Message from @goodmod
Discord ID: 537088212246724644
And the entire study is a survey that got an insignificant number of wives who went through and or caused messy divorces to tell their story and reported it from their point of view?
"Mothers often turned to family court for assistance in setting boundaries to keep children safe, but found that family court did not respond in ways they believed protected their children. Conversely, when women turned to the justice system for restraining orders or called the police for help against IPV, they generally found the justice system responsive."
Yeah, how the DV trick works is that you deal with the criminal/civil system first, and then return to family court with the restraining order
no shit sherlock
"When women make allegations of IPV or express concerns that fathers will harm children, the court often views them as obstructing the court process and the father’s right to have a relationship with their children " -- because family court doesn't seem to really check facts unfortunately, and because that claim unfortunately often is simply precisely what the court believes it to be thanks to the lawyer's advice and the inability of the court to sanction liars
On the other hand "Furthermore, many courts use the “friendly parent” presumption, which recommends that primary physical custody be granted to the parent most likely to encourage frequent contact of the children with the non-custodial parent. This presumption disadvantages mothers who disclose fathers’ abuse because they are then perceived as unfriendly parents" -- this is a real issue, but perhaps not quite the way the study describes. It applies to both men and women who contest cases, especially without using the restraining order trick.
Oh goodness, the study gets worse though: under the heading "Mothers’ strategies to protect children"
Avoid family court (n=2)
Family court provides no support (n=5)
Family court provides support after extreme harm (n=2)
Family court is supportive (n=2)
The data doesn't back up the study's assertions even at the low n count of the study
So basically about half of the mothers who pursued DV claims in family court got support in this non-quantitative study. Yet apparently family court doesn't react to DV claims...
Therefore, if I were to respond, I would say something like "That 'study' is effectively a collection of anecdotes with little to no explanatory power. Moreover, contrary to the study's claims, the study itself shows that about half of those mothers who pursued DV claims in family court were supported by the court. That said, I would agree that family court is ill supported to deal with criminal abuse and often does not respond appropriately both to allegations and actual abuse. Please note that ~25% of all divorces include domestic violence claims, and that lawyers have been found to advise their clients to claim abuse for the purposes of achieving a desirable outcome."
But that is far larger than twitter would allow even with me trying to keep it short
Also, you might actually be able to find hard numbers on domestic violence claims deemed spurious in divorce. IIRC one of the questions that may be asked when domestic violence is claimed to police is whether there is a pending divorce, because of how common that bullshit is
Hey, just wanted to say, good article about the Gillette ad!
You should link the family violence stuff on r/MensRights. Also, just link any original material posted there, to attract new viewers.
Perhaps have a sentence or two beneath each article explaining what menarehuman.com is about, and advertising the Discord server.
Thinking of which, it's about time for a new short promotion for the site and the Discord.
Mentioning the Gillette response in that post would be good because many people liked it (including myself!).
Then I could make it a sticky for a few days.
Cool, I'm working now but I will do. @goodmod By the way, are you saying each menarehuman article should have that bit at the end?
@goodmod and <@&524226120661336076> I'm going to be updating articles with the following at the bottom of each. Please tell me if you spot any errors or have any feedback before I add this to too many of them.
"Want to find out more about injustices affecting men? Feel free to check out our news feed at the Men's Rights Reddit. Do you have an issue that affects you, or a male family member? We are here and ready to support you on the Men's Human Rights Discord Server. All are welcome in our communities - regardless of gender, sexuality, race, or religion."
It will have links when it is added to the articles.
may have an article for the site tonight
Thanks a lot. That would be awesome!
I want to do an article on the evil women who do this:
reddit /u/Nateplays855 posted a new link in /r/MensRights
Can't believe this got so many likes on Instagram! Even worse they seem to praise her - https://redd.it/ajcyx3
Would anyone like to help? Just giving me a few famous names and what prison time they'd have got as a man would be appreciated.
To speed up the website and cut down of the extra stuff that isn't used, the forum has now been discontinued. We will be directing people to the Reddit instead.
This is being done with the view that it will eventually be replaced by our own hub site.
Okay. we have a new article from Blue, but it's in a very different style to our usual stuff so I'm not going to advertise it until everyone has had a chance to read it and see if they like it. If anyone wants to pitch in be my guest. Especially <@&524226120661336076>.
Link isn't working
It was just there for the purposes of discussion in this discord at the time. It shouldn't be accessible now.
Brand new article has just gone up! Everyone tell me what you think before I tweet this just in cas there's a typo or something. <@&524226120661336076> especially!