In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Child Custody: The Male Glass Ceiling

Why is it hard for men to get custody of their children? Why, it’s because feminists have invented things like “domestic violence” in order to take away the children who rightfully belong to their fathers. Nevermind the fact that when men actually ask for full custody of their children, they’re more likely to get it — let’s move right along to the men’s rights sticking points, brought to you by Rachel Alexander:

Women, if you are successful in no other area of life, read this article closely, because you can easily succeed here, the system is so weighted in your favor. Free money, free legal help, and kind court staff. If you don’t work, or don’t work much, you’ll make out even better, so it is best not to work much. And all you need to do is get pregnant! Men, all I offer for advice to you is this: if you have children, you’d better pray that you remain a couple.


Yes, because that’s how it works: Women get knocked up, then suck men for everything they’re worth. Nevermind the fact that men are overall financially better off after divorce than women are (even when they’re paying child support).

“Take care” of the child has little to do with being able to financially support the child. It should, since almost as many women as men work outside of the home now, but because a lot of women with children who split up with the fathers aren’t very ambitious and sit around the house watching soap operas, the law has been crafted to label this as “taking care” of the children, instead of earning money. Since most fathers work full-time, they lose here.

So divorce is somehow correlated to watching soap operas? What?

“Domestic violence” is another disguised way of guaranteeing that the fathers lose. Women are now trained by society to call the police anytime their boyfriend or husband loses his temper, and are using and abusing this taxpayer funded “helpline” at an increasingly alarming rate.

Domestic violence, what a crock. Just let him slap you around for a few minutes and he’ll calm down — no reason to waste taxpayer money on calling the police!

Instead of working out their fights, or leaving the man, women are taking the easy way out and forcing taxpayers to pay for their “tattling” every time they take up the time of a police officer or court. Of course, many times it is the woman who caused the fight, but that is not going to end up in the court’s minute entry.

Wait, I thought this article was about child custody– i.e., what you fight about after “leaving the man.” Get your shit straight, Rachel.

And I hate it too when women waste the valuable time of police officers by tattling on their husbands. Especially since we all know that women court domestic violence — I know that when I get mouthy, I expect to walk away with a black eye!

Does anyone REALLY THINK that many of the mothers who resort to going to court to collect child support are the types of mothers who would spend a full $535/month on one child, as well as another $265/month of their own money (particularly if the child is older than 5 and in school)?

Um… yes? Kids are expensive, and if your ex parter isn’t paying child support, anyone in their right mind would take his (or her) ass to court.

Furthermore, the concept of child support money discourages personal responsibility and ambition. It penalizes the custodial parent for working harder and trying to get ahead, because a higher paying job would reduce the amount of free money they receive from the other parent. It is akin to welfare – if you work hard, you aren’t eligible for it. And it is a double penalty, because it also penalizes the non-custodial parent for working harder. The more money the non-custodial parent makes, the more money is taken out of his paycheck to go to the residential parent.

I don’t even know where to start with this one. Child support discourages personal responsibility? What?? How about, it provides for the kid that you created?

Do we really want to heap benefits on mothers who split up with the fathers, essentially giving “reward” money to women who have sex, instead of letting them suffer the consequences?

I can’t make this shit up, folks.

Everyone knows that sex without true commitment leads to broken down homes and emotional trauma, particularly for any children involved. Everyone also knows that when you have sex, you may get pregnant. In some ways, child support is merely a disguised form of prostitution – women are encouraged to have sex and receive money from any man who succeeds in impregnating them. After sex, the man then has no other contact with the woman except to give her money for the child, and any modicum of visitation he can squeak out. Instead of teaching women to avoid gratuitous sex, our society encourages sex with its condom education and giveaways, and easy access to taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthoods. Women realize they can have gratuitous sex without suffering any consequences, because the safety net of a man’s pocketbook will always be there for them, thanks to the long arm of the moral authoritarian government child support agency that reassures them that they are right.

That’s exactly what I’m thinking when I have sex: My boyfriend’s pocketbook will allow me to live a life of soap opera-watching and bonbon-eating (in between the gutter-whoring, of course).

And what exactly are deadbeat dads? Many “deadbeat dads” are simply fathers who are going through a hard time economically; they may have lost a job, or simply are having a difficult time paying $800/month in child support. Sure there are some fathers who have completely rejected any responsibility towards their children, but that doesn’t mean all fathers should be treated like criminals and rounded up by Sheriff’s Offices and taken into jail. Why are the fathers held accountable while the mothers aren’t?

Well, if they aren’t paying child support, they are committing a crime. And how are mothers not being held accountable? Single mothers are held accountable every damn day, because they’re the ones who are doing the child-rearing.

So what should the solution be? For starters, how about ending child support between parents who both want custody of their children? If someone really wants their children, they will find a way to make ends meet. It just doesn’t cost that much to raise a child, no matter what people whine.

Why do I suspect that she has never raised a child?

The whole article is worth one big mind-numbing read. She loves the anecdotal evidence more than anything — “One woman got high all the time, and sent her kid to daycare with the child support money! Therefore, all single moms are drug-using whores!” I’ve gotta say, though, that the funniest part of the article is that Rachel is the editor of “Intellectual Conservative.” If this is what passes for intellect on the right, then I don’t think we have much to worry about.


30 thoughts on Child Custody: The Male Glass Ceiling

  1. I get to be the first commenter!

    If only I had somethingclever and cogent,not the standard ‘what the fuck’. Well, besides the obvious: let’s say it together, class: the minute the baby exits the womb, it gets to starve in the gutter. God bless our family values!

  2. Good God, that woman is an idiot.

    I’m willing to bet she’s an idiot of the Libertarian variety…in that case, does she not realize that single mothers often resort to collecting welfare and other state/federal benefits because the fathers don’t pay? Has she thought of that? Because that is what usually happens. Why not have the father pay a fair share of raising a child instead of having taxpayers pick up the tab? You would think this sort of reasoning would appeal to guvmint-hating conservatards, but alas it does not. They are more interested in letting single mothers starve so they can “suffer the consequences” of having sex. Lovely. This is coming from the “family values” party.

  3. essentially giving “reward” money to women who have sex, instead of letting them suffer the consequences?

    Damn those women getting rewarded for sex when it should only be men who have rewards for sex! God, next thing you know, they’ll be letting bitches own property.

  4. In Indiana it doesn’t really matter what your income is. There is a general formula they use to ensure that the non-custodial parent pays enough so that the child’s standard of living does not change (thus paying half of the resulting figure). Of course it does, but at least it aims to be equitable.

  5. Lauren, most, if not all, states use a formula like that. Unfortunately, the judge can opt to disregard that. Unfortunately I say because in instances where a man gets awarded primary physical custody, often the judge/marital master will reduce the amount of the support payment the woman has to make.

    What’s more, if a man’s job situation changes for the worse, his support obligation often doesn’t get lowered (it’s totally at the whim of the judge/marital master). It’s persumed to be the man’s fault if there aren’t better employment opportunities.

    The worst thing is that it’s a felony to get behind on support payments. So if a judge/marital master assess a support payment that is beyond a man’s ability to pay, he can got to jail and carry a felony on his record that makes it very difficult to get decent employ. But when a woman doesn’t pay child support (which, by the way, they are statistically more likely to be guilty of than a man), there is a much lower chance of her being convicted of that same felony. Nationally, the most frequent offenders of non-payment of child support are female.

  6. Everyone knows that sex without true commitment…

    Ooh, does this mean we get to have marriage police that run around trying to figure out if the marriage is a true commitment or not? Unless I’m mistaken, don’t the vast majority of custody cases happen between people who were once married?

  7. Wait – now having sex within a marriage is gratuitous? That’s what would follow from her arguement. I thought you were supposed to marry so that you could have properly approved sex. Can’t they keep the story straight?

    Also, I thought having kids with your husband was what you were supposed to do, according to the conservative view of things. Now it’s entrapment? Bizarre.

  8. what troubles me about this abhorrent article is that it rushes to such an extreme and ridiculous position, which then makes it very difficult to have a sane and reasonable discussion about the problems with child custody laws. and they ARE problematic, for both men and women. it would be nice if we could count on divorced parents to act like adults and think of the best interests of their children. but we all know that that is not always the case.

    i’m married to man who is twice-divorced. he tried to get joint custody of his 5 children. they separated for a year with that arrangement, and it was successful. the kids were happy. mom was not. she sued for full custody and child support and won. now the kids see their dad one day a week. now they miss their dad and of course it’s all his fault for not being there for them.

    i could go on and on about how she manipulates them to hate their father, or how she is negligent beyond belief when it comes to their care. but i know how mean-spirited it comes across, and for chrissakes, no one wants to be a single mother of 5 kids. the point is, she got everything she asked for, and she’s still bitter. i don’t begrudge her any of her child support, she deserves every dime. but it would be nice if she could at least make sure they brush their teeth every day and their clothes don’t reek of cat piss when they leave for school. erg.

    it would be nice if the men who ARE committed to being good fathers would get some appreciation, if not from the mothers then from the courts.

    it would be nice if we could all acknowledge that the system is flawed, and that each case deserves unique considerations based on the circumstances. because there are plenty of men and women who are abusing the system and regardless of gender, they are making it suck for everyone.

    i guess i’m just a little tired of sweeping generalizations on both sides of the argument that demonize The Other. it’s impossible to have a productive discussion with that mentality.

  9. Seth, family law is pretty fucked up across the board. I can’t get into it right now, but I’d like to address your comments at greater length.

  10. I would really like to drive to where ever that idiot is an let my head explode all over her…

    My parents divorced when i was three. My mother was awarded custody(deserving or not), and my dad was ordered to pay child support, which he never did. When i was 9, my mom admitted she couldn’t care for me, and sent me to live with my dad. She never sent him child support in the almost 6 years I lived with him. Right before I was 15, I moved out of my dad’s house and in with my aunt, where I stayed for 6 months before I moved in with my mom again. Until I was 16, at which point I decided I couldn’t stand it anymore, and moved out on my own. When I was 18, my mom took my dad back to court for back child support, which she won, and still receives, despite the fact that I am now 30.

    My point is telling this is that I totally agree with Renee. Each case deserves individual consideration. Every situation is different with it’s own wrinkles, and a formula just doesn’t work. But to assume either side is completely right or completely wrong is just blindly ignorant.

  11. A friend of mine who is bipolar went through a nasty experience this last winter thanks to the “female-friendly” world of divorce and child custody. My friend had had two affairs about six years ago and then tried to commit suicide. She failed, of course, and went on anti-depressives. Not the right thing, but she slogged along as best she could.

    Last December, she winged out and tried to kill herself again. This time her husband filed for divorce.

    Just before he did this, he talked her into seeking marriage counseling from a pair of “lay counselors” at their church. One of the counselors told her that her husband was the victim and that her suicide constituted abandonment of her children. This man’s profession? A veterinarian.

    While my friend was at work, her husband and mother-in-law took their children off to a San Clemente psychology without her knowledge. The psychologist attempted (and failed) to convince the children that their mother was abusing them.

    He hired a lawyer from a local firm called Dad’s Law. The lawyer tried to convince my friend that she ~had~ to move out if her husband ordered her to do so. On my advice and the advice of others, she consulted a lawyer. Guess what? She didn’t have to leave!

    My friend went to pick up her kids at school a couple of times only to find that her mother-in-law had arrived a few minutes earlier. The tactic?: again to show that she was not fit to be a mother. (And when deadbeat fathers need an ally, they can often find a woman to help.)

    Then he tried to persuade her to see her family in Arizona for two weeks. Again, she learned that this was a trap. If she took the trip, he could change the locks, march down to the child custody people, and accuse her of desertion.

    When this didn’t work, he had her dragged before an all-male church tribunal which declared that she bore the entire responsibility for the breakup of the marriage.

    Throughout all this, my friend insisted on joint custody. Her husband wanted to deny it. She claimed and continues to claim that despite her husband’s failure as a spouse that he makes a good father. Where is the money-grabbing b*tch here?

    My therapist says that the problem with women is that they believe that men will play fair. And nothing aggravates a man more than seeing a woman getting her own.

    If my friend’s example is any indication, many men probably do need to pay out more. What these deadbeat fathers often don’t tell you is that they have drug or alcohol problems, that they have been violent in the home. I have never seen a father with proof of his wife’s addictions or violence denied custody. The experience of my friend shows that many a man will torture his former wife to unparalled and unwarranted extremes rather than pay out child support.

  12. This is an interesting situation. True enough, the pragmatic implications of the tendency to award the mother custody of the children came from the dawn of the “divorce age” (not when it first began, mind you, but when it became increasing more common), when there were very few two-salary households. Insomuch as most of today’s couples with children are both working full-time, the logistics of child-raising don’t work out very well for either parent, yet the mother must necessarily be proven unfit (or simply refuse to take the children) for the father to be awarded custody.

    I think that’s proper, to a degree. Even as adults, most people have a connection to their mother (rooted, I’m sure, in the very nature of childbearing and birth) that they don’t have with their father. There is one major problem with the system, however. Fathers generally get off a little too lightly. As much as he can, the father has an obligation to remain a father to his children, and sending a monthly check alone doesn’t cut it.

    Perhaps in some cases, courts overlook extraneous circumstances, but that’s why these things need to be decided case-by-case, and why I think it would be proper to institute periodic reviews of the situation. Generally, a child of twelve years or older can choose which household to stay with, but IMHO, that’s a very young age for such a monumental decision, and a milestone that I’ve seen used by one parent to harass the other.

    See? I got through that whole comment without saying anything about how women are just inherently better at raising children than men are! (just kidding, guys–no snarkiness intended)

  13. Joel, I need to point out to you that none of what you posted is what happens inside of a court of law. In fact, that sort of behaviour would tend to disadvantage the man in a court. If your friend hasn’t gone in front of a court, she should.

    There’s no doubt about it, people can be cruel. Man can be. Women can be. No gender, race, religion, political bent, or nationality has a monoploy on cruelty. For every real-world example of a man being cruel, I can probably counter with an example of cruelty by a woman…but what would be the point in that? I wouldn’t be telling you anything you don’t know in your heart of hearts, and all of that is really besides the point as to the very real problems with family law.

  14. Lauren: I look forward to any comments you have. My intent wasn’t to say that women have it dreamy, but that it’s an issue that cuts both ways, quite frequently to the ultimate detriment of the children. It’s unfortunate, but children often are the pawns in the stupid games adults play.

    I’ll see if I can dig up a source for statistics on dead beat parents. I’ve seen them online before, but didn’t save the link. Might take some doing!

  15. I got through that whole comment without saying anything about how women are just inherently better at raising children than men are!

    I do think there is some residual of that notion lurking in the courts acorss the country, but it most often has to do with whomever it was that spent the most time with children before the divorce. Because of a slew of societal reasons that I’m too lazy to go into right now, this person is often the mother.

    Why it is that women are the non-custodial parents that are statistically more likely to duck out on child support is beyond me. Does anyone have any studies related to this? Where is The Countess?

  16. statistics on dead beat parents

    My experience is that you’re right on the likelihood of non-custodial women being the ones to be deatbeats. I have never seen any studies on why that might be, just numbers.

  17. Let me hazzard a guess, based on studies of deadbeat dads that I’m seeing. It seems there is a strong link between a parent’s level of satisfaction with visitation/custodial arrangements and payment of child support. So (speculation alert!) it may be that women have a traditionally higher expectation of custody and when they are not the custodial parent they are more likely to not be satisfied with the arrangement, thus more likely to not pay support.

    By the way, you’re correct that family law is a nightmare. I’m convinced it’s because there is a seemingly lower standard of proof for allegations of misconduct (ie: claims of abuse, drug use, etc.)

  18. but it most often has to do with whomever it was that spent the most time with children before the divorce

    What I don’t understand is the attitude that women should do 99% of childrearing (and men should make the money) during marriage, but everything should be exactly 50/50 afterward.

    It just doesn’t cost that much to raise a child, no matter what people whine.

    No, she clearly doesn’t have kids. Assuming “Rachel Alexander” is actually a she.

  19. It just doesn’t cost that much to raise a child, no matter what people whine.

    Wow. I missed that quote. I’ll show her my checkbook and the “income” I make from financial aid that I dole out to us on a monthly basis. Either Rachel doesn’t have kids or she doesn’t handle the finances.

  20. Seth: I know that. Which is why I and others urged her to consult a lawyer. We smelled a dead whale.

    I’ve known women to screw over men, but frankly, I have seen more of the reverse. Divorced mothers cast aside by their husbands, left to raise the children on pitiful child support. It’s an all too common story. The man wants to live the high life, so he tries to cut the wife and the kids.

    I challenge you to produce actual statistics. The ones I have seen is that the men do better after divorce than the women do. To whine about child support suggests to me nothing more than good old greed.

  21. Joel, the statistics you’ve heard are probably from sociologist Lenore Weitzman’s 1985 book “The Divorce Revolution”. In it, she states that women take a 73% drop in their standard of living and men gain 42% in their standard of living. It has become an article of faith that this is so.

    The only problem is that it’s utterly untrue.

    After correcting computer transcription errors and repeating the study verbatim, Richard Peterson of the Social Science Research Council arrived at a 27% decrease for women and a 10% increase for men in the standard of living. Keep in mind that this result was arrived at using the same methodology and source data samples as Weitzman orignally used.

    Weitzman further comes under criticsim for selecting a small sample (228 families), from a small area (Los Angeles only), and a short time period (1977-78). Hardly representative of all of America, no?

    Prof. Atlee Stroup (sociology) and Prof. Gene Pollock (economics) published a study in 1994 titled “Economic Consequences of Marital Dissolution”. The study was based on nationwide survey of 7,500 respondents between 1983-87 by The National Opinion Research Center. The study found that, on average, women faced a 22% decline and men faced a 10% decline in income after divorce. When profession was figured into it, the disparity shrunk: a loss in income of 12% for professional women, a loss of 8% for professional men. The greatest disparity was between unskilled men (loss of 19%) and unskilled women (loss of 30%).

    A disparity yes, but hardly a huge one.

    Riddle me this Joel: why is it whining to point out that men get custody only about 15% of the time? Or to point out that 90% of men with joint custody and 80% of men who are happy with visitation are up to date on child support payments? Or to point out that rougly 50% of women without custody don’t pay or are behind on payment of child support?

    So while you might call it whining, I call it sexism. Family law and family law enforcement, while gender blind on paper, is not gender blind in fact.

  22. The only problem is that it’s utterly untrue.

    As is noted in several books by feminists, including The Mismeasure of Women and, if I recall right, Backlash. There is, nevertheless, a decrease for women and an increase for men.

    So while you might call it whining, I call it sexism.

    Saying “men get custody 15% of the time” is not sexism if men only seek custody, say, 1% of the time. Yes, I just picked that number out of the air. I might as well, since you’re not offering anything to show that men do want custody and are being unfairly deprived by sexist courts.

  23. Seth:

    Or to point out that 90% of men with joint custody and 80% of men who are happy with visitation are up to date on child support payments?

    Sounds to me like there is no problem….what ARE you whining about?

  24. Joel: be serious, you don’t see a problem? Men get routinely pilloried in the media as “deadbeats”. This despite the fact that statistics on deadbeat dads regularly get padded with the numbers of men who are actually dead, in jail, or unemployed. The percentage of women who don’t pay support is very high, yet you hear little to nothing about “deadbeat mothers”. I call this what it is: sexism.

    Ask yourself Joel: do you think that a glaring double standard advances, or sets back, feminism? I suppose the answer would depend on whether: [A] feminism means the leveling of the socio-economic playing field or [B] feminism means elevating women to a position superior to men. As a father of two beautiful daugters I hope A, as a man I hope not B.

  25. mythago: if I committed any intellectual sin in selecting my statistics about fathers getting custody, it was that I selected the one that was MOST generous to the legal system and men. I found other cites which gave the number as only 10%, or even lower.

    Men seek custody only 1% of the time? Please. If you’re going to make an assertation like that, have the decency to back it up with a name, a study, a link, anything. Oh right, you were making it up.

    So before you accuse me of cooking statistics, the least you could do is google on the studies and researchers I cited in my comment:

    Richard Peterson, Social Science Research Council

    Atlee Stroup, Gene Pollock, Economic Consequences of Marital Dissolution

    If all that doesn’t give you enough, here’s some more for you:

    Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, Custody After Divorce

    Robert Emery, The Truth About Children and Divorce

    Or you could keep it simple with a search like this:

    fathers custody statistcs

    Because, you know, I did post cites to the studies in my comment.

  26. So before you accuse me of cooking statistics

    No, I accused you of presuming causation. “15% of fathers get custody” is not, by itself, triumphant proof of discrimination against fathers. You don’t even explain what you mean by “get custody”–joint custody? Sole physical custody?

    Pointing to what one hears in the media is also not much in the way of evidence. Perhaps your local media is much more into the “deadbeat dad” thing. Where I live, you don’t hear about deadbeat parents of either sex unless they’ve just been arrested after racking up six-figure debts while living the high life with their new spouse.

    You cited a number of statistics about relative income drop after divorce–oddly, even after paying for a new apartment and child support, women’s income decreases and men’s rises.

  27. Mythago said:

    You cited a number of statistics about relative income drop after divorce–oddly, even after paying for a new apartment and child support, women’s income decreases and men’s rises.

    You clearly didn’t read what I posted very carefully. I stated that the study stating men’s income rose was flawed and biased. Other, more reputable, studies have shown that income for both men and women drop after divorce. Which makes sense, if you think about it. When a couple gets married they experience a relative rise in income by pooling their resources into a single household. When you disolve that single household and set up two seperate households, you’d expect to see both suffer a loss.

    Custody: I understood it from the study to be joint or sole, with a diferentiation between joint custody and mere visitation.

    I don’t presume causation, the causation is there: if there is no contested custody, there is no custody case in court. I was refering to custody awards, by a court.

    You’re just parroting at me the tired old sterotype of uninterested dads who can’t wait to be free of the shackles of family. So, gender sterotypes are wrong, unless it’s a man being sterotyped?

    “I conclude that shared parenting is great for women, giving time and opportunity for female parents to pursue education, training, jobs, careers, professions and leisure…Most of us have acknowledged that women can do everything the men can do. It is now time to acknowledge that men can do everything women can do.” —Karen DeCrow in 1994 (former president of NOW 1964-67)

  28. Just speculation here–no links, studies, or hard numbers to back it up, but . . .

    One reason non-custodial mothers may be less prone to properly meet their child-support requirements may lie in the decision process by which custody is awarded. For a woman to not be awarded custody, she pretty much has to be proven “unfit” to raise the child, a fairly difficult thing, in and of itself. If a mother is thusly declared, it is because of overwhelming evidence towards her incapability of providing a safe and stable household for the children. All that said, a woman who is not awarded custody for that reason is probably not the type of person who would take child support very seriously, even if she happens to be stable enough (as the only cases of which I personally know had to do with drugs and/or other criminal behaviour) to secure employment and actually have the income necessary to pay the court-ordered amount.

    Couple that with a potential societal bias against a man who makes a big deal out of extracting child support from the children’s mother, and delinquency may truly be in quite disproportionate numbers.

    (gosh, I hope all that made sense. It’s late and I’m very tired)

Comments are currently closed.