Wrong question. The proper question is "how often is it the primary caretaker who gets sole custody?" and the answer, as you'd expect, is probably close to 90% or higher. If a child is raised by a stay-at-home parent, the courts will almost always find that parent to be the best caretaker for the child, absent some unusual circumstances.
[citation needed].
There were three sentences there... Is there a specific one you'd like a citation for? I mean, I'm happy to help answer your question, but you have to be a little more definite with what the question is.
There were three sentences, but only one conclusion. You appeared to hypothesize that the discrepancy in custody awarding was due to the courts awarding custody to stay at home moms over dads who have left the parenting to their wives. Well, only 23% of married mothers of children under 15 were stay-at-home moms (link), but the wife got sole custody ~70% of the time (link and apologies for the slightly less trustworthy source. It was honestly the only thing I found that gave the ratio custodialFathers:custodialMothers:jointCustody.) Two things to note: 1. In my brief research, I encountered some evidence (although not enough to completely convince me) that this discrepancy was due to fathers asking for custody less. It appears both you and the poster you were replying to may be wrong. 2. I admit that the question of who is the primary caretaker is harder to determine. But, since I have shown that the father gets sole custody 10% of the time (30% when combined with joint custody), you must now show that this is reflected in the proportion of parenting duties carried out by mothers and fathers. Please note, I am not claiming I know why custody gets split the way it is, much less that it must be because of discrimination. I am simply saying that I don't accept that that your explanation is correct either.
How often it's the female who pays alimony/child support to the male? Next to never?
Exactly as often as the male is the primary caretaker and the female is the one with the career. Again, rare in the pre-feminism days, increasing now, thanks to feminism.
Well, it turns out that in 2006, 33.4% of wives earned more than their husbands (link. But only 3.6% of alimony recipients were male (link), so it looks like you're wrong in claiming that alimony payments are being distributed fairly.
Did you realize that you were changing the terms mid-question? I'm going to assume good faith on your part and that you just weren't thinking when you wrote the question.
First, this is a question about child support and primary caretakers [of the child] and your statistic is about... alimony. Unrelated. And, contrary to your assertion, I never said anything about "alimony payments being distributed fairly." But we'll come back to that in a second.
The person you were responding to asked about both child support and alimony. I assumed--apparently erroneously, my apologies--that you were trying to answer both questions, which is why I talked about alimony
Second, you mentioned that 33.4% of wives earned more than husbands, but you were responding to a question about primary caretaker vs. non-primary caretaker. Unless you're making the bold (and incorrect) assertion that wives are always the primary caretaker, then your statistic is unrelated to the point you're trying to make. Again, when husbands are primary caretakers,
How often it's the male who gets the sole custody? 5% maybe? How many in case of females?
Wrong question. The proper question is "how often is it the primary caretaker who gets sole custody?" and the answer, as you'd expect, is probably close to 90% or higher. If a child is raised by a stay-at-home parent, the courts will almost always find that parent to be the best caretaker for the child, absent some unusual circumstances.
[citation needed].
Then the second question is "how often is the primary caretaker female?" And here, rather than biatching about feminism, you should be praising it. Go back 50 years, and that answer would be nigh-100% of the time. But now, with women able to have careers and advanced education, that rate is declining. Feminism is the answer to this problem, not the cause of it.
And similarly, it's the answer to most of your complaints:
How often it's the female who pays alimony/child support to the male? Next to never?
Exactly as often as the male is the primary caretaker and the female is the one with the career. Again, rare in the pre-feminism days, increasing now, thanks to feminism.
Well, it turns out that in 2006, 33.4% of wives earned more than their husbands (link. But only 3.6% of alimony recipients were male (link), so it looks like you're wrong in claiming that alimony payments are being distributed fairly.
How often it's the male who gets locked up by default in case of domestic violence because of the concept of 'predominant aggressor' enshrined by the DV laws?
And feminism is changing those laws too, to make them gender neutral. There are abused men out there, and by mixing this in with complaints about child custody, you're doing them a disservice.
I haven't had a chance to read the new versions of the Violence Against Women Act, but I have skimmed it and read summaries. It is my understanding that the gender-neutral terminology was added to protect BGLTQ victims (a noble goal, to be sure), and that their exists no mandate in the law to assign funding to programs for battered men on a fair basis. Also, it is my understanding that said gender-neutral language wasn't in the original law, which was passed with the help of feminists.
On a related note, remember when the FBI updated their definition of rape a few years back? That was done thanks to lobbying by feminist groups (good for them). Although the new definition at least acknowledges the concept of a male victim, it doesn't include being made to penetrate, which would likely be a more common crime for women to commit than men. Feminist had a large amount of input here, so why didn't they fix this? Why is it that
Why is that men are only approx 1% of are allowed to the shelters for DV victims?
Because of our historical culture that says that women are weak and fragile and can't have jobs or careers and men are strong and stoic.
This isn't a scientific study, but it does cast doubt on your hypothesis. What Would You Do? did a segment in which a female actor physically abused her "boyfriend" (also an actor). Almost nobody stopped to help in any way, which was not the case when the roles were reversed. They interviewed the people who walked by and did nothing, and almost exclusively their response was not "he can take care of himself" (as you would predict), it was "he must have done something to deserve it."
Again, feminism is the answer to this complaint, not the cause.
Although I can't claim to have seen every piece of feminist thought out there relating to domestic violence, not
Same accelerator concept though. Maybe what they have built is flexible enough to handle both roles.
No it isn't. A rail gun uses two charged rails and a conductive projectile. The projectile is introduced between the rails, strikes an arc, and and is propelled down the barrel by Lorentz force. A linear induction motor, on the other hand, uses coils to produce magnetic fields which propel the projectile. Rail guns require maintenance to their rails every few shots, or they will become too eroded to use. Plus, they need another type of gun to start the projectile moving, or you just weld the projectile to the rails. All these factors make a linear induction motor a much better choice for aircraft launch.
Linear induction motor that's capable of accelerating a 100,000 pound aircraft to 240 miles per hour in the space of 300 feet.
One wonders how is that any easier on the airframe?
Anyone know how you calculate G-forces in this kind of acceleration?
The Nimitz class aircraft carriers' steam catapults already do the same thing.
I've read four of Daniel Quinn's books, and the gorilla is only there to provide an outside perspective. The basic thesis of Quinn's books--or at least the ones I've read (Ishmael, The story of B, My Ishmael, Beyond Civilization, and If They Give You Lined Paper, Write sideways)--is:
1. That different animals have different social structures that work well for them (fish live in schools, wolves live in packs, etc.) and that the social structure that works best for humans is a tribe or, as he defines it:a group that exists in interdependent relationships and that works together to support the general good of the group. 2. That our culture encourages us to think that we know what's best for everyone and everything, including other cultures and the natural world. Our culture thinks that what's best is that everything should work for us. 3. That this leads us to try convert as much biomass as we can to food and other things that are useful to us, at the expense of biological diversity. 4. That this has caused our food supply to rise well beyond what would naturally be available to us. 6. That our artificially high food supply allows us to wage war more affectively than other societies, and that our culture (see 2) makes us think that that's what we should do. 6. That increasing the food supply to any species--including humans--will lead to an increase in its population. 7. That eventually some disaster will occur which the environment won't be able to handle due to reduced biological diversity (see 3) and that we will almost certainly go extinct, and possibly take a lot of the planet with us. 8. To avoid this, we should adopt a more tribal (see 1) culture. Note this does not mean living in caves and hunting with spears.
What the books DON'T say:
1. They don't say humans are bad, just our culture. 2. They don't say technology is bad, just how our culture uses it. 3. They don't even say that war and weapons are inherently bad. In fact they point out that hunter gatherer tribes engaged in perpetual, low level warfare.
Lee was clearly disturbed. "These are the demands and sayings of Lee" sort of gives that away (delusions of grandeur anyone?) It sounds to me like he found a book that seemed to him to support his ideas and deluded himself into thinking they supported his entire philosophy. The best analogy I can think of is Charles Manson thinking Beatles songs were telling him to kill people.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong question. The proper question is "how often is it the primary caretaker who gets sole custody?" and the answer, as you'd expect, is probably close to 90% or higher. If a child is raised by a stay-at-home parent, the courts will almost always find that parent to be the best caretaker for the child, absent some unusual circumstances.
[citation needed].
There were three sentences there... Is there a specific one you'd like a citation for? I mean, I'm happy to help answer your question, but you have to be a little more definite with what the question is.
There were three sentences, but only one conclusion. You appeared to hypothesize that the discrepancy in custody awarding was due to the courts awarding custody to stay at home moms over dads who have left the parenting to their wives. Well, only 23% of married mothers of children under 15 were stay-at-home moms (link), but the wife got sole custody ~70% of the time (link and apologies for the slightly less trustworthy source. It was honestly the only thing I found that gave the ratio custodialFathers:custodialMothers:jointCustody.) Two things to note:
1. In my brief research, I encountered some evidence (although not enough to completely convince me) that this discrepancy was due to fathers asking for custody less. It appears both you and the poster you were replying to may be wrong.
2. I admit that the question of who is the primary caretaker is harder to determine. But, since I have shown that the father gets sole custody 10% of the time (30% when combined with joint custody), you must now show that this is reflected in the proportion of parenting duties carried out by mothers and fathers. Please note, I am not claiming I know why custody gets split the way it is, much less that it must be because of discrimination. I am simply saying that I don't accept that that your explanation is correct either.
How often it's the female who pays alimony/child support to the male? Next to never?
Exactly as often as the male is the primary caretaker and the female is the one with the career. Again, rare in the pre-feminism days, increasing now, thanks to feminism.
Well, it turns out that in 2006, 33.4% of wives earned more than their husbands (link. But only 3.6% of alimony recipients were male (link), so it looks like you're wrong in claiming that alimony payments are being distributed fairly.
Did you realize that you were changing the terms mid-question? I'm going to assume good faith on your part and that you just weren't thinking when you wrote the question.
First, this is a question about child support and primary caretakers [of the child] and your statistic is about... alimony. Unrelated. And, contrary to your assertion, I never said anything about "alimony payments being distributed fairly." But we'll come back to that in a second.
The person you were responding to asked about both child support and alimony. I assumed--apparently erroneously, my apologies--that you were trying to answer both questions, which is why I talked about alimony
Second, you mentioned that 33.4% of wives earned more than husbands, but you were responding to a question about primary caretaker vs. non-primary caretaker. Unless you're making the bold (and incorrect) assertion that wives are always the primary caretaker, then your statistic is unrelated to the point you're trying to make. Again, when husbands are primary caretakers,
How often it's the male who gets the sole custody? 5% maybe? How many in case of females?
Wrong question. The proper question is "how often is it the primary caretaker who gets sole custody?" and the answer, as you'd expect, is probably close to 90% or higher. If a child is raised by a stay-at-home parent, the courts will almost always find that parent to be the best caretaker for the child, absent some unusual circumstances.
[citation needed].
Then the second question is "how often is the primary caretaker female?" And here, rather than biatching about feminism, you should be praising it. Go back 50 years, and that answer would be nigh-100% of the time. But now, with women able to have careers and advanced education, that rate is declining. Feminism is the answer to this problem, not the cause of it.
And similarly, it's the answer to most of your complaints:
How often it's the female who pays alimony/child support to the male? Next to never?
Exactly as often as the male is the primary caretaker and the female is the one with the career. Again, rare in the pre-feminism days, increasing now, thanks to feminism.
Well, it turns out that in 2006, 33.4% of wives earned more than their husbands (link. But only 3.6% of alimony recipients were male (link), so it looks like you're wrong in claiming that alimony payments are being distributed fairly.
How often it's the male who gets locked up by default in case of domestic violence because of the concept of 'predominant aggressor' enshrined by the DV laws?
And feminism is changing those laws too, to make them gender neutral. There are abused men out there, and by mixing this in with complaints about child custody, you're doing them a disservice.
I haven't had a chance to read the new versions of the Violence Against Women Act, but I have skimmed it and read summaries. It is my understanding that the gender-neutral terminology was added to protect BGLTQ victims (a noble goal, to be sure), and that their exists no mandate in the law to assign funding to programs for battered men on a fair basis. Also, it is my understanding that said gender-neutral language wasn't in the original law, which was passed with the help of feminists.
On a related note, remember when the FBI updated their definition of rape a few years back? That was done thanks to lobbying by feminist groups (good for them). Although the new definition at least acknowledges the concept of a male victim, it doesn't include being made to penetrate, which would likely be a more common crime for women to commit than men. Feminist had a large amount of input here, so why didn't they fix this? Why is it that
Why is that men are only approx 1% of are allowed to the shelters for DV victims?
Because of our historical culture that says that women are weak and fragile and can't have jobs or careers and men are strong and stoic.
This isn't a scientific study, but it does cast doubt on your hypothesis. What Would You Do? did a segment in which a female actor physically abused her "boyfriend" (also an actor). Almost nobody stopped to help in any way, which was not the case when the roles were reversed. They interviewed the people who walked by and did nothing, and almost exclusively their response was not "he can take care of himself" (as you would predict), it was "he must have done something to deserve it."
Again, feminism is the answer to this complaint, not the cause.
Although I can't claim to have seen every piece of feminist thought out there relating to domestic violence, not
Same accelerator concept though. Maybe what they have built is flexible enough to handle both roles.
No it isn't.
A rail gun uses two charged rails and a conductive projectile. The projectile is introduced between the rails, strikes an arc, and and is propelled down the barrel by Lorentz force.
A linear induction motor, on the other hand, uses coils to produce magnetic fields which propel the projectile.
Rail guns require maintenance to their rails every few shots, or they will become too eroded to use. Plus, they need another type of gun to start the projectile moving, or you just weld the projectile to the rails. All these factors make a linear induction motor a much better choice for aircraft launch.
Linear induction motor that's capable of accelerating a 100,000 pound aircraft to 240 miles per hour in the space of 300 feet.
One wonders how is that any easier on the airframe?
Anyone know how you calculate G-forces in this kind of acceleration?
The Nimitz class aircraft carriers' steam catapults already do the same thing.
It's life, Captain, but not life as we know it.
I've read four of Daniel Quinn's books, and the gorilla is only there to provide an outside perspective. The basic thesis of Quinn's books--or at least the ones I've read (Ishmael, The story of B, My Ishmael, Beyond Civilization, and If They Give You Lined Paper, Write sideways)--is:
1. That different animals have different social structures that work well for them (fish live in schools, wolves live in packs, etc.) and that the social structure that works best for humans is a tribe or, as he defines it:a group that exists in interdependent relationships and that works together to support the general good of the group.
2. That our culture encourages us to think that we know what's best for everyone and everything, including other cultures and the natural world. Our culture thinks that what's best is that everything should work for us.
3. That this leads us to try convert as much biomass as we can to food and other things that are useful to us, at the expense of biological diversity.
4. That this has caused our food supply to rise well beyond what would naturally be available to us.
6. That our artificially high food supply allows us to wage war more affectively than other societies, and that our culture (see 2) makes us think that that's what we should do.
6. That increasing the food supply to any species--including humans--will lead to an increase in its population.
7. That eventually some disaster will occur which the environment won't be able to handle due to reduced biological diversity (see 3) and that we will almost certainly go extinct, and possibly take a lot of the planet with us.
8. To avoid this, we should adopt a more tribal (see 1) culture. Note this does not mean living in caves and hunting with spears.
What the books DON'T say:
1. They don't say humans are bad, just our culture.
2. They don't say technology is bad, just how our culture uses it.
3. They don't even say that war and weapons are inherently bad. In fact they point out that hunter gatherer tribes engaged in perpetual, low level warfare.
Lee was clearly disturbed. "These are the demands and sayings of Lee" sort of gives that away (delusions of grandeur anyone?) It sounds to me like he found a book that seemed to him to support his ideas and deluded himself into thinking they supported his entire philosophy. The best analogy I can think of is Charles Manson thinking Beatles songs were telling him to kill people.