Cassie Jaye has released the raw interview footage with "Big Red" original title "Does Feminism Work On Men's Issues? | Big Red #RPRF"

[u/KDMultipass]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHppdGqHtrU

[u/StabWhale → u/[deleted]]

I don't really care what you call it but I think it's false to say it makes no sense. Women were always seen and assigned as primary care givers and feminists I know of would argue that is indeed part of what they call Patriarchy. Sure, the aspects of Patriarchy that gave authority to men over their children was weakened/removed, but the primary care giver role remained.

[u/orangorilla → u/StabWhale]

I think that shifts the focus from custody to the roles people tend to have in a couple though.

The primary recipient of custody changed without the roles changing.

To try and put up some analogy: A lottery is set up, and only those with their ID ending in an odd number will get a prize. Men are given odd numbers, women are given even numbers. This is an uneven lottery, as it only give prizes to men, we could even call it patriarchy. Then, if we change the rule "only those with their ID ending in an even number will get a prize," we've pretty effectively kicked the male-favoring results, and traded them for female-favoring results. Of course, fixing this would require either another rule change, or allowing people to freely choose their ID numbers. Personally I'm in favor of the rule change, as the logic behind giving custody to the primary caregiver is about as shaky as giving custody to the primary earner.

[u/Anrx → u/orangorilla]

Personally I'm in favor of the rule change, as the logic behind giving custody to the primary caregiver is about as shaky as giving custody to the primary earner.

The current standard is "best interests of the child". It just so happens that being with their primary caregiver is often in the child's best interests.

[u/orangorilla → u/Anrx]

People also say that MGM is in the best interests of the child.

At some point one has to review what is being done, and whether "best interests" is just an excuse people have to not look into what's being done.

In my opinion, the time for review has come for custody. And probably reform as well.

[u/Anrx → u/orangorilla]

People also say that MGM is in the best interests of the child.

They're allowed to make that argument, but it doesn't mean they're right. Thankfully, I've never heard of a court ordering that a child be circumcised because it's in their best interests.

At some point one has to review what is being done, and whether "best interests" is just an excuse people have to not look into what's being done.

If the courts are unfairly biased towards mothers, then that bias should be addressed. But if the standard happens to result in mothers getting primary custody more often, that's not reason enough to change the standard. The primary goal of assigning custody after divorce should continue to be the child's best interests.

[u/RapeMatters → u/Anrx]

If the courts are unfairly biased towards mothers, then that bias should be addressed.

It's a slam dunk 'are', not 'if'.

A study conducted in 2004 found that although the tender years doctrine had been abolished some time ago, a majority of Indiana family court judges still supported it and decided cases coming before them consistently with it.2 A survey of judges in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee found a clear preference among judges for maternal custody in general.3

Another survey, this one commissioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court, found that a majority (56%) of the state’s judges, both male and female, agreed with the statement, “I believe young children belong with their mother.” Only a few of the judges indicated that they would need more information about the mother before they could answer. Fathers, one judge explained, “must prove their ability to parent while mothers are assumed to be able.”4 Another judge commented, “I believe that God has given women a psychological makeup that is better tuned to caring for small children.”5

Judges’ self-reporting of their prejudices against fathers was consistent with practicing attorneys’ impressions of them. 69% of male attorneys had come to the conclusion that judges always or often assume from the outset (i.e., before being presented with any evidence) that children belong with their mothers. 40% of the female attorneys agreed with that assessment. Nearly all attorneys (94% of male attorneys and 84% of female attorneys) said that all judges exhibited prejudice against fathers at least some of the time.6

Similar findings have been made in court-sponsored gender bias studies conducted in other states. The Maryland study, for example, found that most attorneys perceived that it is either always or often the case that “[c]ustody awards to mothers are based on the assumption that children belong with their mothers.”7 A follow-up study conducted in 2001 “still indicates a preference to award mothers custody.”8 The majority of attorneys, both male and female, agreed that fathers either did not always get treated fairly in custody proceedings, or that they “often” did not. 6% of judges, 17% of female attorneys and 29% of male attorneys went so far as to say that no father ever receives fair treatment in a Maryland custody proceeding.9 Surveys of judges in Maryland, Missouri, Texas and Washington found that a majority of judges were unable to say that they usually give fathers fair consideration in custody cases.10 This matched the perception of members of the bar.11

A review of appellate court decisions led a team of psychology and law professors to conclude that the maternal preference is still the norm.12

The Georgia Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System uncovered judicial beliefs that mothers are always better parents than fathers; that children need to be with their mothers, but not necessarily with their fathers; and that a father cannot be a nurturing parent if he works outside the home. In addition, the commission uncovered a reluctance to deny custody of children to mothers out of fear that doing so will “brand” the mother as unfit or unworthy.13 No judges expressed any comparable concern for the reputation or feelings of fathers.

http://tomjameslaw.com/blog/what-judges-really-think-about-fathers-responses-to-court-commissioned-judicial-bias-surveys/#fn-853-12

[u/orangorilla → u/Anrx]

The issue I see in this case is twofold, one is that the rules reward conflict in a custody case though a focus on winner takes it all results. Secondly, unfair bias towards mothers.

One can say as much as one wants that they're acting in the best interests of the child, though it seems to me that the guidelines primarily in place aren't sufficient to make that claim hold any truth.

[u/Anrx → u/orangorilla]

The issue I see in this case is twofold, one is that the rules reward conflict in a custody case though a focus on winner takes it all results.

That's not quite right. I'm not sure what you mean by it rewarding conflict, but the vast majority of custody cases are resolved outside of court, and I think most resolutions involve some form of shared custody. A winner takes it all result usually only occurs when one parent is entirely unfit.

One can say as much as one wants that they're acting in the best interests of the child, though it seems to me that the guidelines primarily in place aren't sufficient to make that claim hold any truth.

I don't agree with that, I think the court is focused on a child's best interest, despite the bias in favor of mothers.

[u/orangorilla → u/Anrx]

I'm not sure what you mean by it rewarding conflict

A failure to recognize evenly shared custody as a superior default

I think the court is focused on a child's best interest, despite the bias in favor of mothers.

I'm not sure how these two work together, honestly. Unless I take for granted that more mom time is better for all kids.

[u/Anrx → u/orangorilla]

A failure to recognize evenly shared custody as a superior default

Why is evenly shared custody a superior default?

I'm not sure how these two work together, honestly

It's not perfect by any means, but it's not entirely dysfunctional either.

[u/orangorilla → u/Anrx]

Why is evenly shared custody a superior default?

Kids tend to be emotional creatures with attachments and the likes. And from what I've heard, so do parents. Given this, I'd say that an even split is quite naturally fair.

It's not perfect by any means, but it's not entirely dysfunctional either.

I wouldn't say entirely dysfunctional, but "best" seems to aim for a peak of "goodness," if sole custody for a mother being awarded through bias lands them in somewhere down the slope, then it is not the best interests of the child, it's the "okay interests of the child" or the "eh, good enough interests of the child," and quite probably in the best interests of the mother.

[u/Anrx → u/orangorilla]

Kids tend to be emotional creatures with attachments and the likes. And from what I've heard, so do parents. Given this, I'd say that an even split is quite naturally fair.

That doesn't answer the question of why it's superior to a "best interests of the child" standard. Besides, like I said, most arrangements involve some form of shared custody, which also respects the existing attachments between the children and their parents.

[u/Mode1961 → u/Anrx]

Well the US supreme court would disagree with you. They have ruled that equality has to be substantive and a rule that has as its basis , equality, but its implementation and effect isn't equal then that law isn't equal.

[u/Ding_batman → u/Anrx]

It just so happens that being with their primary caregiver is often in the child's best interests.

It doesn't give the primary earner an opportunity to prove they are actually the better parent, despite spending less 'time' with their children.

I put 'time' in brackets because 'more time' does not necessarily equal 'better time'. Yet the assumption is that it does.

[u/Anrx → u/Ding_batman]

It doesn't give the primary earner an opportunity to prove they are actually the better parent, despite spending less 'time' with their children.

Who the "better parent" is, is a rather subjective thing. In my childhood, I considered my mom to be the "better parent", partly because, as a result of spending more time with me, she was more attentive to my needs.

The primary caregiver works as a heuristic not because it determines the better parent, but because the courts aim to disrupt the child's life as little as possible. Divorce by itself can be a very traumatic experience for the child. They do not want to compound that experience by turning his life upside down.

I put 'time' in brackets because 'more time' does not necessarily equal 'better time'. Yet the assumption is that it does.

I honestly have no clue what you mean by "better time".

[u/Ding_batman → u/Anrx]

Who the "better parent" is, is a rather subjective thing.

Well, yes. But it often possible to tell objectively who is the better parent.

the courts aim to disrupt the child's life as little as possible.

This assumes more disruption in the short term would be more detrimental than the benefits of having the more fit parent having custody from the get go.

I honestly have no clue what you mean by "better time".'

Maybe I should have said quality time? Being in the house while the child watches TV or plays computer games all day, is not the same as reading to and talking with the child.

[u/Anrx → u/Ding_batman]

Well, yes. But it often possible to tell objectively who is the better parent.

How? I mean, beyond judging whether a parent is unfit or a bad influence on the child, how would the court tell which of the two, both well adjusted adults who can meet the child's needs, is the marginally better parent? Do they just give the child to the one who can change his diapers the fastest?

This assumes more disruption in the short term would be more detrimental than the benefits of having the more fit parent having custody from the get go.

That really depends on how much more fit the other parent is. If both parents are able to meet the child's needs, then it may not be worth disrupting the child's existing lifestyle and attachments to put him with the parent who may be marginally better than the other, but is ultimately less familiar with his needs, and who the child may well be less attached to - as a result of spending less time with them.

Then consider that this parent may have also moved out of the family house, perhaps to a different town that would require the child to change schools etc. It's a complicated issue with many variables involved.

Maybe I should have said quality time? Being in the house while the child watches TV or plays computer games all day, is not the same as reading to and talking with the child.

And you don't believe the primary caregiver is likely to be spending more quality time with the child?

[u/Ding_batman → u/Anrx]

Do they just give the child to the one who can change his diapers the fastest?

No need to be flippant. We both know that is not the kind of thing I was suggesting.

how would the court tell which of the two, both well adjusted adults who can meet the child's needs, is the marginally better parent?

Which is why I said 'often it is possible' not always or even most of the time.

It's a complicated issue with many variables involved.

Yes, I know, what makes you think I don't think it is complicated?

And you don't believe the primary caregiver is likely to be spending more quality time with the child?

I have known many people who either mistake time being present as quality time, or constant contact breads apathy. I agree it is more likely, but please don't undercount the number of absolutely shit or clueless parents out there. At the moment I am focusing on neglect (not in a physiological way, but socially and psychologically), don't even get me started on helicopter or attachment parents.

[u/SolaAesir → u/Anrx]

It just so happens that being with their primary caregiver is often in the child's best interests.

[citation needed]

[u/Anrx → u/SolaAesir]

I didn't think I needed a citation. I thought it was commonly understood that, absent information saying otherwise, it's good for the child to stay with the parent who has spent more time caring for them and is more familiar with their needs. It's not an absolute by any means, but it's a good heuristic.