TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Legal Scholar: Father's rights movement led to reform in family law

toss_away_burner

March 31, 2015
66 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/fathers-rights-movement.aspx
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Legal Scholar: Father's rights movement led to reform in family law
Author

toss_away_burner

Upvotes 66
Comments 7
Date March 31, 2015 2:15 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/30xeh2/legal_scholar_fathers_rights_movement_led_to/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/legal-scholar-fathers-rights-movement-led-to.984382
https://theredarchive.com/post/984382

Comments

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In the 1960s and 1970s, escalating divorce rates and the emergence of no-fault divorce laws upset this balance, she writes. By the mid-1980s, activists and federal and state legislators forged a new political compromise: fathers’ rights activists conceded ongoing child support obligations in exchange for greater access to custody upon divorce.

That's only half of the story. The real story is 100 years ago, men had custody and the financial obligations. Feminism turned that into no custody, and the financial obligations. So it's somehow "better" to pay MORE, for a little MORE custody?

How about paying LESS, and having SHARED custody? Wouldn't that be "in the best interests of the children"? Sure, but it would mean the mother getting less money. We can't have that.

This “divorce bargain” catalyzed a shift from common law presumptions favoring maternal custody to statutory recognition of joint custody.

Yeah, "custody" in the legal meaning of "rights which generally aren't enforced". Not "living with the kids", which is still 90% the mother.

How about you get some fictitious rights, in return for paying more money? Would that be a good idea? Hmm..?

[–]Rex9 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is what I consider weasel-wording

a shift from common law presumptions favoring maternal custody to statutory recognition of joint custody

I'm starting to see lawyers refer to this as equality. Even though men in EVERY state (including Texas) get the shaft when it comes to primary physical custody.

There's no way in an equal world that women should be getting primary physical custody 80% of the time. The legal types pretty much have the attitude "you got joint custody - you won!" even though you'll now be seeing your kids 80% less.

[–]xNOM 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL doesn't seem like much of a bargain.

[–]toss_away_burner[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, I'm new to reddit, so apologies for any violations of reddiquette. I wanted to link this to this subreddit so that any interested minds would have access to it. The academic article in the link is apparently the first legal history of the Father's Rights Movement, and actually acknowledges the gains the movement made. It's not all rosy though, since the article also heaps the blame for "dead-beat dads" on the shoulders of the movement as well...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The academic article in the link is apparently the first legal history of the Father's Rights Movement, and actually acknowledges the gains the movement made.

You might be interested in

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fathers-Rights-Activism-Comparative-Perspective/dp/1841136298

The legal status, responsibilities and rights of men who are fathers—married or unmarried, cohabiting or separated, biological or social in nature—is a topic with a long and well-documented history. Yet recent developments in a number of countries suggest a growing politicisation of the relationship between law and father- hood. In some countries, an increasingly vocal, visible and well-organised fathers’ rights movement has been credited with influencing perceptions of the politics of family justice. Fathers, it is argued, have become the new victims of family law sys- tems that have swung ‘too far’ in favour of mothers. Armed with such claims, fathers’ rights activists have set out to achieve a range of legal reforms, most notably in the areas of child support law and contact and residence rights following separation. This book presents an attempt to understand these developments. Bringing together leading international commentators it provides a careful, critical and comparative analysis of the work of fathers’ rights activists, the role law has played in their campaigning, their legal strategies, their success (or otherwise) in achieving legal reform, similarities and divergences with the women’s movement, and the relationship between fathers’ rights movements and the societies that frame them.

Its an anthology. All the contributors are feminists and from what i remember were very critcal of MRAs/FRAs. But as the summary suggests they do mention many of the achievements of the father's rights movement in many countries (US, UK, Sweden, Canada, Australia). Of course to them the achievements (often) came at the cost of women.

It has been a few years since i last read it, so my memory is a bit hazy, but i do remember thinking that it wasn't as bad as i expected.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

..but i do remember thinking that it wasn't as bad as i expected.

By not as bad i mean as bad as for example this charming article by Molly Dragiewicz which cites the above book.

The backlash against gender-sensitive responses to women’s victimization, offending, and imprisonment is inseparable from contemporary reaction against feminism and other progressive movements. The backlash against the American Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provides a prime example of this resistance. Despite widespread support for VAWA and other policies designed to address violence against women, some constituencies object to their existence. The author investigates fathers’ rights rhetoric on VAWA as an example of antifeminist backlash.

The backlash against gender-sensitive responses to women’s victimization, offending, and imprisonment is inseparable from the broader context of contemporary resistance to and reaction against feminism and other movements for civil and human rights (Chesney-Lind, 2006; DeKeseredy, 1999; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2005; Faludi, 1991). This backlash reveals the dialectical nature of social change as an ongoing struggle over authority, power, and knowledge (Weedon, 1987). My understanding of the nature of backlash follows Sylvia Walby (1993), who has argued that backlash is not simply a sign of resistance to feminism that seeks to slow its progress or temper its impact; it is an effort to reaffirm the patriarchal domination of women. As the most visible American symbol of the institutionalization of a woman-focused understanding of crime, the American Violence Against Women Act (VAWA; 1994) provides a prime opportunity to examine resistance to feminism. Despite the enthusiastic, repeated ratification of VAWA (Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, 2000; Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act, 2005), resistance to it deserves serious consideration because of what it can tell us about the dynamics of backlash.

In this article, I investigate fathers’ rights (FR) rhetoric on VAWA as an example of antifeminist backlash. First, I define key terms central to this discussion including sex, gender and patriarchy. Second, I describe the method I used in selecting my sample for analysis. Third I establish the theoretical bases for my analysis, including patriarchal peer support and backlash. Fourth, I present the key themes that I uncovered in FR resistance to VAWA, including calls for formal equality, calls for the reassertion of patriarchy, and objections to women’s authority. Finally, I conclude with remarks about the importance of considering FR backlash and suggestions for additional research

From what I remember atleast some of the entries were not as anti-mr as this paper.

[–]toss_away_burner[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a shame one can't expect an unbiased assessment from people who're directly affecting the lives of others. Thanks for the links.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter