stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
But as I mentioned to you before, these are your opinions of the matter, and, as such, do not make them bona fide facts. No one else has sided with your accusations that using these acronyms somehow diminish the content and/or are used with those specific instances. How come?
Also, as I mentioned to you before, I find your novel-istic posts and replies to be "hard" to read as they become repetitive words on the screen. Much of what you say could be summed up in 1-2 paragraphs. But I ALSO know that this is MY opinion and not something that constitutes you as unintelligent or extremist in any way.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5141
|
|
I understand your criticism and try to keep my posts shorter when there is not so much detail required by the subject. Unfortunately, when I send shorter replies that do not thoroughly explore the topic, and when I simply do stuff like ... say you are using extremist language, for example, the result is that I'm attacked for saying that without further explanation. So, I often explain up front rather than have to go back repeatedly to the same stupid topic.
We've had this same discussion before, though. Is there going to be some point where you stop attacking me for this? Of course you don't critique my views as extremist... because they're well-thought out, well-explained, and often very consistent with your own opinions.
I can't be responsible for your short attention span and preference for extremist shorthand rhetoric.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5141
|
|
And before you get all crazy... take a breath & smile a little. I'm just poking a little fun with this one. TRY to lighten up... we've gong through this particular discussion way too often for it to have any meaning any longer. WE disagree on method.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
>>>>> "We've had this same discussion before, though. Is there going to be some point where you stop attacking me for this?"
If you've noticed, I only bring it up when you attack me for my prose. Although, I do believe I made a reply to one of your posts a couple of months ago regarding your lengthy post, but I believe I also worded it in such a way as to be comical and not offensive.
>>>>> "Of course you don't critique my views as extremist... because they're well-thought out, well-explained, and often very consistent with your own opinions."
To be honest, I may only read 1-out-of-every-20 posts you make from beginning to end. Usually, I'll just read a sentence or two from each paragraph (if that) as I don't usually have the time to devote to read one long post vs. several smaller posts. Again, not saying they aren't well thought out or anything, it's just a personal choice I make and it's not specific to your (long) posts.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5141
|
|
I know what you mean. I personally avoid spending much time trying to decipher posts which contain quotes within quotes within quotes... I find it much harder to figure out who is saying what, sometimes, than to simply read a long, well-thought out post. Which, of course, mine usually are... given that I've spetn all of a minute & a half thinking through most of them.
Iv'e apologized about this before, too... but here goes again. I respond to posts off the top of my head, without a whole lot of thought, sometimes in stream-of-consciousness style, and if I had time to think it through & edit then they MIGHT be shorter... though... well ... considering that I usually throw in an example or two, as well as try to thoroughly explain some of how I derive my opinions, ... that might not end up shorter ,but rather might end up longer if I thought it through and wrote it more thoroughly.
|
theanswerguy
Platinum
Reged: 04/12/07
Posts: 2267
|
|
BTW, NOW's stated goal for child custody is ALWAYS sole custody to the mother.
Do you have a citation? What the hell are they thinking?
>>>>>>>>> Of course .
NOW ACTION ALERT ON "FATHERS' RIGHTS"
WHEREAS organizations advocating "fathers' rights," whose members consist of non-custodial parents, their attorneys and their allies, are a growing force in our country; and
WHEREAS the objectives of these groups are to increase restrictions and limits on custodial parents' rights and to decrease child support obligations of non-custodial parents by using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers; and
WHEREAS these groups are fulfilling their objectives by forming political alliances with conservative Republican legislators and others and by working for the adoption of legislation such as presumption of joint custody, penalties for "false reporting" of domestic and child abuse and mediation instead of court hearings; and
WHEREAS the success of these groups will be harmful to all women but especially harmful to battered and abused women and children; and
WHEREAS the efforts of well-financed "fathers' rights" groups are expanding from a few states into many more, sharing research and tactics state by state; and
WHEREAS many judges and attorneys are still biased against women and fathers are awarded custody 70% of the time when they seek it per the Association of Child Enforcement Support (ACES);
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the National Organization for Women (NOW) begin a national alert to inform members about these "fathers' rights" groups and their objectives through articles in the National Now Times (NNT); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as a part of this alert, NOW establish a clearinghouse for related information by sharing with NOW state and local Chapters the available means to challenge such groups, including the current research on custody and support, sample legislation, expert witnesses, and work done by NOW and other groups in states where "fathers' rights" groups have been active; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NOW encourage state and local Chapters to conduct and coordinate divorce/custody court watch projects to facilitate removal of biased judges; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that NOW report to the 1997 National Conference on the status and result of this national alert whereupon its continuation or expansion will be considered.
And :
FAIRNESS IN COURTS DEALING WITH FAMILY MATTERS
WHEREAS, an estimated 40% to 50% of men who frequently abuse their spouses also seriously abuse their children (Finkelhor, 1990; Gondolf and Fisher, 1991; Walker and Wolovick, 1994); and
WHEREAS, nearly three-fourths of all spousal assaults nationwide involve separated or divorced victims (House Hearing, Violence and the Law, 1987); and
WHEREAS, abusive fathers often ask for custody in order to gain control in divorce cases (American Psychological Association Study on Family Violence, 1996); and
WHEREAS, women seeking relief from domestic violence through divorce are often required to give primary or joint custody of their children to the abuser due to gender bias in the courts (Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Rosalie E. Wahl, 1993);
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that state and local National Organization for Women (NOW) chapters are encouraged to take steps to make the justice system and the public aware of this trend by working with existing women's shelters and court advocates to establish court watches, document cases of court gender bias, document cases of abusers gaining custody and issue press releases;
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that state and local NOW chapters be encouraged to take steps to change the justice system, protect women and children from domestic violence by calling for review of suspect judges, work to recall or defeat judges that do not treat domestic violence as a serious issue, and lobby for laws that require courts to take domestic violence into account when determining custody.
From :
http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1996/resoluti.html#alert
--------------------
Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right. Isaac Asimov
|
KGrow
Platinum
Reged: 01/27/06
Posts: 3153
Loc: Colorado
|
|
It is not as you would lead us to believe. First off, your references are over 10 years old. The legal landscape on custody has change a lot in the last 10 years. The closest they come to advocating sole custody for women is in opposing fathers' rights groups' support of Republican legislation instituting presumption of joint custody. While that does finally give me something to share with conservative Republicans, it does not actually say that NOW supports sole custody for women.
I wouldn't be surprised if NOW supports sole custody for women - certainly individual members do. But I would be surprised if a liberal and politically shrewd organization such as theirs were to flat out say that.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5141
|
|
I don't know... if they've made a resolution and have not changed it in the past 12 years since they made it, a resolution as extensive as this one, I really do not think they have to renew it or re-initiate it in order to have it remain thier policy. Especially if they are actively workin gto apparently support the purposes of their resolution.
They may have gotten less outrageous in their statements on this issue because of the obvious sexist biases and hypocrasy that thier policies show, but as long as they oppose things like equal parenting time, I'm kind of thinking it's still thier current policy.
|
theanswerguy
Platinum
Reged: 04/12/07
Posts: 2267
|
|
NOW's position has yet to change , their " Action Alerts " are issued to set policy for the national organization and all state chapters . Here's a clearer version of their position from the NY State Chapter in response to aproposed shared parenting legislation in NY in 2005 .
NOW - NEW YORK STATE OPPOSE MEMO
A-00330 and S-291 - Presumption of Joint Custody / Shared Parenting for Minor Children March 2005
Search Site With
The National Organization for Women, New York State, Inc. strongly urges the Assembly and Senate of New York to oppose this legislation. This bill seeks to "create the statutory of presumption of joint custody for all minor children whose parents are no longer married, so that both parents can continue to share in the responsibilities and duties of the children's upbringing."
"Shared Parenting" is defined as "the award of custody to both parties so that both parties share equally the legal responsibility and control of such child and share equally the living experience in time and physical care of assure frequent and continuing contact with both parties, as the court deems to be in the best interests of the child, taking into consideration the location and circumstances of each party."
The assertion that "shared parenting is in the best interests of minor children" is on its face untrue and is directly contradicted by the body of academic research on this subject, as well as the disastrous experience of California (one of the first states to adopt this experiment).
The following facts continue to be true with respect to mandatory joint custody of the children:
* To arbitrarily reassign a child's primary caregiver, or disrupt a child's attachment to a primary caregiver creates an unstable, even traumatic situation for the children.
* Increased father involvement does not necessarily result in positive outcomes for children. This involvement by the father will have positive consequences only when it is the arrangement of choice for the particular family and when there is a relatively cooperative and low conflict relationship between the parents.
* In families where there is a high level of conflict between the mother and father, joint custody arrangements are harmful to children, placing them in the middle of ongoing bickering and a stressful, unstable environment with no escape.
* Where there is domestic violence, joint custody/shared parenting arrangements are NEVER appropriate.
* Legislating "shared parenting" will not make it so, or guaranty continued relationships between fathers and children.
* Joint Custody bills have been designed to establish rights without responsibilities. Joint custody facilitates using the children to maintain access to a former partner and ongoing control of their life. Father's rights groups continue to push for this legislation in spite of the body of evidence that in the majority of cases, joint custody is not in the best interest of the children.
* Fathers Rights groups continue to promote the myth that courts are biased in favor of mothers. In litigated cases, father who sue for custody almost always win. In fact, fathers are often awarded sole custody even when sexual and physical abuse of the children is alleged and substantiated. According to The American Judges Association, 70% of the time the abuser convinces the court to give him custody.
* Existing law currently says that there is no preference for shared parenting in New York. The court may award joint custody, but in practice rarely does so. Legislators should be aware that the reason that more mothers have custody after divorce is that most arrangements are worked out between the parents. 95% of the litigated cases, including matrimonial cases, are settled out of court.
* Legislation providing for mandated joint custody ignores the issues of domestic abuse, including child abuse. Mothers are too often held more accountable by Child Protective Services for child abuse perpetrated by the father, than the fathers themselves are. Mothers often accused of Parental Alienation Syndrome, discourages women from protecting their children since raising the issue of child abuse leads to retaliatory accusations of alienating the children, and frequently, to an award of custody to the abusive father.
The National Organization for Women-New York State, Inc. is in favor of primary caregiver presumption. This means that the parent who assumed primary responsibility for the children during the marriage, either father or mother, should continue to be the custodial parent.
Establishment of a presumption of joint custody is harmful to the children. NOW New York State urges the passage of primary caretaker legislation, a realistic solution for children. NOW New York State urges the New York Legislators to defeat A00330/S291 and to look to research regarding the damage to children by passing mandated joint custody. Specifically: Richard Neely, former Chief Justice of the West Virginia Court of Appeals, citing West Virginia primary caretaker presumption law and its effectiveness.
Marcia A. Pappas, President, NOW-NYS, Inc.
Lori Gardner, Executive VP
Barbara Kirkpatrick, Legislative Vice President
http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html
--------------------
Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right. Isaac Asimov
|
EZmark
Platinum
Reged: 06/04/07
Posts: 292
Loc: Florida
|
|
McCain has said he has no intention of getting involved in the court systems other than appointing judges. He said he could only get burned by all the problems he sees in the system and stands a lot to lose and little chance of getting anything done. Realism.
Obama has loftily stated he thinks there are too many households without fathers and the fathers need to be more responsible, he is in favor of expanded enforcement legislationlike NOW supports.
Clinton actually said she knew many underemployed black males that were unable to meet their support obligations and wound up in and out of the jails system wasting taxpayer money and not slving the problem, they don't have the means to pay. She recognizes there is a problem for women earning enough money and for men earnng enough, and there are injustices in the system, but she has no plan or high priority to do anything about it.
The American family is heading for a generation that will give us the problems of Sweden or Netherlands, but there is nobody running for office at this time that is paying attention. Just like the gas crisis we'll just leave all the problems toour kids, many of whom won't even remember a father living in their house.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
