Is feminism to blame for the wife "always" getting the kids in a divorce? ?

Question

All things being equal, I believe in joint custody myself.

Answer 1

I've met women who didn't get custody of the kids-their husbands did. So women don't always get kids in a divorce. I've also met plenty of women who "got" custody since they don't have a clue where the father of the kids went-so much for the incredible father instinct-it's pretty dormant in some men, just like motherhood is definitely not meant for all women. Since feminism is about equality-it has opened the door to shared custody and men being taken more seriously when they want custody themselves. Kudos to both men and women who are mature enough to work out joint custody-unfortunately, some people aren't. And some people really don't want to parent their kids-both men and women.  

Answer 2

No, quite the opposite.  Women usually get the kids because looking after kids was traditionally perceived to be the woman's role.  It was assumed that a man couldn't possibly look after kids because he had to work full time.  Those ideas still inform today's practices.

In fact, since the advent of feminism, men have had more success in getting the kids than ever before.  Feminists said , "Anything a man can do, a woman can also do."  The corollary is that anything a woman can do, a man can also do.  So it is increasingly recognised that men are capable of looking after their children.  Unfortunately the change isn't happening very fast.

I think the best solution would be a 50-50 arrangement unless there's some very good reason not to do it that way (like if one parent is a violent drug-abusing alcoholic).  I really do think that 50-50 should be standard practice.  In most cases there's no justification for depriving children of significant contact with either parent.

Answer 3

I would say nature is to blame for mothers being better carers of kids.. on average. Afterall, a good father will spend much time away from the family earning the silver, while a good mother will be attentive to the needs of the children. One could suggest that this stereotype is cultural and there is no reason why the roles cannot be reversed.. true but only in part: Look at mammals in nature and the same patterns exist throughout. The mothers attend to the young while fathers either catch the food or leave for good[..sounds familiar]. Therefore when a divorce occurs, both parents can still fulfil their primary role of breadwinner [maintenance] and carer [custody] in accordance with natures way. Of course in most cases any decent judge will allow for visiting rights in the case of the father.

Im not sure how joint custody would work out for many kids in this situation. When my parents divorced, they lived in different countries.. I really dont know how that could have worked. Also, the fact is that my father worked much longer hours and therefore would have seen us much less anyway. Joint custody could also give rise to new battles [which does the children no good] "I want the kid for their birthday," "I want the kd for christmas" etc etc. In an ideal world.. of course all things would be equal.. but hey, its not quite an ideal world.

In my limited experience, the judge makes the best decision based upon the kids needs and thats the way it ought to be.

Answer 4

Women Don't always get custody.  I took care of two boys when I was 18 whos mother would beat them, and when they would see a belt, they would run, and run fast, and hide, just at the sight of the belt, thanks to their abusive mother.  There are just a lot of cases that you don't see or hear about.

Answer 5

no - not related much to feminism at all.

Whe people got divorce in the 50s, there was not a question - the kids did always go to the woman.  Now the judges do consider things like what is best for the child, and who is a better parent.  Fewer women get sole custody now than 50 years ago.

Answer 6

With the NOW and other feminist organization pumping out material for attorneys and wives seeking divorce on how to get the house,car,kids and a ton of cash umm YES!

  The NOW has published several books telling wives how to fake "DV" to get an advantage in a divorce as well as advocate to allow women to commit parental alienation and help them interfere with visitation rights.

Answer 7

Yes it is feminist laws that make the woman an Uber Citizen and have teflon in Family Court.   And yes that is why the wife always gets the kids (most of the times, even if the mother is a heroin addict.)  

You would not believe the legal nightmare I have had to undergo just to talk to my son on the phone.  My exwife has moved so many times that I have had 3 states ask me for child support.  All at the same time!  

My ex-wife does not listen to any judge, nor does she have to.  Kudos to you for believing in joint custody.  But the reality is that many women push away the fathers from the children.  And feminist laws make it easy to do.  

Peace.

Answer 8

I'd think most feminists would see that as sexist and an implication that women "should" be the better parents.

Answer 9

No, because when it comes right down to it, most men don't want primary custody of their children. Many of them feel having children around will hamper their careers and interfere with their dating.

Answer 10

I see no reason to blame anyone or any movement for the messy aftermath of individually failed marriages.  The judge rules on what seems to be in the best interest of the children in each situation..

Answer 11

YES YES YES AND YES! My parents divorced and I have two younger siblings and my mother is an uber feminist with a degree in womens studies, and guess who has the kids?

When I get enough money for a few full tanks and then some, I am packing my **** in the car my DAD bought me and leaving.

Oh and the marriage failed due to my mother moral issues with how my dad runs his life >.>

Answer 12

Actually, feminism is directly opposed to such practice, so no.

Answer 13

No it is women tending to be "sweeter" and soft judges not jesisting it, taking the womans side and thinking that the woman has had more hardship from birth, when in most cases the father has just as many.

Answer 14

Why would feminism be to blame for that?  Most feminists I've met feel that women should be out of the home working instead of home taking care of children.

And what do you mean "getting"???  Children aren't trophies.  And they aren't to be divvied up the same way the TV and furniture are.  When deciding who the children should live with, all personal feelings and anger for the other parent should be set aside for the moment and the child's best interests should be considered carefully.

I suspect you did not think this question through thoroughly before asking.  What works for one family will not work for another.  What if the father has no part in the upbringing of the child?  Should he still have half custody?

Honestly I don't think feminism has had much of an effect in this area.  In the old days the woman was more likely to get custody too, because she was the primary caregiver.  Feminism has created an environment where not only are women are expected to work, not be dependent upon anyone else, but still end up raising the children and cleaning the house.  So the woman is still usually the primary caregiver.  Not much has changed in this respect.

Answer 15

Before feminism, the wife always got the kids.  It is since the onset of the feminist movement in the 1970's that joint custody has been created, and more emphasis has been placed on the importance of having a male influence on the children - and the father's importance in the family.  So the truth is just the opposite of the slander.  

Answer 16

There are 2 kinds of custody;

1. Legal custody

2. Physical custody

The most common scenario in the USA is joint legal custody while physical custody is usually given to the parent who acted as 'primary caregiver' all along.  More often than not, this is the mother.  In contested cases (which are few indeed) psychologists evaluate the whole friggn' family to see what's best to do: their guiding star is always "the best interests of the child".

In Europe both legal and physical custody is usually given to the primary caregiver, usually the mother.

Answer 17

RoVale: You can't be serious. That is such c**p.

Every father i have ever known would sacrifice his career in .001 seconds in favor of his kids.

Have YOU ever met a father who was just like "ah yeah, i have kids, whatever, they're kind of a bother".

Because if you have, i'd like to give him a wake up call.

Seriously, you know how many dads would kill for more time with their kids. When i was growing up my dad got to see me 4 days a month. 4 days. thats it. thats 48 days per YEAR, and he hated that.

I gotta say you need to get a little real world experience, instead of relying on feminist statistics.

Answer 18

Nickipettis has an excellent point. While feminism has been seriously criticized for custody battles favoring mothers, let us consider the attitudes about men and women and their roles as parents before feminism and how that may have largely influenced how people think on this matter.

Old timers often assumed that mothers, not fathers, were the hands-on, nurturing parent by default. This has been deeply embedded in numerous civilizations for as long as human kind exists. It is unlikely that this mentality hasn't helped to mold the family court decisions today.

Here is the positive contribution feminism may have in this: by granting women the right to work and provide, they have put them side by side with men; men have often responded by becoming much more involved fathers than my own dad's generation. This could bring a change in attitude to the courts.

Answer 19

Partly.  Feminists are always going on about women's rights and things like this, which extends to mother's rights.  Very few of them are doing a thing to help fathers out.

However, the courts are the biggest culprits here, and the government.  The government benefits from someone having to pay child support since they get a cut of it, so they're not going to do anything about it.