Why are feminists intimidated by father's rights groups when all they want is "shared" parenting?

Question

Feminists come out against shared parenting all the time. Father's rights groups that fight the slanted court system that gives women custody nearly 85% of the time are just trying to see their kids more.

Why do the feminists do this? I thought they wanted "equality." Why would they fight a system that offered a more balanced approach to parenting?

Answer 1

There are two main reasons feminism is against shared custody:
1) It cuts into the transfer of wealth between the parents. If mothers and fathers actually shared custody and expenses, the profit margin would be reduced considerably; and
2) Another of the major factors in sole custody is vengeance. Feminists know very well that a mother with sole custody can withhold the court ordered visitation with the father without fear of punishment. Very often, mothers will use the children to punish the father for wrongs or perceived wrongs, little caring that the harm is mostly to the children. With sole custody, the other parent can be virtually eliminated and with PAS, the children can be brainwashed into believing the father is every bit as evil as the mother claims.

As in everything, feminism tries to use whatever is available to denigrate and demonize men, custody is just one such tool.

Answer 2

I think it's useful to take a step back and get a little perspective.

First of all, going back into the 19th century, courts routinely awarded custody of children to mothers when families broke up on the assumption that women were more nurturing, better homemakers, and couldn't be expected to make it in the working world. In short, it would be hard to find more sexist assumptions about women and their capabilities.

The feminist movement (in general) wanted to give women more options when it came to their life. Feminists believed (and still believe) that women can be just as effective as men in most occupations, especially those that depend on brain power and critical thinking rather than physical strength. This meant demands for changes in areas (like pay, hiring, etc.) where women were at a substantial disadvantage.

But keep in mind that the law changes very slowly, and it takes a long time for changes in society to be reflected in the courtrooms. This is a good thing: if courts constantly changed how they ruled from day-to-day there would be chaos. So many courts still have a rather conservative view and tend to approach child custody issues starting from the assumption that children (especially younger children) are better off with their mother.

Remember that child custody battles are incredibly emotional struggles for both parents; even the most committed feminist would likely be willing to use any advantage she could to keep her kids, even if that advantage derived from "patriarchal" institutions like the courts.

I personally believe that some feminist groups really are a lobby intent on advocating for women, not fairness. Equality to some of them was and is an argument to be used when convenient, but the end is the continual enhancement of the status of women in law and society.

I'd also point out that feminist groups are hardly alone in operating in this way: social conservatives, to pick a group often on the other side, work in exactly the same way, advocating for the rights of a single group, sometimes at the expense of the society as a whole.

This tends to make for rather messy and nasty politics, both legislatively and in the judiciary (as in the case at hand in this question). The idea is that individual judges can balance the interests of the competing parties in such a way that all of the major needs (e.g. best interests of the children) are addressed.

Needless to say, to make these decisions day after day would drive Solomon crazy--and we're sorely lacking in people with Solomon's wisdom.

Unfortunately, the alternative, legislators and judges making decisions in a vacuum, would almost certainly be worse. It's a bad system, but probably the best we can come up with.

I'm guessing that you're locked in a custody battle right now, and probably aren't doing so well. I'm sorry for you, your ex, and most of all your children. Intellectually understanding why the system is set up the way it is probably doesn't help much.

The best solution is probably to try to get the emotions to subside a little and see what you can work out with your ex outside of the courts.

Answer 3

Feminists also support making family-law decisions on a case-by-case basis and not always giving custody to the mother, which is a sexist practice for us as well. However, many father's-rights groups tend to care too much about attacking women instead of looking at themselves.

Answer 4

Equality is the last thing feminists want. Whenever equality might help men they try to make justifications as to why it should be suspended in that circumstance.

Feminists want the woman to have complete control. That means the father must have none. They want the benefits of marriage for women without any of the reciprocal obligation. Child support is an enormous gravy train for feminists and allows them to have multiple children by different men, while still being provided for.

They want families to be women and their children. They want men to be reduced to wallets as a result of nothing more than misandry.

Never mind that the child support system basically makes slaves out of men who got married. Feminists want everything their way.

Answer 5

A child needs a father too. I have no issue with this.

Answer 6

For someone who has had plenty of friends that have had shared parenting - its shared to a point. When it comes time for the child to go to the doctor, or for someone to stay home from work to care for an ill child, or take the child to buy school clothes or school supplies, etc. the fathers are MIA.

When the chores of childrearing are shared as well as the 'time', then there may not be as many women who object. I suggest men should ask themselves if they are willing to do the WORK of being a parent before they make demands. MANY are not.

Answer 7

feminists irritate me. they want to be soo damn independent, but to me, its like they need others. i think they are taking this "equality" thing to far ... i think they are fighting for that because of some personal reason .. a bad relationship in the past, bad bosses .. whatever the case .. EVERYONE needs someone. men need women, or other men if thats their choice, and woman need men, or other women if thats their choice. its an balance that only another person can equal out. IN MY EYES ANYWAYS. i know without my husband i would only be half the person i am today. and if something ever happens between us i would NEVER deny his rights to his children, they are his just as much as they are mine. i think feminists need to get over their "power trip."

Answer 8

If father's rights groups actually concentrated on equality and were not so hateful [sexist homophobic and racist many of the times], then maybe I would like them a little more.