• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Family Values

how are family values today compared to yesterday?

  • values are higher than before

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • values are the same

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • values are lower than before

    Votes: 14 63.6%

  • Total voters
    22
The Baron said:
No fault divorce was first introduced to this country in 1970. Divorce rates have been going up since then until today when most marriages end in divorce.

divorce_rate.gif

to me it looks like divorce rates hovered around 25% through the 50s and 60s, maybe increased a few percentage points, they went up dramatically from 1968 to 1976, and have been hovering around 50% ever since then. the divorce rate was exactly 50% in both 1978 and 2004.
 
"Nothing can "weaken" a family other than the family itself." - rivrrat

See above.

How do divorce rate statistics contradict the fact that nothing can weaken a family or relationship except those within it?

People now stay together because they want to, not because they are forced to by the government. That makes relationships stronger, not weaker.

The only thing you have pointed out is that due to easier divorces, more unhappy people are getting divorced; something that I think is fan-****ing-tastic. There is no "strength" in an unhappy "family" that's forced to stay together against their will. There is no good in that, anywhere.. for anyone. There is only misery.
 
“How do divorce rate statistics contradict the fact…” – rivrrat

Please site the source of your “fact”.

“…that nothing can weaken a family or relationship except those within it?” – rivrrat

Obviously those within the relationship have the power to harm the relationship the most. This is hardly a revolutionary observation.

However, making divorce easier only harms the “traditional values” originally brought into question by this thread. Marriage was intended as a permanent relationship “until death do we part” that was intended to transcend the good times and bad times that couples will inevitably go through during the course of a lifetime.

“People now stay together because they want to, not because they are forced to by the government. That makes relationships stronger, not weaker.” – rivrrat

I suppose I could point out that people also tend to stay together due to tough economic times but what would that do to your theory then?

“The only thing you have pointed out is that due to easier divorces, more unhappy people are getting divorced; something that I think is fan-****ing-tastic. There is no "strength" in an unhappy "family" that's forced to stay together against their will.” – rivrrat

…against their will?

Think that through for just a moment, won’t you?

Because at the end of the day, love is a choice not an emotion. And those who "choose" to abandon the commitment to their marriage only end up harming their spouses, children, et al.

1 Corinthians 13
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails." - NIV
 
“How do divorce rate statistics contradict the fact…” – rivrrat

Please site the source of your “fact”.
Common sense. Hell, you even acknowledge it below.

Obviously those within the relationship have the power to harm the relationship the most. This is hardly a revolutionary observation.

However, making divorce easier only harms the “traditional values” originally brought into question by this thread. Marriage was intended as a permanent relationship “until death do we part” that was intended to transcend the good times and bad times that couples will inevitably go through during the course of a lifetime.
And that notion is antiquated and damaging.

“People now stay together because they want to, not because they are forced to by the government. That makes relationships stronger, not weaker.” – rivrrat

I suppose I could point out that people also tend to stay together due to tough economic times but what would that do to your theory then?
What theory is that, exactly? If people remain in a relationship for money, I don't consider that a good or healthy thing either. Unless of course, that makes them happy. But regardless, if they CHOOSE to stay together for money, then that is their CHOICE. Are you getting the key word here? ;) No fault divorces simply give people more CHOICE, and that is always a good thing.

“The only thing you have pointed out is that due to easier divorces, more unhappy people are getting divorced; something that I think is fan-****ing-tastic. There is no "strength" in an unhappy "family" that's forced to stay together against their will.” – rivrrat

…against their will?

Think that through for just a moment, won’t you?
Already did. If someone wants out of a relationship and they are forced to remain in it, that is against their will.. What is there to "think through"?

Because at the end of the day, love is a choice not an emotion. And those who "choose" to abandon the commitment to their marriage only end up harming their spouses, children, et al.
Commitment is a choice, love is NOT a choice.

Those who end a commitment that is toxic to the people involved do NOT harm anyone, they HELP themselves and if there are children involved, it helps them too. Staying in a relationship where everyone is unhappy is harming everyone involved. It's just - for lack of a better word - stupid.

1 Corinthians 13
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails." - NIV[/SIZE][/FONT]
Quoting mythology at me? How is this relevant to anything?

But hey, I'll go along:

A family is a place where minds come in contact with one another. If these minds love one another the home will be as beautiful as a flower garden. But if these minds get out of harmony with one another it is like a storm that plays havoc with the garden.
Buddha
 
Last edited:
“How do divorce rate statistics contradict the fact…” – rivrrat

Please site the source of your “fact”.

“…that nothing can weaken a family or relationship except those within it?” – rivrrat

Obviously those within the relationship have the power to harm the relationship the most. This is hardly a revolutionary observation.

However, making divorce easier only harms the “traditional values” originally brought into question by this thread. Marriage was intended as a permanent relationship “until death do we part” that was intended to transcend the good times and bad times that couples will inevitably go through during the course of a lifetime.

“People now stay together because they want to, not because they are forced to by the government. That makes relationships stronger, not weaker.” – rivrrat

I suppose I could point out that people also tend to stay together due to tough economic times but what would that do to your theory then?

“The only thing you have pointed out is that due to easier divorces, more unhappy people are getting divorced; something that I think is fan-****ing-tastic. There is no "strength" in an unhappy "family" that's forced to stay together against their will.” – rivrrat

…against their will?

Think that through for just a moment, won’t you?

Because at the end of the day, love is a choice not an emotion. And those who "choose" to abandon the commitment to their marriage only end up harming their spouses, children, et al.

1 Corinthians 13
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails." - NIV

I thanked this for a reason. I think that marriages today fail because people simply do not even try to make it work. At the first snag they just want to leave what is supposedly at the very least a long term commitment. To some extent our society has made it EASIER for people to be ******s about marriage. If I wanted a divorce every time my wife does something I dislike I would have never gotten married. I mean I love the woman but she does **** that some days just drives me up a ****ing wall and has me one button away from dialing up a divorce lawyer. But I don't. Why? Because of my kid I try to make it work and to this day we have worked most of our issues out. But I think for the most part we're an exception. We deal with our problems instead of running the minute we think we can't handle it.
 
Last edited:
The why is extremely relevant if we want to see the unit be as happy and adjusted as possible...

I don't disagree. But the "why" is irrelevant to someone like myself who doesn't sit in judgment of "why" others choose to leave a relationship. The "why" - to me and to everyone else - is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that if people are not happy in a relationship, then they need to either fix it or get out of it. There is no "value" in forcing people to remain in unhealthy situations. Even if someone does think they left for a 'stupid' reason.
 
I thanked this for a reason. I think that marriages today fail because people simply do not even try to make it work. At the first snag they just want to leave what is supposedly at the very least a long term commitment. To some extent our society has made it EASIER for people to be ******s about marriage. If I wanted a divorce every time my wife does something I dislike I would have never gotten married. I mean I love the woman but she does **** that some days just drives me up a ****ing wall and has me one button away from dialing up a divorce lawyer. But I don't. Why? Because of my kid I try to make it work and to this day we have worked most of our issues out. But I think for the most part we're an exception. We deal with our problems instead of running the minute we think we can't handle it.
There is a difference between having the occasional issue and being chronically unhappy. I have made this distinction several times. However, why people leave a relationship is irrelevant. It's their business and should always remain their business and no one - especially the government - should ever have the authority to force them to remain in any relationship they no longer wish to be a part of. Period.
 
I've read the entire thread. Great discussion. However, I still am unsure as to what defines family values and what defines a deterioration or an improvement. Very divergent thoughts on these concepts.
 
God I loathe the conservative myth of the superior morality of yesterday.

Segregation, women's domestic enslavement, the entire world with electricity being divided into two camps who were always five minutes away from obliterating each other, etc.

No, things were not better.

They're better now because of liberals.

If we did what conservatives want we'd still be living in caves.

Are you aware that the biggest obstacle to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Democrats? No, of course you don't, because that would require some kind of historical knowledge and objectivity.
 
Are you aware that the biggest obstacle to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Democrats? No, of course you don't, because that would require some kind of historical knowledge and objectivity.

I've tried to point that out to him on several occasions.
 
I think people end relationships today for some stupid reasons. Second marriages tend to work out better not because the people pick better partners but because the people finally grow up enough to know their issues follow them into new relationships so they might as well get to work on working on them.

Yeah! They go into marriage to easily and fast, really enthusiastic about it, and finds out a few months later that they argue, and then they get divorced. WEAK, people are WEAK COWARDS.
 
Are you aware that the biggest obstacle to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Democrats? No, of course you don't, because that would require some kind of historical knowledge and objectivity.

Do you believe that Democrat = Liberal and Conservative = Republican? NCFY makes absolutely no mention of party lines. Read his post. If anything you have LESS of a leg to stand on by mentioning the racist past of the Democratic party seeing as how a lot of those who opposed segregation within the Democratic party switched to Republicans due mostly to the Democrat's support for civil rights in the 60s and 70s. That you don't seem to know of this political shift says loads :

Jesse Helms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Helms was an outspoken conservative who opposed many progressive policies regarding race such as school integration, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.[7][8][6] Helms also reminded voters that he tried, with a 16-day filibuster, to stop the Senate from approving a national holiday to honor black civil-rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.[9][10][11] Helms was also a "master obstructionist", a fierce "anti-intellectual, and a self-described "redneck" who relished his nickname, “Senator No”.[7][12][9] He opposed, at various times, civil rights, feminism, gay rights, affirmative action, tax increases, abortion, foreign aid, communism, and government support for modern art with nudity.

Strom Thurmond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He also ran for the Presidency of the United States in 1948 as the segregationist States Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrat) candidate, receiving 2.4% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes. Thurmond later represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 to April 1956 and November 1956 to 2003, at first as a Democrat and after 1964 as a Republican, switching parties as the conservative base shifted.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kevin Phillips said:
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[3]

Solid South - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Solid South refers to the electoral support of the Southern United States for the Democratic Party candidates for nearly a century from 1877, the end of the Reconstruction, to 1964, during the middle of the Civil Rights era.

Democrats won by large margins in the South in every presidential election from 1876 to 1948 except for 1928, when candidate Al Smith, a Catholic and a New Yorker, ran on the Democratic ticket; even in that election, the divided South provided Smith with nearly three-fourths of his electoral votes. Beginning in about 1950, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South by way of its "Southern strategy". Today, the South is considered a stronghold of the Republican Party. Political scientists have often cited a southernization of politics following the fall of the Solid South.

In the 1960 election, the Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy, continued his party's tradition of selecting a Southerner as the vice presidential candidate (in this case, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas). Kennedy, however, supported civil rights. In October 1960, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested at a peaceful sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia, Kennedy placed a sympathetic phone call to King's wife, Coretta Scott King, and Robert Kennedy helped secure King's release. King expressed his appreciation for these calls. Although King himself made no endorsement, his father, who had previously endorsed Republican Richard Nixon, switched his support to Kennedy.

Due to these and other events, the Democrats lost ground with white voters in the South. The 1960 election was the first in which a Republican presidential candidate received electoral votes in the South while losing nationally. Nixon carried Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida. In addition, slates of unpledged electors, representing Democratic segregationists, won the election in Mississippi and Alabama.

Thanks for reading up on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe that Democrat = Liberal and Conservative = Republican? NCFY makes absolutely no mention of party lines. Read his post.

As an example, Howard Smith, Chairman of the United States House Committee on Rules, which directed the flow of legislation to the House floor, did everything in his power to prevent the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from being voted upon. He was a Democrat...and a leader of the Conservative coalition.

Howard W. Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that southern Democrats of that era were liberals is a fallacy.
 
As an example, Howard Smith, Chairman of the United States House Committee on Rules, which directed the flow of legislation to the House floor, did everything in his power to prevent the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from being voted upon. He was a Democrat...and a leader of the Conservative coalition.

Howard W. Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that southern Democrats of that era were liberals is a fallacy.

Not only that but the idea that there would be a liberal majority of any kind opposing the civil rights movement in the South is a fallacy. It is a red herring to throw out the Democrats racist past in this discussion. Simply put the conditions 60 or even 50 years ago were not there. Liberals thrive in large cities. How many large cities were there in the South 50 years ago? Houston? Miami? What else? And even then these cities were **** kicker towns compared to NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago and other major cities further North. The South 60 years ago was run by a white majority that while Democrat shared absolutely nothing with Liberals as far as political ideas went. I don't care if people say that Democrats have a racist past. I don't deny it. However implying that what a political party did is representative of a political state of mind/lean it had no relation to at the time is purely dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Not only that but the idea that there would be a liberal majority of any kind opposing the civil rights movement in the South is a fallacy. It is a red herring to throw out the Democrats racist past in this discussion. Simply put the conditions 60 or even 50 years ago were not there. Liberals thrive in large cities. How many large cities were there in the South 50 years ago? Houston? Miami? What else? And even then these cities were **** kicker towns compared to NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago and other major cities at the time. The South 60 years ago was run by a white majority that while Democrat shared absolutely nothing with Liberals as far as political ideas went.

Red herring is right. Most of the southern Democrats of the time were conservative as heck...as were many white southerners, or, at least many non-urban white southerners. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many of these conservative Democrats switched parties and became Republican...or at the very least, supported conservative/Republican policies.
 
Red herring is right. Most of the southern Democrats of the time were conservative as heck...as were many white southerners, or, at least many non-urban white southerners. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many of these conservative Democrats switched parties and became Republican...or at the very least, supported conservative/Republican policies.

I really don't get why people seem to ignore this when talking about Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals. I think to some extent they think the terms are interchangeable. You know, using Liberal when you mean Democrat and Conservative when you mean Republican. But this REALLY doesn't apply if you go back even 40 years ago. To me a liberal is somebody who seeks to change the status quo while a conservative seeks for it to remain. This doesn't say anything about the political affiliation or even whether or not their position is right or wrong but the role they play in the game.

NCFY is in my opinion completely right(though maybe he could have said it differently) in saying that if we'd followed the advice of conservatives(those who seek for the status quo to remain) then we wouldn't have a lot of the freedoms and rights we have today. From civil rights to birth control. The MAIN opposition to these things has always been from those who wished for the status quo to remain ie. Conservatives. Whether these conservatives were Republican or Democrat is pretty much irrelevant.

But if they wish to bring party affiliations into the discussion then let them. I love bringing up the political race based shift that occurred in the 50s, 60s and 70s between the parties.
 
Red herring is right. Most of the southern Democrats of the time were conservative as heck...as were many white southerners, or, at least many non-urban white southerners. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many of these conservative Democrats switched parties and became Republican...or at the very least, supported conservative/Republican policies.

ElectoralCollege1960-Large.png


electoralcollege1968_large.png
 
Last edited:
Red herring is right. Most of the southern Democrats of the time were conservative as heck...as were many white southerners, or, at least many non-urban white southerners. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many of these conservative Democrats switched parties and became Republican...or at the very least, supported conservative/Republican policies.

This switch marked the end of the GOP as a fiscally conservative entity and morphed it into the liberal entity it is today.

This is why the two parties are no longer any different in my way of viewing things, because the Southern Democrats shifted parties for retarded reasons.

They did not give up the ideals that made them democrats in the first place, they only shifted names over social "conservativism".

IMO, this marked the decline of the GOP as a conservative entity. And Roe v. Wade was the death blow to small governemnt conservativism in American politics because social issues gained primacy in the GOP as opposed to fiscal issues.

They support big govenremtn in socially "conservative" ways.

This is why there is no Goldwater in the party anymore. He'd be labelled as a "librul" nowadays because of his social views.
 
This switch marked the end of the GOP as a fiscally conservative entity and morphed it into the liberal entity it is today.

This is why the two parties are no longer any different in my way of viewing things, because the Southern Democrats shifted parties for retarded reasons.

They did not give up the ideals that made them democrats in the first place, they only shifted names over social "conservativism".

IMO, this marked the decline of the GOP as a conservative entity. And Roe v. Wade was the death blow to small governemnt conservativism in American politics because social issues gained primacy in the GOP as opposed to fiscal issues.

They support big govenremtn in socially "conservative" ways.

This is why there is no Goldwater in the party anymore. He'd be labelled as a "librul" nowadays because of his social views.

I agree. While Captain is right that the "democrats" switched into the "republican" party, the did not represent conservative values. So prehaps it is erroneuos to say "liberals" supported segregation, but it is equally erroneous to say "conservatives" supported segregation. Conservatism at its core has nothing to do with segregation, or trying to stamp out womens rights.
 
-- That said though - nobody has power over whether or not a dad abandons his kids but dad. I realize the courts are more female friendly but just because maintaining a working relationship with ones child is difficult doesn't mean it's ok to just quit.

It's not as easy as that I'm afraid.

Court proceedings in countries where lawyers and judges get involved can be very time consuming and antagonism is a profitable thing for the lawyers.

For many fathers who've managed to keep contact going despite hostility and alienation syndrome by the mother you will find dozens if not more more fathers who have given up the fight. It's not about being a good dad or even being able to fight - it's about being patient and determined to keep fighting to see your kids.

Even where a father might keep fighting, if his kids are alienated against him or they learn to call someone else "dad" then the odds are against. Many fathers eventually stop trying and instead wait for the children to become adults who have their own minds and can search out the father and hear their side of the story.
 
It's not as easy as that I'm afraid.

Court proceedings in countries where lawyers and judges get involved can be very time consuming and antagonism is a profitable thing for the lawyers.

For many fathers who've managed to keep contact going despite hostility and alienation syndrome by the mother you will find dozens if not more more fathers who have given up the fight. It's not about being a good dad or even being able to fight - it's about being patient and determined to keep fighting to see your kids.

Even where a father might keep fighting, if his kids are alienated against him or they learn to call someone else "dad" then the odds are against. Many fathers eventually stop trying and instead wait for the children to become adults who have their own minds and can search out the father and hear their side of the story.

Whatever the issue is men need to work it out. If it's a discrimination problem in the courts men need to join together and fight that battle once and for all. If all these men -who don't see their own children - are blaming the women then one has to ask how weak have men become? It's your job to see to your children. It's your job to remain in their lives. To sit around and wait for the kid to be an adult and seek you out is cowardly and selfish. It is also detrimental to your child. If you can't hold your marriage together then you should make every effort possible to hold your relationship with your child together. Not for yourself but for the kid. There's really no excuse for the amount of children who claim to not know their fathers. The amount of kids who see their dad maybe a handful of times while growing up. It's indefensible. Men need to work it out.
 
-- There's really no excuse for the amount of children who claim to not know their fathers. The amount of kids who see their dad maybe a handful of times while growing up. It's indefensible. Men need to work it out.

On one hand I agree with you that many men give up too easy. However until you have seen the court fight that many men have to go through to get the battle going to see their kids you should not generalise.

I act as a McKenzie (a court advisor to those who cannot afford a solicitor in family + contact cases) and have seen and advised all sorts of fathers (and some mothers who battle to see their kids) and can tell you from personal experience in court that it is not simply down to the father / men to work it out.

The basic problem is a "winner takes all" court system that by its nature, rewards those who win custody to act as "possessors" of children. I don't know how the child maintenance system works in the USA but the UK one has a basic premise behind it - the more contact a father has with his children - the less maintenance he pays. I'm sure you can see the pluses and minuses of the system: a father with lots of contact time obviously has lots of care costs to cover so should not pay more maintenance. However, the counterside of that is that a mother who restricts contact or cuts it off stands to claim a greater percentage of her ex's salary as child maintenance.
 
On one hand I agree with you that many men give up too easy. However until you have seen the court fight that many men have to go through to get the battle going to see their kids you should not generalise.

I act as a McKenzie (a court advisor to those who cannot afford a solicitor in family + contact cases) and have seen and advised all sorts of fathers (and some mothers who battle to see their kids) and can tell you from personal experience in court that it is not simply down to the father / men to work it out.

The basic problem is a "winner takes all" court system that by its nature, rewards those who win custody to act as "possessors" of children. I don't know how the child maintenance system works in the USA but the UK one has a basic premise behind it - the more contact a father has with his children - the less maintenance he pays. I'm sure you can see the pluses and minuses of the system: a father with lots of contact time obviously has lots of care costs to cover so should not pay more maintenance. However, the counterside of that is that a mother who restricts contact or cuts it off stands to claim a greater percentage of her ex's salary as child maintenance.

I think in most states here in the US child support is not tied in anyway to visitation.

However if your ex wife is so inclined she can make visitation very inconvenient if not impossible. But again, men need to band together and fight for their father/parenting rights in courts as a group. There are many problems with men being forced to pay for children that aren't theirs and there is no law that says a woman must tell a man she has had his baby. So it's not all together uncommon for a one night stand to result in a child the father is completely oblivious about for years. A woman can successfully take a man to court when a child is 3, sue for child support, and win despite his just being told that he even has a kid. Women have the right to abort a child and thus they have complete control over when they become a parent while men don't even have the right to know that they have parented a child. The only way to get the pendulum to swing back to a more fair center is for men to join together in insisting on changes in the system. Women should be held accountable for manipulating and abusing the system. Children aren't pawns. I'm positively shocked by what men sit around and take when it comes to children and their rights as fathers. On a womans whim they are easily turned into sperm donors and wallets. Fathers are not optional. But it is up to them to recognize the unfairness of the system and demand their rights as a group. Otherwise it just appears as if they don't care and enjoy having an excuse to be let off the hook. The damage this does to children is seen throughout our entire society.
 
Last edited:
My family values were higher yesterday than today. Of course my husband did buy me a new phone yesterday so that may or may not have something to do with it......
 
I think in most states here in the US child support is not tied in anyway to visitation.

However if your ex wife is so inclined she can make visitation very inconvenient if not impossible. But again, men need to band together and fight for their father/parenting rights in courts as a group. There are many problems with men being forced to pay for children that aren't theirs and there is no law that says a woman must tell a man she has had his baby. So it's not all together uncommon for a one night stand to result in a child the father is completely oblivious about for years. A woman can successfully take a man to court when a child is 3, sue for child support, and win despite his just being told that he even has a kid. Women have the right to abort a child and thus they have complete control over when they become a parent while men don't even have the right to know that they have parented a child. The only way to get the pendulum to swing back to a more fair center is for men to join together in insisting on changes in the system. Women should be held accountable for manipulating and abusing the system. Children aren't pawns. I'm positively shocked by what men sit around and take when it comes to children and their rights as fathers. On a womans whim they are easily turned into sperm donors and wallets. Fathers are not optional. But it is up to them to recognize the unfairness of the system and demand their rights as a group. Otherwise it just appears as if they don't care and enjoy having an excuse to be let off the hook. The damage this does to children is seen throughout our entire society.

Fathers' rights is a growing legal industry right now for those very reasons.
 
Back
Top Bottom