Best Interest of the Child

This proclamation can be traced back to a wide assortment of ideals, movements, and morals throughout history. Have the causes of those shouting these emotionally charged action inciting words ever been worthy of the phrase’s implications? I won’t assume to know without a doubt that any movement or ideology has truly focused its efforts on the best interests of children when using children as an example to rally support for their motives. Every movement is formed by a group of individual people; therefore corruption exists within every movement. However, in my opinion many overcome the inherent dissent within their respective groups and push forward with their believed to be worthy causes.

It is my belief that one movement has taken the best interests of the children and rearranged those interests to fit their own goals. A strong and independent woman is what a gender feminist claims to promote. Yet the laws and policies gender feminists have created and or support contradict everything a strong and independent woman is. In this post I will focus on child support and alimony.

Alimony, like child support is no longer exclusive to women as a substantial number of women have entered the workforce. Policies that were once set in place to ensure that wives and children were financially secure until another form of income could be acquired have now become obscured to represent a justified entitlement for maintaining a lifestyle familiar to a former spouse instead of ensuring financial security.

Divorce has become an almost certain battle for half of the U.S. population that have chosen or will soon choose to be married. Nearly 70% of these divorces are initiated by women for a number of reasons. If you were to believe most MRAs the main reasons would include the many incentives women have when filing for divorce such as alimony and child support because while the fact remains that today not all alimony goes to ex-wives, a substantial amount of child support does go to mothers. If you were to believe gender feminists the main reasons would include the many months or years of domestic abuse and child abuse committed by the ex-husband. Who is right? Who is wrong?

While I don’t agree with everything I have read from Men’s Right’s Activists as they seem to drop the integrity ball from time to time. Feminists haven’t been able to lift the ball since the 1980s. There are some women issues groups that acknowledge that men are not the evil dominating animals gender feminists claim we are who would like to grab the title of feminism back. Unfortunately they have been excommunicated from the movement by the politically influential leaders and branded as anti-feminists for daring to care about the rights of men. This fact is why many MRAs and humanists (myself included) generalize when speaking about feminism. We look at the actions of those who voice what the movement is about through legal policies and the media. We also look at those who claim they don’t agree with these “radical” feminists yet don’t voice those disagreements to a media that right now, would gobble up anything said or written by those they think are a part of the feminist movement. Christina Hoff Sommers is one example, and the backlash she took from mainstream feminists was so ridiculous that they themselves were able to reach into her wallet, pull her feminist card, spit on it, and cut it in half. Those who self identify as feminists that don’t agree with radical feminists yet don’t protest the discrimination against men they promote in western legal systems share none of my concern when I generalize feminists.

Now that my disclaimer on why I am not always specific about the particular groups of feminism I am referring to, which happen to make up the majority of feminism is out of the way. We can return to the topics of this post.

Feminists claim that the majority of women who initiate divorce initiate it because of abusive husbands and fathers. Let’s examine these two reasons, domestic violence and child abuse.

Domestic Violence: If you have read or watched any of my previous posts you will already know my stance on domestic violence. Abuse within heterosexual intimate partner relationships is nearly equal and is initiated by women more than it is by men. While I have not made anything that focuses specifically on domestic violence, you can view any of my previous work for a broader explanation.

Child Abuse. Many men within the group Fathers for Justice claim that child abuse and domestic violence are the “custody bombs of divorce” or something like that. When divorcing her husband, to ensure the already bias family courts grant her sole custody of the children she will almost always claim her husband physically or sexually abused her and or her children. Men and women in father’s rights groups claim that the family courts either ignore evidence or never even ask for it. Half a year ago if I had heard this I would think to myself, for real? Does this insane group really expect people to believe this? Then I began speaking with feminists and reading their literature and following their work. Their claims although slightly different from father’s rights groups coincide with father’s rights claims.

Notice a simple contradiction. Feminists deny the fact that domestic violence and child abuse are two of many things women can use to win custody battles due to bias courts. At the same time they claim that the main reason women initiate divorce the most is because husbands beat their wives and abuse their children. Maybe the courts aren’t bias at all and men really do just beat the women they marry and children they father. That would explain away the explanations of the Men’s Rights groups and put a sound reasoning to the feminist reason behind the fact that mothers receive custody of the children nearly 80% of the time.

Of course to come to that conclusion one must ignore the fact that mothers are the primary abusers of children. However, feminists haven’t ignored this fact. Instead they have another solid explanation. More children live with their mothers than fathers so it would make sense that mothers abuse their children more.

Now if you can find logic within those contradictions of how women can claim their children were abused to win custody yet women abuse their children more than men do then congratulations, you’re a feminist.

I’m sure when rational people are faced with these contradictions they stop and think to themselves, wait a minute…what? However, this is the case when using feminist reasoning. While married, a woman’s husband abuses her and her children. When divorced, she takes up the mantle.

So somehow, by this insane logic, feminists have created a bias in the court system that favors women by painting men as violent abusers and women as helpless victims…while they’re married. When they divorce, the ex-wife gets the children and with them, child support. In the past the majority of women in the United States were homemakers. Now a substantial amount can support themselves yet they still receive alimony and child support. Even if a husband and wife make basically the same income, when the mother receives custody of the children, nearly 80% of the time, initiating the divorce nearly 70% of the time, and lying about domestic violence and child abuse, the father still has to pay. If he does not, he can have his passport privileges revoked or even be sent to jail. Paternity fraud is worse. Men deceived by girlfriends and wives about the biological father of their children also pay child support, even after they prove the child is not theirs. In many cases men are forced to pay thousands in back child support for children that are proven to not be theirs. Is there any wonder why feminists support alimony and child support?

We are all human and most people will take an advantage that is hanging right in front of them. Feminists created these advantages and even women who care nothing about feminism will have no shame in using them especially when bitter over fights and disagreements within a marriage. Human nature is nothing to be ashamed of but something to be forewarned about. If you saw someone you recently had an argument with drop a one hundred dollar bill from their wallet would you let them know? Or would you wait for them to walk off and claim your prize? There are many feminist women who claim they raise their daughters not to depend on a man, that they need nothing from men. They claim they are independent. However, when asked why they are taking money from men, money they don’t necessarily need, the programmed response is always, it’s for the children. If this double standard is not insulting to real independent women who can and do hold their own in the world just as well as any man, I don’t know what is. Perhaps if fathers were not alienated from their children and allowed to live with them for more time than a few weeks out of the year, perhaps they could still support those children without handing over their money to bitter ex-wives.

Children have become the main prize in many custody disputes and the feminist version of the best interests of the child has fallen from grace into the trash bin where humanists store injustice, File 13.