~ archived since 2018 ~

Aussie Paper Misrepresents Study in Order to Oppose Shared Parenting

ashpatil

May 28, 2010

6 upvotes

http://blog.fathers4equality-australia.org/equalparenting/FiDBlog.nsf/dx/aussie-paper-misrepresents-study-in-order-to-oppose-shared-parenting

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Aussie Paper Misrepresents Study in Order to Oppose Shared Parenting
Author	ashpatil
Upvotes	6
Comments	10
Date	May 28, 2010 11:44 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/c988x/aussie_paper_misrepresents_study_in_order_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/aussie-paper-misrepresents-study-in-order-to.1049325 https://theredarchive.com/post/1049325

Comments

[–]ashpatil[S] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]nlakes 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You won't find a decent article in the AdelaideNow or Advertiser newspaper. They're aimed at the mass-market and therefore cater to popular-opinion rather than truth. They ran a page2 article on a cat that lived through a washing machine cycle once; a redditor posted it up recently on reddit as a 'wtf' I think.

Anyway, on this report. Although the research in the report was on the question of children's wellbeing during and after divorce proceedings; and did not aim to prescribe where the child is best off - the findings seem to indicate that, if anything, children want more of a say and would chose to spend equal time amongst parents. Will courts take this into consideration? Unlikely.

Even though single-dads are on average better parent's than single-mothers, the cultural delusion that women are better parents will undoubtedly persist for quite a while.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]nlakes 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Nearly all studies (•) on the topic of with which parent do children do best in the event of separation? reveals that the societal belief that mothers are natural parents is in fact wrong. Children do far better with their father than their mother.

The studies can be broken down into criteria like:

with which parent is the child most happy
with which parent does the child do best academically
with which parent does the child do best socially
with which parent do most children go on to be financially-successful in life

etc (there are 40 all up)

Those 4 dot-points above have the answer as: the father. In fact, in around 28 of the 40 criteria; the answer is "the father is the better parent on that criteria". 2 of the 40 criteria are tied, and 10 of the 40 hold that the mother is the better parent on those criteria.

It is also noteworthy that fathers make far more effort to involve mothers in the child's life whereas mothers tend to act like selfish bitches and use the children like chess-pieces to hurt the father.

So as I said before, it's obvious even to the blind person that fathers on average are better parents than mothers (in the event of single-parenthood). So really, default custody should fall to fathers then it is up to the mothers to present a case against it.

Some women of course cannot accept this objective finding (aren't they just supporting patriarchy if they play into the notion of women are better parents?.. hmm..), they read this and the emotions start to pour and an irrational and emotional rant usually follows in the form of; ad hominem, anecdotal stories, appeals to authority and all the typical logical fallacies of people without a leg to stand on.

(•) See Father and Child Reunion by Dr Warren Farrell. There are several studies from around the world including the UK, US and Western-Europe.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to have to take exception to this.

1)the criteria that you give are subjective. Happy? Socially successful? What does that mean? The ones you can measure, academics and finance, I don't think necessarily indicate a better person or a better life. I know a lot of people successful in both ways that are awful human beings.

2)Then, you have to consider the fact that statistically speaking, single moms earn significantly less than single fathers. The poor are always disadvantaged.

3)Lastly, I did a little research on Dr. Farrell who, from what I can tell without having read the books, is an equal rights advocate. He worked with the WR movement before the men's. According to Wiki:

"Father and Child Reunion's findings include some 26 ways in which children of divorce do better when three conditions prevail: equally-shared parenting (or joint custody); close parental proximity; and no bad-mouthing."

That's quite different from what you said.

mothers tend to act like selfish bitches and use the children like chess-pieces to hurt the father.

This tells me you might, just possibly be a bit emotionally invested in the topic. And it might be difficult for you to be objective. I wish I could send you a copy of the report in my custody case, which says that the primary reason I was to be given residential custody was that my ex couldn't stop talking shit about me, even to the professional who came to talk to him about the kids. Unfortunately, it's in German, so it wouldn't help much.

It's purely anecdotal, but I was involved in a NC mother's forum for a while and eventually left because I couldn't stand the way some of them talked about their exes. But there were plenty of women who's been screwed the way so many men have. Daddy gets married again, and suddenly there's a new mommy, daddy moves out of state without telling mom and takes the kids. This shit needs to be stopped for everyone, not just men.

I really truly believe that to change the family court system in America, it will take men AND women.

[–]nlakes 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to have to take exception to this.

of course you will, feminists have a hard time with evidence against their position.

1)the criteria that you give are subjective.

Most research into social phenomena is subjective. Psychology is subjective. Dr Phil is subjective. When human's are put under the microscope, the findings very often have a degree of subjectivity. But so what? They still have great relevance. You can't dismiss something just because it has a degree of subjectivity. You need facts on your side. It's obvious to spot a happy child from an un-happy one. It's obviously to spot a socialising child from an isolated one.

The ones you can measure, academics and finance, I don't think necessarily indicate a better person or a better life. I know a lot of people successful in both ways that are awful human beings.

The key words are 'necessarily indicates'. It also could very well indicate leading a better life. Your last point about 'knowing people' anecdotal crap.

2)Then, you have to consider the fact that statistically speaking, single moms earn significantly less than single fathers. The poor are always disadvantaged.

We're not here to make excuses. We're considering what's best for the children.

"Father and Child Reunion's findings include some 26 ways in which children of divorce do better when three conditions prevail: equally-shared parenting (or joint custody); close parental proximity; and no bad-mouthing." That's quite different from what you said.

If you will look carefully I was mocking the position that courts hold whereby mothers get custody when the findings suggests that fathers are in fact the better parents. I wasn't quoting Dr Farrell. But yes, joint-custody is in the child's best interest (as per Dr. Farrell's findings). But posed as a dichotomy, the father is the better choice in most cases.

This tells me you might, just possibly be a bit emotionally invested in the topic. And it might be difficult for you to be objective.

I've done nothing but quote some hard figures that show fathers are the better parents on average. (Albeit with some cheeky trolling at the expense of women). Your taking offense to impartial statistics, mere findings from impartial research, shows me you have an axe-to-grind yourself.

Don't take the statistics personally. I'm not saying your ex is a better parent than you, but in most cases the father is better for the child.

I wish I could send you a copy of the report in my custody case, which says that the primary reason I was to be given residential custody was that my ex couldn't stop talking shit about me

You don't need to. I believe fathers put down their mothers in front of the kids to. The reality is that women do it more than men though. Yes, calling them selfish-bitches was offensive, but so what? Women who put down their ex in-front of the kids deserve no respect. And likewise for men.

I really truly believe that to change the family court system in America, it will take men AND women.

Tell that to the arrogant feminists who insist feminism = equality. That feminism is the only way to equality and you're either with them or against them. They want power and control, not collaboration and equality.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nlakes 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You did not quote any hard facts at all and what you did provide, you referenced with something that doesn't say what you posted! You have some good points and some legitimate beefs, but they will not be heard as long as you present them in a way that just makes you look bitter and unbalanced.

Assertion. The studies speak for themselves; your personal beliefs about their validity are just that. Asserting they're subjective is not a sufficient reason to dismiss them. Come back with facts next time.

= Nuh-uh, she started it!

More or less. The point is, I've reached out to feminists in the past to talk about equality and instead of talking about it in good faith they prefer to call me a misogynist, a sexist pig and patriarch all because I won't concede that feminism and equality are the same thing. I suggested starting a new movement together, they wont have a bar of it. I have to become a feminist according to them to work together. Which goes to show how they'd rather preserve their power than work in good faith for equality together.

There are too many feminists who are fanatical supremacists.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The point is, I've reached out to feminists in the past to talk about equality and instead of talking about it in good faith they prefer to call me a misogynist, a sexist pig and patriarch all because I won't concede that feminism and equality are the same thing.

I'm thrilled to see that a few "feminists" that you've met, now represent all of womanhood. Thanks for the open mindedness.

The studies speak for themselves; your personal beliefs about their validity are just that. Asserting they're subjective is not a sufficient reason to dismiss them. Come back with facts next time.

I'll say it again. You haven't posted any facts. You have not shown any links to any studies and no amount of you talking is going to change that. The book you referenced does not say what you apparently interpreted from it. This statement is intended to imply that I'm somehow being "womanly" and therefore illogical. You post speaks for itself and I'm now done with this conversation.

[–]nlakes -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Coward.

I'll say it again. You haven't posted any facts.

Studies were done (and referenced), research was carried out, experiments took place and the findings were presented. The research has yet to be disproven - ergo facts until proven otherwise. BTW. Your loony assertions ≠ proof against the facts quoted from the studies that Dr Farrell quotes.

You have not shown any links to any studies and no amount of you talking is going to change that. The book you referenced does not say what you apparently interpreted from it.

I have presented the book, which contains the studies, which you haven't read... ohh... but a wikipedia entry is enough to make you an expert? So how fucking arrogant of you to say "The book you referenced does not say what you apparently interpreted from it".

Might I add, where are your facts? Just like every feminists I've met, you argue based on emotion and anecdotes.

Here is a video clip of Warren Farrell talking about his book and backing up the points I just made.

1 minute and 19 seconds in he states (paraphrasing) "single fathers do better than single mothers" and "fathers do more to incorporate the mother in the child's life than mothers try to involve fathers". He also states the ideal solution is joint-parenting but the worst-case scenario for a kid to face is having a single-mother (and he's right).

Would you care to make some more baseless irrational emotionally-charged assertions about the studies being bunk?

This statement is intended to imply that I'm somehow being "womanly" and therefore illogical.

Straw-man. Typical dishonest feminist tactic. Can't disprove my facts so you try to present me as a misogynist, the ad hominem again... question my character and the facts go away. I don't think so lady.

I'm thrilled to see that a few "feminists" that you've met

More than a few. It seems to be a commonly held belief by feminists that feminism, by definition, is and only can be the only game in town when it comes to equality.

May I ask, do you agree with this statement or would you accept a proposal whereby a new movement - with a gender inclusive name were created so men and women could work together toward equality?

I'm now done with this conversation.

Typical woman. You'll decide when the fight is over will you?

(Sexist yes I know, couldn't help it!)