I have clients who are lawyers and they say it is rampant. — Mr Smith

I am a lawyer who has clients. I think you've been talking to lawyers who have clients who are fathers involved in domestic disputes.

I assume your a personal injury attorney from your value added to the thread. University of Phoenix?

A

I assume your a personal injury attorney from your value added to the thread. University of Phoenix — Mr Smith

Ah, yet another lawyer wannabe. I delight in those who rely on lawyers, or their perception of the law, to make points only to denigrate them if it turns out there's a lawyer who disagrees with them. But only a particular lawyer wannabe. There are some lawyers you don't want to be. I understand.

I fear you're wrong regarding my practice and the law school I attended. But come now, do you really think this kind of conduct in a domestic dispute/divorce is unusual or is limited to those "vengeful mothers"? One could as well make a case for the prevalence of unloving, miserly, deadbeat fathers, who avoid paying child support (there are quite a few, you know, the result being that the state must bear the cost and chase the deadbeat). Or wife-beating husbands. It's a tragic fact that children are too often used by mothers and fathers in their malice towards each other.

No doubt I appear cynical, and am for that matter. But there are lawyers who go to market on this kind of basis--"we'll defend your rights as a father" or "we'll fight like a pit bull to protect you from...etc." (I've seen the fighting pit bull lawyer used in an actual advertisement). I doubt cruelty of this kind is limited to females.

Yes, the courts are and have been for quite some time now biased against fathers and males generally, as a result of Feminist academic influence and Feminist lobbying. And in society generally, the so-called "intelligentsia" and media parrot abroad the insane idea of "toxic masculinity."

The reality all this masks is that females, while not quite as prone to violence as men, aren't all that far behind, especially in cases of domestic violence, and parents abusing or killing their children. This would seem to mandate a more even-handed approach to child custody; but for example (I forget the details, but you can check this out) that was blocked in the US by NOW, which sought to uphold the "tender years doctrine" as it's called (the idea that all things being equal, the mother should automatically have custody) - and yet if an MRA points out the discrepancy, it gets blamed by Feminists on "patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity." The whole thing is a kafkaesque shitshow.

"What would the most angsty mysoginist philosophers say about modern feminism, and why would they be MRA".

I foresee this thread going into heretofore unknown philosophical landscapes. :smirk:

There seems to be a lot of crazy behavior going around, lately. However, people rarely come up with entirely novel ways of being assholes, so I would expect thoughtful people from any age could think of equally appalling behavior as vindictive vengeful valkyries.

Two people love each other, have children and come to hate each other. The children tend to become weapons in the parental conflict.

Consider the non-gendered conflict of Brecht's morality play, The Caucasian Chalk Circle, or the judgement of Solomon:

King Solomon of Israel ruled between two women both claiming to be the mother of a child. Solomon revealed their true feelings and relationship to the child by suggesting to cut the baby in two, with each woman to receive half. With this strategy, he was able to discern the non-mother as the woman who entirely approved of this proposal, while the actual mother begged that the sword might be sheathed and the child committed to the care of her rival. Some consider this approach to justice an archetypal example of an impartial judge displaying wisdom in making a ruling.

Wiki.

Real courts have to use less clear methods to arrive at decisions, but the same principle applies, that the interests of the child are best served by whoever has the best interests of the child at heart, and it is the interests of the child that must be considered, not any rights of the parents.

When the hatred of the spouse is stronger than the love of the child on one side or on both, it is inevitably the case that a complete separation from one or other parent is in the child's best interest.

Children are not possessions, and courts are not, and should not be, in the business of being just to parents in such cases, but in being the protector of the child. Once the parents have recourse to the law to impose an arrangement, it is quite likely that no agreeable sharing of custodial responsibility can be reached, or even successfully imposed. And since it is still the case that the burden of childcare falls more so on the woman, the woman tends to get custody.

But that's the Daily Fail for you. To recast the complex, and usually irresolvable problems of the family courts as feminist conspiracy. Read a better journal.

But that's the Daily Fail for you. To recast the complex, and usually irresolvable problems of the family courts as feminist conspiracy. Read a better journal. — unenlightened

:clap:

I have 2 ex wives and 4 ex children, and I cannot even try to imagine what Nietzsche, Kant, Schopenhauer might have to say about it.

Some of the things that an ex can get away with are incredible.