Society/Culture Violence in Society; Who is to blame?

[Taylor]

Not sure I follow. As women slowly begin to take up leadership positions how do you expect business to change?

I don't expect any change. I expect there will be a slow evening out as the equality work out in so far allows all children a chance to get anywhere on their merits and not discounted out of hand based on gender.

If I could hit 20/20 targets by foot, mark at the top of my leap, run a 7.6s Agilty and a 14.7 beep I'd expect to get a go on the recruit. But I don't think I would be given the chance.

 

[tesseract]

For now i'll focus on the men's side and in time hopefully it will begin to balance out.

50-60 years of modern feminism has shown that things won't balance out. Men in the MHRM have tried for decades to be included in the conversation discussing these issues. These men, in being nice and civil, have largely been ignored and kept on the sideline. Only since men in the MHRM have expressed anger at being ignored for so long and started bypassing feminist involvement in the discussion have the MHRM grown exponentially. These men's voices are finally being heard and listened to by the MSM and those paying attention to gender and DV issues. Feminism's many institutions have had an age to deal with these issues - they've failed.

 

[slicedndiced]

I'm not allowed too, or else slicedndiced and his mates will make me "regret it".

Oh dear, here we go again.

If you were being as aggressive, threatening, dominating and acting with intimidation in mind...to anyone, be it man, woman or child....

what were your words again??

"you vile, sexist piece of s**t"

Then yes, you would get a reaction from me.

I reiterate that, when saying words like this, you would hardly be sitting in a corner in a trance. It would be accompanied by the associated body language that goes with unhinged anger.

How far that reaction went would be totally up to you.

 

[tesseract]

Slicedndiced showing, and justifying with the help of his rationalization hamster, his true violent nature.

 

[slicedndiced]

Slicedndiced showing, and justifying with the help of his rationalization hamster, his true violent nature.

It's ok Tess, I'd only bitch slap you.

And piss on your bible.

 

[Max zero]

I don't expect any change. I expect there will be a slow evening out as the equality work out in so far allows all children a chance to get anywhere on their merits and not discounted out of hand based on gender.

If I could hit 20/20 targets by foot, mark at the top of my leap, run a 7.6s Agilty and a 14.7 beep I'd expect to get a go on the recruit. But I don't think I would be given the chance.

Over how long a time period would you expect this to occur? In many areas women presence on boards have stagnated. Is this because men exclude them or a lack of interest from women?

I think sporting achievement is probably not the best example since there is definitive physical differences that will always be present.

 

[tesseract]

It's ok Tess, I'd only bitch slap you.

And piss on your bible.

You only bring reproach upon yourself with such comments. You've shown yourself to be not only violent, but a misandrist, misogynist and a hate-filled bigot too. It seems the more you post, the larger the list of your personal negatives grows. Keep this up and soon the feminists will claim you as one of their own.

 

[Slax]

Also, can you provide some evidence that women get lesser sentence for 'exactly the same crime'?

I'll refer you to start with the below, but there are other studies as well.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/34244/1/34244.pdf

 

[Taylor]

Killing their own children is one that springs to mind. Australia and the UK recognise mental illness as a mitigating factor in sentencing for women who kill their own children, fathers who kill their own children are murderous monsters. etc etc

It's important to note that biological differences might cause real work equality differences in this regard too but I'm not a neurochemist.

 

[Slax]

10/10 for embellishment there.

A parent cannot simply deny access like that.

There is a due process and the parent being denied has had to have been an A grade a-hole for that to happen. Highly unusual.

As stated before, the FC starts from a "shared care" perspective and does not ignore the fathers rights at all. Circumstances in what we call a nuclear family generally have the father working, whilst the mother stays home, or works part time.

In the case that both parents work full-time, the court will take into account the best interests of the child.

I will agree that the Child Support system needs an overhaul to catch up with modern life. It appears pretty much unchanged for 15-20 years.

I realise the concept of "shared care" but the reality of it is that fathers get the raw end of the deal. It isn't the SC that is the worst part that is always going to be difficult, but the fact fathers lose out massively when it comes to birthdays, Chirstmas and Easter. Live rurally and you're even worse off.

The worst part is the false accusations often made about partners. This wastes large amounts of police time and creates a break in the link between fathers and children whilst matters are settled. My personal view is that making false accusations through the family court should automatically reverse custody decisions as it shows one party to be an unfit parent as personal vindictiveness is placed above the best interests of the child. It is also rarely prosecuted properly, people making false complaints about another person of a serious offence should have a compulsory criminal conviction record against them, if you want to screw with someone's life, then accept that if found out yours will be screwed as the criminal conviction will mke life much tougher to do things.

It's no coincidence that one of the highest suicide rates of any demographic group is divorced fathers aged 30-50 who are farmers. (can't get my hands on current data, ie. within 5 years, but used to be #1)

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Only a couple. I won't go into details but they weren't exactly being angels at the time. Ironically one was actually trying to get me to hit her.

Well I hope you live the rest of your life as blissfully as you have so far.

But what do I know I'm just scum?

Only a couple...well, that's okay then. Especially as they deserved it.

 

[Taylor]

I realise the concept of "shared care" but the reality of it is that fathers get the raw end of the deal. It isn't the SC that is the worst part that is always going to be difficult, but the fact fathers lose out massively when it comes to birthdays, Chirstmas and Easter. Live rurally and you're even worse off.

The worst part is the false accusations often made about partners. This wastes large amounts of police time and creates a break in the link between fathers and children whilst matters are settled. My personal view is that making false accusations through the family court should automatically reverse custody decisions as it shows one party to be an unfit parent as personal vindictiveness is placed above the best interests of the child. It is also rarely prosecuted properly, people making false complaints about another person of a serious offence should have a compulsory criminal conviction record against them, if you want to screw with someone's life, then accept that if found out yours will be screwed as the criminal conviction will mke life much tougher to do things.

It's no coincidence that one of the highest suicide rates of any demographic group is divorced fathers aged 30-50 who are farmers. (can't get my hands on current data, ie. within 5 years, but used to be #1)

Women making false accusations are a big problem for the rest of us. I have heard of family lawyers advising their clients (the mother) to lodge a restraining order against the father to get a better outcome in the courtroom but I don't know how accurate it is.

I do know that when an issue is lodged the defense of the children goes into action and they are removed, the father cut off, until it is heard in court. That sucks but the system isn't broken, it's to protect immediately without having a court requirement, it's the people abusing it that are broken.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I'll refer you to start with the below, but there are other studies as well.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/34244/1/34244.pdf

Another: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

Some more interesting findings while we're discussing sentencing-related studies:

http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/glenn...ing/Ec 222/glaeser on optimal punishments.pdf

"Among vehicular homicides, drivers who kill women get 56 percent longer sentences."

Can anyone think of a plausible hypothesis to explain these results? Is one gender deemed more valuable than the other by society at large?

 

[Catfish Alley]

It's America so I'm going to say privatization of prisons. Got to keep that money coming somehow and putting Mums away would cause too much backlash.

 

[Taylor]

Another: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

Some more interesting findings while we're discussing sentencing-related studies:

http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/glenn_loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Ec 222/glaeser on optimal punishments.pdf

"Among vehicular homicides, drivers who kill women get 56 percent longer sentences."

Can anyone think of a plausible hypothesis to explain these results? Is one gender deemed more valuable than the other by society at large?

We would need to know exactly what counts as a homicide in the US system. I'm very curious to see all the context on this one. Car chases causing a fatality, is that vehicular homicide? How much race came into it too, that alone could heavily skew the figures over there.

 

[Slax]

Women making false accusations are a big problem for the rest of us. I have heard of family lawyers advising their clients (the mother) to lodge a restraining order against the father to get a better outcome in the courtroom but I don't know how accurate it is.

I do know that when an issue is lodged the defense of the children goes into action and they are removed, the father cut off, until it is heard in court. That sucks but the system isn't broken, it's to protect immediately without having a court requirement, it's the people abusing it that are broken.

The father is heavily punished during all of this, his reputation tarnished, but the mother in the end invariably still gets primary custody and gets away with it scot free, how the hell is that not saying the system is broken when one party can manipulate the situation so the other party is deprived justice for an extended period on false accusations.

Someone doing this should automatically lose the right to primary custody and have a criminal conviction record against their name. Do this and you'll find that it stops very quickly and frees up the courts time.

 

[Catfish Alley]

That would be great! My ex-brother-in-law would have seen prison time.

 

[Taylor]

The father is heavily punished during all of this, his reputation tarnished, but the mother in the end invariably still gets primary custody and gets away with it scot free, how the hell is that not saying the system is broken when one party can manipulate the situation so the other party is deprived justice for an extended period on false accusations.

Someone doing this should automatically lose the right to primary custody and have a criminal conviction record against their name. Do this and you'll find that it stops very quickly and frees up the courts time.

There should be tough sanctions for people who abuse the system but I won't compromise a system built to protect people so that those who shouldn't be involved in that part of it (because they aren't violent and their crazy ex is dragging them into a restraining order) don't get unfairly disadvantaged.

The system does work, it is being abused and I agree that those who abuse it need to face consequences but not so that it creates a barrier to reporting.

 

[Slax]

Also, can you provide some evidence that women get lesser sentence for 'exactly the same crime'?

Best example in the total discrepency in sentecing Robert Farquhason v Donna Fitchett.
Farquhason - original, life no parole. reduced on appeal to life, 33 years non-parole
Fitchett - original 24 years, 15 non-parole. On appeal 27 years, 18 non-parole

Both committed premeditated murder of their children to get back at the former partner.
Both are acknowledge to of had psychological issues at the time, although Fraquhason was the only one who had actually seen one.

Yet one get almost half the minimum term sentence of the other? Would love to know why because only difference I could see is one was female and one male. Look at the original verdicts and the decision are even more skewed in Fitchett's favour.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Best example in the total discrepency in sentecing Robert Farquhason v Donna Fitchett.
Farquhason - original, life no parole. reduced on appeal to life, 33 years non-parole
Fitchett - original 24 years, 15 non-parole. On appeal 27 years, 18 non-parole

Both committed premeditated murder of their children to get back at the former partner.
Both are acknowledge to of had psychological issues at the time, although Fraquhason was the only one who had actually seen one.

Yet one get almost half the minimum term sentence of the other? Would love to know why because only difference I could see is one was female and one male. Look at the original verdicts and the decision are even more skewed in Fitchett's favour.

one killed three people the other killed two?

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Your own quote.

Never have hit a women. But saying that i'm not even allowed to have the feeling too?

That makes me scum?

Have you never felt anger to a woman?

I have never hit a woman, I have never felt like hitting a woman same way I have never raped, nor felt like raping a woman - what is wrong with you?

 

[Slax]

one killed three people the other killed two?

If you want to go down that path Farquhason actually got three life sentence, I only bothered to list it as one as life is life once twice or three times.

 

[Slax]

There should be tough sanctions for people who abuse the system but I won't compromise a system built to protect people so that those who shouldn't be involved in that part of it (because they aren't violent and their crazy ex is dragging them into a restraining order) don't get unfairly disadvantaged.

The system does work, it is being abused and I agree that those who abuse it need to face consequences but not so that it creates a barrier to reporting.

I'm not actually asking for a change to the system (except that child support must be reviewed), just that the penalties for abusing it are increased heavily to make it so that there is an effective deterrent there to stop people doing it. If you make it known that if you try and get back at an ex by making false accusations to gain an advantage in custody, you will be placing at serious risk your own custody access it will make people think more carefully about it before acting.

The fundamentals work reasonably well, it is just that when you got outside of it that the father is virtually always suffers.

 

[slicedndiced]

You only bring reproach upon yourself with such comments. You've shown yourself to be not only violent, but a misandrist, misogynist and a hate-filled bigot too. It seems the more you post, the larger the list of your personal negatives grows. Keep this up and soon the feminists will claim you as one of their own.

It was a tongue in cheek, metaphorical bitch slap Tess, don't worry. As for your precious book, I make no bones about my loathing of ALL religion. Look what it churns out - twits such as yourself.

I also make no bones about saying that if i see someone dominating, threatening and demeaning a smaller, weaker man, woman or child, I will step in and take action. Whether that entails telling someone to "grow up and pull their head in", through to restraining them until the arrival of police if they get violent, then so be it.

I find this a far more effective method than joining a radical, sexist movement and whimpering meekly.

 

[slicedndiced]

I'm not actually asking for a change to the system (except that child support must be reviewed), just that the penalties for abusing it are increased heavily to make it so that there is an effective deterrent there to stop people doing it. If you make it known that if you try and get back at an ex by making false accusations to gain an advantage in custody, you will be placing at serious risk your own custody access it will make people think more carefully about it before acting.

The fundamentals work reasonably well, it is just that when you got outside of it that the father is virtually always suffers.

I hear what you and Tayl0r have been saying, and it is considered argument and well made.

Sadly, however, this comes back to s**t people and the murky realms of "he said v she said" in an affidavit, and is extremely difficult for the court to handle. So it must have a automatic fall back position, which is always to protect and uphold the best interests of the children.

I would be interested to see what proportion of divorce/child custody matters end up in vicious claims and counter-claims in court against how many are done without the need for court intervention.