Are Men Going Their Own Way? (MGTOW)

While abuse and neglect are both intolerable (in my mind, at least), they aren't the same. Lumping both categories together is false equivalence (and misleading), even if the end result ends in a fatality.

I hate to stand up for the other side in this, but...

You know there's a reason why women attempt suicide more often whereas men succeed more often, right? I don't feel like getting into the nature-versus-nurture of these patterns, but when it comes to a child being abused and killed, the passive neglect of chaining a kid to a wall and starving him to death (which, incidentally, is literally torture) and the active abuse of beating a kid so badly that her internal organs rupture are pretty equally reprehensible. Women don't get some special pass for torturing instead of being quick about it. Actually, from an ethical standpoint, that probably makes them considerably worse.

Again, really not wanting to leap on the histrionic mens' rights bandwagon here, but abuse by women is hugely under-reported and largely ignored by media outlets.

Yeah, it all really doesn't matter. Every case needs to be treated individually regardless. Preconceived bias, even if it's based on sound statistics, would only hinder a custody decision because each case is special.

Anyhow I've already listed, in detail, the many problems with how divorce courts are discouraging men from entering into marriage. For liberals this is a win because family's are bad and government is good, for society this is a loss because the family unit is the building block and what creates the stability necessary for a healthy child to be raised.

Except right now, just walking into the court root, the women gets 51% custody minimum unless the man can prove she's a drug addict that has random criminals over at her house all the time. And even then her lawyer will try to block that information from being used, and might even succeed in doing so. It's all about how the laws are written, primary caregiver laws are so biased against men that it's incredibly hard for a guy to get primary custody of his own children and easy for the women to.

Anyhow I've already listed, in detail, the many problems with how divorce courts are discouraging men from entering into marriage. For liberals this is a win because family's are bad and government is good, for society this is a loss because the family unit is the building block and what creates the stability necessary for a healthy child to be raised.

The child’s and parents’?preferences
The child’s relationships with each parent and extended family members
How to provide continuity and stability in the child’s daily life
Physical and mental health of the parents and child
Who’s been the child’s primary caretaker?
Occurrences of drug, physical or sexual abuse

From 2002 to 2012:

72 percent of the time mothers were awarded sole or primary custody
13.8 percent of the time fathers were awarded sole or primary custody
12.3 percent of the time equal parenting time was awarded
72 percent of child custody cases result in dads only seeing their children 5.5 days a month.

The Commie-Feminazis know how to use psychological warfare very well. Resistance is futile!

If it is hugely unreported, then why is it in the report?

Same when sexual abuse happens to boys versus girls, it seems to the general public that this doesn't happen very often. To the point where posters on this website didn't realize girls were often the victim of abuse.

In 2014, clinical psychologist Martin Seager and his team decided to test the cultural understanding of what it means to be a man or woman, by asking a set of carefully designed questions of women and men recruited via selected UK- and US-based websites. What they found suggests that, for all the progress we’ve made, both genders’ expectations of what it means to be a man are stuck in the 1950s. “The first rule is that you must be a fighter and a winner,” Seager explains. “The second is you must be a provider and a protector; the third is you must retain mastery and control at all times. If you break any of those rules you’re not a man.” Needless to say, as well as all this, ‘real men’ are not supposed to show vulnerability. “A man who’s needing help is seen as a figure of fun,” he says. The conclusions of his study echo, to a remarkable degree, what O’Connor and his colleagues wrote in a 2012 Samaritans report on male suicide: “Men compare themselves against a masculine ‘gold standard’ which prizes power, control and invincibility. When men believe they are not meeting this standard, they feel a sense of shame and defeat.”

In the UK and other Western societies, it sometimes feels as if we collectively decided, at some point around the mid-1980s, that men are awful. One result of the battle for equal rights and sexual safety for women has been a decades-long focus on men as privileged, violent abusers. Modern iterations of the male, drawn in response to these criticisms, are creatures to mock: the vain metrosexual; the crap husband who can’t work the dishwasher. We understand, as a gender, that we’re no longer permitted the expectation of being in control, of leading, of fighting, of coping with it all in dignified silence, of pursuing our goals with such single-mindedness we have no time for friends or family. These have become aspirations to be ashamed of, and for good reason. But what do we do now? Despite society’s advances, how it feels to be a success hasn’t much changed. Nor how it feels to fail. How are we to unpick the urges of our own biology; of cultural rules, reinforced by both genders, that go back to the Pleistocene?

You're aware that abuse and murder are different things, right? I was making a broader statement related to the more narrow one.

Posters here are *** morons, then. Or, more likely, willfully blind. Ask the actual public instead of the cabal of circle-jerking nutjobs that dribble around here and the (misinformed) public understanding will be that child abuse primarily affects girls. Part of that is because belting a boy is "discipline" whereas spanking a girl is "abuse." There's some very deeply-rooted sexism going on here tied to antique values of gender norms and acculturation.

Though, returning to the issue of pretending that a woman torturing a child to death isn't the same thing as a man strangling one...

When I say "Abuse by women is under-reported" and you proceed to say that a woman killing her child is received with greater shock and media attention, you must not realize that you're hammering home my point. Joe *** on the street thinks women don't kill their kids and, thus, it makes the evening news when it happens, despite the actual atatistics showing that women are more likely to murder their children.

I'm very confused. You normally have responses that make sense and address the point, but you skipped gaily past the problem of how neglect is as bad or worse than abuse (especially when both result in death) and basically just emphasized my point while thinking to dispute it.

This is just for Nebraska

https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/sites/supremecourt.ne.gov/files/reports/courts/2002-2012-custody-court-file-research-study.pdf


So while the rules don't specifically say "the mother shall get the child", the way they are written and have since been interpreted tremendously advantages the mother. To break the "primary caregiver + stability + relationship" combo you need to prove that the mother is addicted to drugs and is actively abusing the kids.

Of the 354 final orders or decrees that provided an allocation of custody, mothers were granted sole legal custody of the child 46.0% of the time (n=163), with sole legal custody allocated to fathers in 8.8% of the cases (n=31). Joint legal custody with the mother as primary residence was ordered in 23.4% of final orders or decrees (n=83). Joint legal custody with the father as primary residence was ordered in 4.5% of these instances (n=16). Joint custody with shared residence was granted in 11.9% of orders containing custody allocations (n=42). Joint custody with split residence was ordered in 2.0% of these cases (n=7). Other arrangements in were provided in 3.4% of orders containing a custody allotment (n=12).

Ohh and don't be Drummond, don't sacrifice your sense of self to provide for a women who will inevitably cheat on you because she feels lonely. A man should always work for himself first and foremost, he is the most important person in his life and anything that doesn't serve to better his life should be removed from it. That is the path to a healthy happy life.

Another "gotcha" has to do with something called "abandonment". So you and the wife have a fight after she drops the "I'm seeking a divorce". Afterwards the man leaves to stay in a hotel for the night, or the wife called the police and they put the guy in jail "just to be safe". *BAM* now the wives lawyer can argue abandonment.

Yeah, it all really doesn't matter. Every case needs to be treated individually regardless. Preconceived bias, even if it's based on sound statistics, would only hinder a custody decision because each case is special.

If that's what you got out of the article you posted... well, it explains a lot.

There could also be a pertinent discussion about the difference between masculinity and machismo, and for you to have a soapbox to discuss how masculinity has been emasculated in western society.

Now, if you want to re-discover the concept of permanent bachelorhood, by all means go for it. It really isn't a new concept through history (from either the male or female side).

Essentially, you are picketing with:
"We're sick of it! We're tired of it! We're not standing for it anymore! We won't marry, have children, or get into relationships!"

OK dude, go for it. But don't try to blame "society" or "inequality" for what is, in all senses of the word, a personal choice.

Sure, they can try to argue just about anything. It's highly unlikely that in either situation you described a ruling for a fault divorce due to abandonment solely on those factors alone.

like there is something defective with him for not agreeing to your beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance is strong with you... now go back and read it carefully, all the way to the end, don't skim through trying to look for something to pick out. There is some very good stuff involving how men instinctively react when they feel no longer needed or relative to society.

Yes it's feminism and it's teachings that caused the emasculation of western men. If it's not socially acceptable (as demonstrated by our liberal feminist posters) to identify oneself as male and enjoy masculinity, then what are men supposed to do? Masculinity is biological, it's defined by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution fine-tuning, it can't be overwritten in a scant few decades of social experiments. Worst, because masculinity is now "evil" and something frequently ridiculed (again a big thank you to our liberal feminist posters for proving that in this thread), men are not capable of functionally meeting social norms and deriving value from it, and thus are subject to greater bouts of depression and eventual suicide.

Professor Uichol Kim, a social psychologist at South Korea’s Inha University, believes much of this can be explained by the great miseries that have been unleashed by the country’s rapid move from rural poverty to rich city life. Sixty years ago, it was one of the poorest countries in the world, he says, comparing its postwar situation to Haiti following the 2010 earthquake. From a majority living in agricultural communities in the past, today 90 per cent of people live in urban areas.

That change has blasted the foundations of a culture that, for 2,500 years, has been profoundly influenced by Confucianism, a value system that made sense of subsistence life in small, often isolated farming communities. “The focus was on cooperation and working together,” Kim explains. “Generally, it was a caring, sharing and giving culture. But in an urban city, it’s very competitive and achievement-focused.” For a great many, what it means to be a successful self has transformed. “You’re defined by your status, power and wealth, which was not part of traditional culture.” Why did it change in this way? “A Confucian scholar living on a farm in a rural village might be very wise, but he’s poor,” Kim says. “We wanted to get rich.” The result, he argues, has been a kind of amputation of meaning for the people. “It’s a culture without roots.”

It’s also a culture whose pathways to success can be demanding – South Korea has the longest working hours in the OECD group of rich nations – and rigidly codified. If you fail as a teenager you could easily feel you’ve failed for life. “The most respected company in South Korea is Samsung,” says Kim. He told me that 80–90 per cent of their intake comes from just three universities. “Unless you enter one of the three, you cannot get a job in one of the major corporations.” (I couldn’t confirm these statistics through English-language sources, but according to the Korea Joongang Daily there have been allegations of bias toward particular universities.)

It’s more than just job prospects that the young of the nation are working towards. “If you’re a good student, you’re respected by your teachers, parents and your friends. You’re very popular. Everybody wants to date you.” The pressure to achieve this level of perfection, social and otherwise, can be immense. “Self-esteem, social esteem, social status, everything is combined into one,” he says. “But what if you fail?”

Whomever said anything about not getting into relationships? I remember specifically saying I don't identify with MGTOW because I enjoy sex entirely too much, but I completely understand where they are coming from. All the relationships I have are entirely on my own terms, if a girl doesn't like them then she's free to go. I highly encourage all men to follow this mindset, it's such an amazingly free feeling to know I can tell judgmental *** like yourself to go f*ck off, then continue having fun.

And good job trying more male shaming, it's really the only thing you guys know how to do. Anytime you don't like something your instant response is to attempt to shame the male into compliance, like there is something defective with him for not agreeing to your beliefs.

In the original complaint, parties requested joint custody about 1/7 of the time.

Does this argument have any relevance? The same people trying to defend a female bias would never dream of using statistics to act upon any other individual assessment. You can't treat blacks as criminals because of crime stats. You can't treat asians as more intelligent because of IQ stats. You shouldn't be able to treat males(or females for that matter) as less worthy because of abuse stats.

Regardless of whether you conclude males or females are more likely to abuse their kids, gender shouldn't be weighed disproportionately in divorce court.

Why should a man like you just described be granted custody of his children?

Yep, he reverted back to Nausi status.

Clearly you aren't capable of understanding opinion that don't align with your own.

Lmao projection.

Boo hoo liberals!
Boo hoo women!

Still waiting for you to ever post something intelligent on this website.

You're only posting insults.

liberalism is a mental disorder.

Because his children better his life and bettering his life is in his best interest.

It's like you have no concept outside of 'Oh, someone doesn't want to capitulate to my interpretation of feminism, they must be a misogynist because I could not have gotten it wrong.'

A man should always work for himself first and foremost, he is the most important person in his life and anything that doesn't serve to better his life should be removed from it. That is the path to a healthy happy life.