the idea is how it is done in an orderly manner. If it is done in an orderly manner, personally I think children should go first. Call me an ageist. After that though? Whatever order you get in line. I think it's pretty insulting to women to say they must go first, besides resulting in possible death for the men because of their gender.

[Snake Alchemist]

15. If enough people believe it, then it can at least be a little less chaotic.

I think men should naturally assist women, children, aged in those situations to the best of their abilities.

[roguevalley]

19. some of the fattest fat cats of all time were on the titanic and when it went down

they were helping women and children. I wish I could remember which one it was who was last seen trying to affix a life jacket to a baby in a carriage. Nobility comes at strange times and it is in the clinch that you know your true self.

[Zalatix]

29. One Christian hereby nominates you for leader of the world. n/t

[woo me with science]

37. I think the assumption may be that children should have an adult with them,

and that adult is likely to be a mother.

I guess we could argue the merits of filling the boats with children screaming for their parents during an emergency.

[Capitalocracy]

60. People with shivs and pepper spray first!

There are ways to overcome those natural disadvantages.

[Darth_Kitten]

64. Those people would be wrong....

and stupid to think that any woman, just because she's small, isn't fit.

It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.

[Honeycombe8]

77. The survival of the fittest theory includes protection of women.

There can be no survival without both genders. So throughout history, survival of the fittest includes survival of both genders, however that can be made to happen.

[deaniac21]

78. Darwinism is not the survival of the fittest

It is the survival of the species most adaptive to change.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. 5' 2" 105 lbs. here

We would be, if you'll pardon the pun, in the same boat.

[Snake Alchemist]

8. You would both be on the sinking one. nt

[ZombieHorde]

18. Your best bet, in my opinion, is to convince one of those those strong men

that your life is more valuable than his life. That way, he may sacrifice his life for yours.

If the man is religious, you may be able to convince him he will be rewarded in the afterlife. Many people have allowed themselves to die for the promise of supernatural rewards in the hereafter.

[roguevalley]

20. things happened during 9/11 that would shame that captain.

a man (I wish I knew the names of these people. I remember their stories) sat with someone in a wheelchair holding their hand, a man who could have run but didn't. He died with that person. There are stories everywhere about people doing the greatest love they can for others they don't know.

[woolldog]

43. So?

So what if you're doomed. Too bad. Why do you feel it's your obligation to live at the expense of a man's life?

[hfojvt]

46. many men have been taught to look after you

One of my favorite stories from "A night to Remember" says this:

"At another barrier a seaman held back Kathy Gilnagh, Kate Mullins, and Kate Murphy (3rd class passengers) Suddenly steerage passenger Jim Farrell, a strapping Irishman from the girls home country, barged up. 'Great God, man!' he roared. 'Open the gate and let the girls through!' It was a superb demonstration of sheer voice power. To the girls' astonishment the sailor meekly complied."

That story is known, of course, because the 3 girls survived. Mr. Farrell, however, did not.

Then there's another story.

"When Mrs. Ryerson led her son Jack to the window, Lightoller (the 2nd officer) called out 'that boy can't go!'

Mr. Ryerson indignantly stepped forward: "Of course that boy goes with his mother - he is only 13.' So they let him pass, Lightoller grumbling, 'No more boys.'"

Who knew that a 13 year old boy is not consider a "child" in the "women and children first" matrix? BTW, my mom records that when I was in the 7th grade, (approximately 13) that I was 57.5 inches tall (or 4' 9.5"&quot and weighed 72 pounds. Yet that 2nd officer, who survived himself, did not want to save that child because it happened to be male.

But class mattered more than age or gender. 4 of 143 First Class women died as did 15 of 93 Second class women, but almost 50% of the 3rd class women died 81 of 179. Only 23 of 76 3rd class children were saved.

[Quantess]

7. No Ithink the next question should instead be:

If there is no food and everyone is starving (say a large group of people are trapped in an empty warehouse with a kitchen and cooking facilities)

Who should be eaten first? I say children because their meat is more tender.

[bowens43]

11. true but you can feed more with a large adult, hopefully reducing the number that has to be killed

[mrs_p]

12. not enough fat on the kiddos, though

fat is where the calories are.

[Saving Hawaii]

27. What if there's lots of food but you're all biologists? You starve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov#Biography

[FarLeftFist]

10. What?! Of course women and children should go first.

[ZombieHorde]

21. What if only person with the survival skills necessary for the tragic situation is a man?

Allowing that man to die could doom everyone else.

Should a 20-year-old, healthy male sacrifice his life for the life a terminally ill, elderly woman?

[FarLeftFist]

28. The man stays behind to help those without the skills, then when all is clear/safe he escapes.

[ZombieHorde]

31. If there is only room for one more person on a boat,

and there is a woman who does not have the proper survival skills, and a man who does have the proper survival skills, then which one should be allowed on the boat?

[FarLeftFist]

33. She can sit on my shoulders.

[ZombieHorde]

34. The boat can't handle the weight! I think you see my point.

Women and children first sounds honorable, but it can lead to greater deaths. Those types of situations usually need well educated people, such as doctors and outdoor survivalists.

[Javaman]

106. Technically speaking...

each life raft should have a member of the crew with it, regardless of it being a man or a woman and they should be properly trained in lifeboat operation and survival.

[Zalatix]

30. And that is why it's better to have daughters.

You know they'll get on the lifeboats first!

[Moonwalk]

13. Of course they should have an equal chance at custody of the children!

It is sexist and bias to assume that a woman is "naturally" going to be more parental than a man, or love the children more or care for them better. This is a left-over from times when men worked and women, not allowed to work, were forced to care for kids. In those times, it actually made sense to give the kids to the women as they really did know how to care for them--this being their primary job--while the men, locked away six-out-of-seven days at work, were not given a chance to learn about child care or their kids.

Now that things have equaled out in the work place and at home, with plenty of dad's pushing the stroller, making the lunches, and picking up the kids from pre-school, giving the children automatically to the mother is ridiculous.

As for what criteria, first, of course, is any current tendency of either parent toward neglect or doing harm. If both have been attentive and good parents, with nothing detrimental to recommend one over the other, then, next is whether the parents are, indeed, equal care-givers. Equally good ay managing the children, giving them discipline and order and a good home life. If they are, then resources should be considered--would it be a hardship for one parent to care for the kids vs. the other? And, finally, if the children are old enough to express a strong preference for one parent over the other, that ought to be taken into account as well. That preference might be as much about which school the kid wants to go to, or what neighborhood they prefer as it is about which parent is more simpatico with them.

If things are so equal that none of this can be applied, then the parents ought to be rational enough to work out a good way of equally maintaining the kids. Shared custody is certainly optimal.

[Snake Alchemist]

14. So whoever has the biggest salary and home should have a greater chance of getting the children.

All other things being equal of course.

[Moonwalk]

38. Do not put words in my mouth. I don't appreciate it, and it doesn't make me think much of you--

As clearly you saw what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.

What I said was "If it's a hardship" for one parent to care for the kids, then that should be taken into account. That's VASTLY different from the bigger salary wins. If one parent is making $100K a year and the other is making $200K a year, then it's not going to be a hardship for either parent to care of the kids, so that criteria goes out the window and the judge moves on to the next criteria--or to as equal custody as possible.

But if one parent is employed, even at a low paying job, and has a place to live that they can pay for, however modest, while the other is unemployed and going to be focused on finding work, having the money for an apartment, car, food, etc., then it would BE A HARDSHIP for the unemployed one to have custody of the kids. Because now the kids needs and wants are added on to all the other stuff the unemployed one is dealing with. Therefore, it makes sense for the one who has a job and to whom it would not be a hardship, or less of a hardship, to have the kids. I don't mean this just because the kids must be fed, taken to the doctor, dentist, clothed, etc. but also because a parent who has other worries and problems is more likely to get angry and upset with themselves if they can't provide for the kids. The kids shouldn't be in an environment where they feel stressed and guilty for making things worse and harder on their parent.

Let me emphasize to make sure you don't misunderstand me again: what I'm saying is that given that ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL, this should be taken into account. However, the other things I named come first. Which is to say, I'd rather a child be with a parent living on the street than a rich parent who abuses them. That's a no-brainer.

And if all else is equal, then once the "hardship" parent is back to where it would not be a hardship to have the kids, then the custody should be re-negotiated.

[Snake Alchemist]

39. What if one is making 25K a year and the other is making 150K a year? nt

[dmallind]

16. I have no position on rescue et al, but do on custody

Frankly I doubt many rescue situations are that well organized to aqfford a real prioritization. Custody etc should be equal by gender cet par - but cet par is difficult. Criteria IMO, and assuming both desire custody, should roughly be:

1) Financial, emotional, legal and physical stability (former whether arrived at by support payments or individual income)
2) Time available
3) Desire of children old enough to make an informed choice

If the "scores" came back equal I can't deny that I, male, would probably err on the side of the female more often than not. Why? tradition and societal norms I guess.

[HopeHoops]

17. Totally different issue. Women (as reproducers) and children (the produced) are protected...

... in life-threatening situations in most mammal species. That's just intuition. Men are expendable and don't interrupt the survival of the species by their death. There will still be more males to fill in with respect to reproduction.

As for divorce, that is traditionally weighted toward women (not always and more in the past than now), but it really isn't on the same level. I'd take a bullet to save my wife and/or children - no thought is necessary there. I'm not in jeopardy of a divorce, but my parents went through one and my dad was bent over and fucked sideways by mom's lawyer. He wasn't nasty enough. He still would have taken a bullet for her, even after she wanted a divorce. That was over three decades ago, but he probably still would. It's a guy thing.

[ZombieHorde]

23. Some mammals will eat their children first in dire situations.

The parents can make more children, but the children will die on their own anyway.

[HopeHoops]

26. Sad, but true.

[Zalatix]

52. Men are expendable? Jeezus. And no one challenges this?

[Lance_Boyle]

62. What's the point?

We're expendable on DU, too. Now STFU and let the feminists speak!

[Darth_Kitten]

66. Oh, the tragedy of it all!

Those nasty feminists making the lives of liberal and progressive men so horrible!

[Lance_Boyle]

72. Ah, mockery.

The last refuge of a feminist without a rhetorical leg to stand on.

[Zalatix]

83. Saying that men are expendable is not liberal at all. It's sexist.

[Lunacee2012]

69. Whoa, hold on there!

Not all feminists, in fact most of us, see men as "expendable". I don't think that was the point the poster above was trying to make.

As for the whole "women and children first" thing, I don't believe in that either. First, there should be enough live boats for everyone. Second, I think the young, old, and/or disabled passengers should be allowed on the life boats first. Of course the children's parents, of either or both sexes, should be in the boats with them. I also think at least 1 strong and able person should be assigned to each life boat. I know that in a crisis this would be very hard to follow, but that's how I would at least try to do it.

[Lance_Boyle]

74. ...

[Zalatix]

85. +1000 n/t

[HopeHoops]

76. Well, in the greater scheme of species survival, yes.

For the record, I'm a guy.

[Romulox]

112. 7 BILLION human beings on this planet. Do you see now why you post makes little sense?

[HopeHoops]

119. Little to current humans, sure. Little to past flavors, no. And little to other mammals, no.

It isn't just about "modern humans". It is an issue which transcends species but is primarily mammal. Protect the children and protect the females.

We're a rather prolific species worldwide and not in danger of extinction unless by our own devices, but it is still ingrained in us to protect the females and children. I doubt that will ever change in human evolution.

[Romulox]

120. No. At any arbitrary point in time, your strategy is illogical.

There has never been a point in human history in which the survival of the species has depended on the repopulating potential of shipwreck survivors.

It's a rhetorical dead end; I suggest you give it up.

[HopeHoops]

122. Okay, so maybe it is nothing more than a moral decision. I still stand by it.

[Romulox]

123. What kind of morality can't be defended logically? nt

[HopeHoops]

126. You didn't just ask that, did you? Oh my.

Oh, well, for starters how about banning abortion even when a mother's life is in danger because "it is God's will".

How about the ENTIRE "moral majority" thing?

How about endangering yourself to save a kitten, turtle, or ducklings in the road? I've known plenty of people who call those "target practice".

Morality isn't a logical matter - it is intuitive. You know when something is right and at least SHOULD know when it is wrong. That's not dictated by any supreme being or spelled out in ancient texts, it is just part of everyone's nature on some level, even if it is a minimal level. It isn't the exclusive domain of humans, but is demonstrated throughout the worlds creatures, and not just mammals. Blue jays and crows both demonstrate it in the protection of the young of others. Larger hermit crabs will push away the medium sized ones to protect a tiny one.

Logic involves a thought process. While there are "moral dilemmas", most of what we call "morality" is done reflexively whether it is intuitive or learned. How can you use logic to explain a cheetah abandoning her meal to protect the newborn of a mother she had just killed? That's both moral and instinctual.

[Romulox]

127. "Just 'cause" isn't much of a reason, nor is an appeal to (imo) hypocritical "morality"

like that of "pro lifers". Their so-called morality is falsified on its face precisely through its basic logical inconsistencies.

"Logic involves a thought process. While there are "moral dilemmas", most of what we call "morality" is done reflexively whether it is intuitive or learned. How can you use logic to explain a cheetah abandoning her meal to protect the newborn of a mother she had just killed? That's both moral and instinctual."

"Morality" is a construct exclusive to man. We discuss animals' behavior in terms of its Darwinian adaptability.

[treestar]

92. Then why not include the fathers?

We aren't living in primitive conditions and hardly in danger of running out of people.

We are coming from a place not of that some particular shipwreck can bring about the end of the human race, but from a place of children deserving a chance at a life. So why not put families with minor children first, including their fathers? That would make more sense. Children's fathers aren't expendable.

As a single, I would say we were more expendable, even if young, since there are no children depending on us.

And certainly us post-menopausal old bags - by your analysis we should go last, since we're not able to produce more children (yet old men could in theory do so).

[HopeHoops]

93. But I bet you make better cookies!

Seriously, it may be mostly testosterone, could be mostly tradition, could be "just a guy thing", could be instinct, I don't really know, but even if one is too old to breed they can still pass on valuable information about life. Obviously guys can do that too, but I'm really talking about mammals as a whole, not just humans. As a father of three daughters, I understand your point, but if I was faced with a choice between my wife or me, there wouldn't be any need to think about it. She should be the one to survive.

[treestar]

107. What does she think about it?

Either of your are presumably equally valuable to the daughters? Or say it were three sons?

[HopeHoops]

117. She's as stuborn as I am, as are the girls, but that isn't really the issue.

She's a third degree blackbelt and all three of the girls are 2nd degree. They can kick the shit out of damn near anyone. But if it came down to life-threatening conditions, I'm the expendable one.

As for your question, she (and my girls) would probably rather take the fall, but I would be the one in the way. They'd just take care of the cleanup. Guns can only be defended at close range. As for other weapons, they know how to improvise. A broom handle is an awesome weapon.

It's also a matter of age. I've lived my life and enjoyed it. I could die at any time. It doesn't matter if it is my child or not, if a child is in danger, elders must protect the child even at the expense of their own life. That's just the way it should be.

[hughee99]

102. If a ship, or a 1000 ships sink, the survival of the species is not at stake for humans. n/t

[HopeHoops]

113. As a man, I would still help the women and children at the expense of my own life.

That's just what I think of as "the right thing to do".

I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but that's the way I feel.

[hughee99]

114. I feel the same, but the "survival of the species" argument is a non-starter. n/t

[HopeHoops]

118. It wasn't in the context of "humans", but rather of mammals in general.

[TlalocW]

22. I'm fine with women and children first but then it should go

Red Indians, spacemen, and sort of idealized version of the complete Renaissance Man.

I apologize, but the only video of this I could find was obviously put up by a republican.

TlalocW

[1monster]

24. There should be enough life boats for all and an orderly plan for all to embark on those life boats.

The stronger should assist the weaker, regardless of gender or age.

Every man/woman/child for himself will result in chaos and death. Everyone helping each other would get the job done faster and more efficient.

As for child custody, all being equal, I'd like to see some sort of mediated JOINT custody putting the child's needs first. At first, the couple, who could not make their marriage work, would need help and counseling to learn to work together for their children, but with time and effort, both parents who genuinely love their children, will learn to work together for the good of the their children. I've seen it happen even in the bitterest of divorces regarding a handicapped child.

The adversarial way we do dissolution of marriage and determine custody does not work well for anyone, except the lawyers' bottom lines.

[Snake Alchemist]

25. I am not as optimistic as you.

Many couples don't want therapy to work so never reach that stage, but your sentiments are nice.

[1monster]

47. Who said therapy? Not me. I said mediation and help. If both parents truly love their child(ren),

then they will try.

A marriage break up is devastating enough. An adversarial process makes it worse and adds to the ill feeling that will take years (if ever) to work out.

Don't think I don't know what I'm talking about. My husband has seen his daughter six times, for a few hours at a time, in eighteen years (and three of those times have been since she turned eighteen) and precious little before that too. Her mother moved from state to state to state and back to keep him from getting specificied visitation...

But I've seen the other side too, where the custodial parent got nothing from the noncustodial parent in child support. And that was both sexes that were the deadbeat parents...

[HockeyMom]

32. Ok, married men, ask yourselves this

If YOUR wife and especially your CHILDREN, were on that boat would you rush adhead of them to save yourself? I would hope that you would love your spouse and your children MORE. If not, I would not want to be your wife, or the mother of your children.

[ZombieHorde]

35. Don't you love your husband and your children MORE?

If not, I would not want to be your husband, or the father of your children.

[MrSlayer]

41. No, however......

I would certainly be throwing everyone else out of our way by whatever means were necessary. Call it what you will, but I'm not sacrificing myself for strangers. My woman and children come first but I'm right there too.

[Zalatix]

50. Ok, married women, ask yourselves this

If YOUR husband and especially your CHILDREN, were on that boat would you rush adhead of them to save yourself? I would hope that you would love your spouse and your children MORE. If not, I would not want to be your husband, or the father of your children.


(is this not an equally logical statement?)

[Liquorice]

58. No that's not the same at all. Men are stronger than women. A man

could easily pick the average woman up and throw her off the boat in order to get a seat. A woman, however, could not pick up the average man and throw him off the boat.

It seems there are quite a few people who do not understand the strength difference between men and women. Most men can physcially overpower most women in most situations. It's just a fact. That's how men are able to rape women so easily, for example, and also how they are the most likely person to murder and beat up a woman as well. They're bigger and stronger. I think this should be an obvious fact to everyone, but I see a lot of arguments that clearly miss this important piece of information: Men are stronger than women. Much stronger. That is why the convention of "women and children first" makes sense.

[Zalatix]

59. So because a man can rape a woman, he should be the one to die when a boat is sinking?

[Liquorice]

61. Wow, talk about missing the point! I'm not

sure how I can further explain this basic concept to you in a way you would understand. Let me try this:
Two of the reasons why the convention of "women and children first" exists:

1. Males have bigger muscles than women and could use their simple brute strength to overpower and trample all the women and children to get to safety. Maybe you don't see a problem with that behavior, but humans generally frown upon that sort of thing.

2. Males are stronger and can lift much heavier things (like supplies, etc) and can also lift much heavier people than a woman can. If the males all shove and trample their way past the women and children to get on the boats, the women and children will probably be left to die because more physical strength would likely be needed to get off the ship and into the lifeboats than the women and children have. Maybe you don't have a problem with that either, but most humans would find that objectionable. If the males help the women and children get into the boats, however, and THEN get into the boats themselves, then many more people will live.

I'm kind of surprised that these things aren't obvious to you, but I hope I've explained it better this time.

[Zalatix]

84. It's quite obvious to me. You've not at all shown how this is a valid reason for singling out men

So let me explain the flaws in your argument in a way that you would understand:

Your policy winds up with a lot of males DEAD. Simply because they were unfortunate enough to be born male.

Which pretty much convinces me that having daughters is preferable... since they'll be the ones to make it off the ship.

[Lance_Boyle]

71. This obvious physical inferiority of women, then, should naturally prevent them from firefighting.

Firefighting is a task obviously better suited to the physically stronger males, so why are there laws demanding that fire departments hire physically inferior female firefighters? Why should any nation have female combat troops when men are (again) obviously superior in terms of physical capabilities? Why are there female EMS workers when men are stronger? Why do police departments have female officers? If women are so physically inferior that they must have codified precedence over men in rescue situations, it's beyond obvious that those rescue groups ought not to include any women at all.

You takes the perks, you takes the punches.

[HockeyMom]

88. I take care of disabled children

Yes, even though I myself am only 100 lbs. I can pick up and carry a child up to about 40 lbs. or so. I know it is my responsiblity in the case of a disaster to take my child out of danger and carry them to safety. I have done this with drills. It's not just my job. I CARE about these kids as if they were my own.

As I said in another post, if I was on a sinking ship and I could help carry children to safety, I most definitely would. It is the right thing to do.

[HockeyMom]

73. I would carry a child

whether they were mine, or somebody elses, simply because children are the future and should be the first ones saved.

[Zalatix]

86. Same here. n/t

[obamanut2012]

36. They do have an equal chance at custody

What state laws say otherwise?

[Snake Alchemist]

40. Courts overwhelmingly favor the mother. This is not a revelation. nt

[musette_sf]

45. Most male parents who go to court for custody

get it.

[Snake Alchemist]

48. Link to that assertion? nt

[Zalatix]

51. Cite, please?

[pipoman]

63. I don't know where you live,

but I have set through many custody hearings, heard by many different judges, here and this simply isn't true.

[treestar]

90. They favor the primary caregiver

Statistically that may often happen to be the mother, due to history, etc.

[Snake Alchemist]

98. I suppose that depends on the definition of care.

If someone stays at home to watch and feed the child and another goes to work to provide the child with things like shelter and clothing then who is caring for the child more?

[treestar]

105. child support

also falls on both parents under most laws (again men pay more because they make more, but in cases where they don't, the woman pays more). Custody has to do solely with the non-financial primary caregiver.

The laws are blind to gender but often couples tend to mimic the traditional route. Still, a Mr. Mom could gain custody and payment of child support under those laws.

[Snake Alchemist]

108. The laws may be blind, but the courts tend not to be.

And I'm not even saying that is wrong, just pointing out a reality.

[treestar]

110. They may simply recognize the reality of who is the primary caregiver

That's not the court's blindness - that's the way the couple lived their lives. Any man who wants to be seen as equal primary caregiver only has to do so while they are together.

[Snake Alchemist]

111. Is that right/fair though?

Can a man not become a primary caregiver after given primary custody? Do children suffer more when a man is given primary custody? I don't have the answers, but these are questions that I've asked myself.

[treestar]

124. In a dispute, the courts will tend to consider the past

the way it was when they were together, but it's only one factor. There is a list of factors about what is in the child's best interests. So no hard and fast answers in each case.

[woolldog]

42. It cracks me up how the feminists of DU avoid this topic like the plague

or come up with petty self-serving justifications for this privilege. I thought they were all about equality? I thought they were all about rooting out privilege based on gender and outdated social roles and expectations?

Yet one of the first justifications for the women and children first is that the children need to be with their mother. As if fathers aren't capable of providing the same love, attention etc. What hypocrisy!

[Scout]

53. got any links to prove your assertion? i've got one for YOU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1200

"The Daily Mail, in an editorial of April 17, 1912, claimed that it was The Law of the Sea that: ‘Those who are saved are not the strong and able-bodied but the weak and the dependent — not the grasping millionaire from the private suite on the promenade deck, clutching a roll of bank-notes . . . but the defenceless wives and sisters and children.’

Yet surprisingly, perhaps, such an attitude provoked sharp responses from early feminists, who believed that ‘women and children first’ infantilised women, and it gave rise to the slogan ‘Votes not Boats’ for the female sex. The Mail published several feminist ripostes to its celebration of chivalrous behaviour on the Titanic. "

[woolldog]

54. I didn't know DU was around in 1912.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. But, shockingly to you, it seems, some DUers are feminists

and so, to your amazement, a feminist on DU made that post. I can see that this has been beyond your ken. I'll give you a chance to get your breath back. Yes, you can see something on DU, even on this subject, and it's from a feminist! Imagine that!

[woolldog]

56. Huh?

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Scout gave you a link to a feminst DUer posting on "women and children first"

You know, a member of the group you falsely claimed were hyporcritical, and were not posting on the subject.

Rather than acknowledge that you were wrong (and maybe apologising for the 'hypocritical' insult), you chose instead to irrelevantly point out that the article from 1912 that the feminist quoted as part of their post was from before DU.

Got it yet?

[seabeyond]

65. wtf are you talking about? just making shit up to argue? nt

[Darth_Kitten]

68. I love the broad contempt for and generalizations of "the feminists"

I guess some guys have a few chips on their shoulders?

[Honeycombe8]

80. That's a female-hostile statement.

You refer to feminists as "they"? Really? You mean "we" don't you? Don't you believe in equality for women, too?

I'm a feminist and just saw this topic, but I'll answer, without the necessity of your sarcastic and hostile prompting.

[woolldog]

129. No, I mean they.

I'm not a feminist.

[seabeyond]

130. but you were wrong, correct? hands down, in your face wrong. you see that? seeing

the "feminist" on this thread, plus the link you have to the forum discussing this subject before you ever spoke, showing how very wrong you are. right? you get that. that you. are. wrong.

[musette_sf]

44. The parent who has been the primary caretaker should have preference,

and whether it is the female or the male is immaterial.

In a divorce, the children should be the primary consideration. Ruling out abusive situations:

The goal should be to have the children's lives disrupted as little as possible.

Both parents should be capable of biting their tongues and to ALWAYS refer to the other parent kindly and civilly in front of the children.

The children should maintain residence with the parent who receives primary custody. I am unconvinced that forcing children to move from house to house to achieve "joint custody" is healthy. Which is why divorced parents should be welcome at either parent's separate residence after the divorce. If Dad has primary custody, then Mom should be able to drop in on any evening during a school week to spend time with the children. And an unselfish attitude should be brought to determining when the children will go to the home of the non-custodial parent.

Child custody after divorce (ruling out abusive situations) is actually EASY to decide - you do what is best for the children. Not what is best for you, what will help you to avoid paying child support, what your new squeeze wants, or what will hurt your ex-spouse the worst.

All people have to do is remember - do what is best for the children. Put yourself in their place. They are going through the worst thing that has ever happened to them, and they deserve as much stability, and as much love and support from BOTH parents, singly and jointly, as it is humanly possible to maintain for them.

[Snake Alchemist]

49. So if the father works and the mother stays at home then she should be given preference?

I'm not disagreeing. Just trying to clarify.

[Snake Alchemist]

70. There may be some problems with requiring a child to stay in one residence.

What if both care givers lived in Utah and the primary caregiver had a career opportunity in Florida?

[seabeyond]

67. i am more into parents being mature and adultlike and coming to an agreement for all around.

the one case i watched closely, i saw one adult (the woman) not willing to do that. gender doesnt matter on this issue. the fittest parent for the child does.

[Snake Alchemist]

75. That would definitely be the ideal situation. nt

[Honeycombe8]

81. State law is followed for this decision.

I believe that probably most states follow what the law says in Texas, which is that joint custody is done, unless one parent is proven to be a bad caretaker.

In joint custody, I think that the kids may primarily live with one parent, because in the interests of the children, that is best...to have a permanent residence. But they are shuffled back and forth, or spend summers with the non-residence parent, and arrangements like that.

It is no longer the case, as far as I know, that mothers are automatically given sole custody, with just a few visitations to fathers. If that's what you were thinking. Joint is the way it's done these days.

But the actual truth of the matter is that most families want the kids to live with the mothers, incl. the fathers, as long as the fathers have generous visitation, including holidays and long stays where the kids spend a length of time with them. And mothers, despite feminism, are still the primary caretakers of the children in most cases, even if the mothers work outside the home.

I see a disturbing trend in posts, seeking to denigrate the place of women and mothers in the modern family, and refusal to recognize any difference whatsoever between the genders. There is a difference both biologically and the way the two genders are raised from birth, and there is a difference in their approach to children in most cases I've observed. One is not better or worse than the other. But to deny the difference between the genders is to deny biology and environment. Denial of truth is never a good thing.

[Snake Alchemist]

82. I was referring to where the child primarily gets to live.

Per your post:

"here is a difference both biologically and the way the two genders are raised from birth, and there is a difference in their approach to children in most cases I've observed. One is not better or worse than the other."

If neither is better or worse, should a court of law even take it into account?

[Honeycombe8]

89. If you read my post, I told you that it doesn't in the states I'm familiar with...

although in real life, women are in fact the primary child caretakers and fathers WANT the mothers to be the primary caretakers, both before and after the divorce.

There is a difference, though, I believe, in the feelings many women have by virtue of physically giving birth, as opposed to having an offspring of yours borne by another person. There is a biological aspect to maternal feelings. It is present throughout the animal kingdom. But courts have a preference for JOINT custody and bow to the agreement of the parents regarding permanent residence, visitation, etc. Unless there is reason to consider the unfitness of one of the parents.

[Snake Alchemist]

99. "There is a difference, though, I believe, in the feelings many women have by virtue of physically

giving birth"

So are you saying that father's don't have the same connection with a child?

[jberryhill]

87. Women and men do have an equal chance for custody

The decision is not made on what the parties may want, but what is in the best interests of the child as determined by the court.

In reality, the vast majority of cases are resolved through some sort of shared custody arrangement, and it is very different from the way it was years ago.

[aaaaaa5a]

94. Sorry, there is no way men and women are equal in family court.

Men are second class citizens in child custody hearings.

[jberryhill]

95. That is not an argument

Having been there, and having been treated just fine by Family Court, I have to say that my experience is quite at odds with your fact free conclusory assertion.

[seabeyond]

96. texas is very good and precise at ensuring it is not gender based. i have seen up close, three cases

and i was the one that would continually and consistently address my niece that the father is 50% of that child and she had better treat him as such.

my brother on the other hand had a 10 yr battle. over a 120k bill. the case started in louisiana, but was brought to texas. what i saw in texas was absolutely about the better parent for the child. gender was not the factor but because the case started in louisiana, it was taken back to that state. one could look from the outside that it was slanted for the woman. the conclusion was, even though the mother was a lousy mom, she didnt hit the kid. detrimental the father be a part of the childs life. ruling for mother.

but i dont know it is cause it was woman friendly. she had connection to judge for various nefarious reasons.

so i cant say courts are bias. i hear they are from men. i would absolutely advocate for males if i saw it to be true. i have not seen it in texas. and i find it hard to believe texas is so much more progressive than other states.

[Snake Alchemist]

97. I saw a case right here in Texas that turned out very differently.

Father of the child was a man with a house, making 6 figures with a very stable job, and desperately wanted to be given primary custody. Mother of the child was living at home, no job, no prospects with a HS education. The case was settled in no time with the mother getting primary custody. He was devastated. I think what hurt him the most was that it seemed like he wasn't even given serious consideration, and she lived several hours away.

I'm not saying this was the wrong decision, but the court seemed to emphasize that the child should stay with it's mother.

[seabeyond]

100. it may be. i dont know. i can only go off what i personally see.

where i really see what is going on and know the ends and out. the whole marriage, hesaid/shesaid thing is very hard to sort out to see the reality.

the reason i can address those three cases is, i asked lots of questions, paid attention and was so much a part of the peoples lives.

without that, so much is slanted and hard to know.

i am always willing to conclude, it is possible, maybe even probable. i dont know.

i also hear that they are slanted favoring the father when he is influential, has the money ect....

the problem with a broken marriage is the garbage that interferes with best for children.

IF i ever divorced, kids would make the choice. neither of us would have any desire to keep kids from the other. and i am sure we can work it out. that is just who we are and how our marriage has gone. neither being vindictive. and the kids are older with a mind of their own. and we are compatible parents with our kids, pretty much always in agreement.

it is a tough one.

[Snake Alchemist]

104. I have only seen a man win primary custody a few times.

That is usually when the mother has serious substance abuse problems.

[seabeyond]

115. i have only seen one man fight for his children for primary and that was

when she was a bad mom.

i think we also have to be honest that a lot of men expect the mother to get the child....

i hope that mind set changes, too.

i am the first to advocate for stay at home dads, ect... so this is not about that. i love seeing a father being what we perceive the mother to be.

[seabeyond]

101. but thinking about this. if all things are equal.

as far as parenting goes she can stay with parents, extended family and support. she doesnt have to work, leaving her to parent children. and he does not have that available to him, being away 9 hours or more a day.

what would be the conclusion.

just throwing it out.

IF all things are equal.

[Snake Alchemist]

103. Yes, but if the opposite was true and he was a man staying at home with no job.

Do you think that would be an asset?

[seabeyond]

116. if he had the support and all, i would hope so. i do not know. nt

[Romulox]

109. Any entity in US jurisdiction that tries to assert "women and children first" should be sued

under Federal civil rights laws; women have no more right to life than anyone else.

And in a world of 7 billion, justifications based on the survival of the species are laughable!

[slackmaster]

121. I'm not sure what you mean. I've always been told to grab an oxygen mask for myself first.

Otherwise I won't be able to help anyone else.

In a divorce, children should go with the parent who is best able to provide a home for them and care for them. But children really need adult role models of both genders. If possible, some kind of joint custody arrangement is best.

[a la izquierda]

125. My post isn't about divorce...

but I simply wouldn't get on a lifeboat without my husband. If he has to stay, I stay with him.
Simple as that.

[aquart]

128. A man who doesn't use his sexual dimorphism to protect women and children is of no use.

Not to women, children, or the universe.