I know this may not be "cool" but it needs to be said.
I am so fucking horny right now i could... well i can't think of a way to describe exactly how horny I but trust me. can anyone help me out with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
saw this in another journal thought i'd throw it up.
Let's see if any of you even know me at all. Pick ONE from each pair that you think describes me the best & leave it in the comments. Then copy this and post it in your own journal to see how your friends view you.
* dominant or submissive
* logical or intuitive
* social or loner
* kinky or vanilla
* cute or sophisticated
* kitten or puppy
* warm flannel sheets or sleek satin
* leader or follower
* quiet or talkative
* spontaneous or planned
* teddy bear or porcelain doll
* hiking or window shopping
* tequila or vodka
* top or bottom
* barefoot or shoes
* jeans or petticoats
* tender or rough
* aware or dreamy
* nerd or geek
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUSTODIAL DISPUTES:
Is There a Judicial Gender Bias?
Outline
Thesis Sentence: The family court systems of the United States have a gender bias.
I. Introduction
A. Children are victims
B. Family courts
C. Social influence
II. Custodial Law History
A. Paternal preference
B. Tender years doctrine
1. Definition
2. Expansion
C. Equal rights
III. Recent judicial bias
A. Discrimination against fathers
1. Terris case
2. Lisas advice
3. Critique of advice
B. Statistics
IV. Conclusion
Essay
Children have long been the innocent victims of parental arguments and separations and very often they are forced to endure long and painful court battles. These court cases are, theoretically, for finding a situation in which the child is best suited to be raised. When a case has finally concluded children are subjected to what a judge decides is in their best interests according to their interpretation of legal precedent and doctrines. What should be paramount in these cases is every parents right to have a positive role in their childrens lives and their childrens right to live in a situation that is truly in their best interests. It is necessary to believe though, that despite the influence of certain long-overruled, but still-used laws, the judiciary system tries to do its best to rule in the best interests of the children that come into it and not because of a gender bias.
The court system of the United States was created to dispense justice according to the laws on the books and the current social climate. The history of the family court system should be no different. But it is. The family courts have a long and unjust history, filled with gender bias and discrimination. It has been fraught with injustices that have destroyed parents relationships with their children.
As far back as the beginning of United States history, custody cases were decided, almost without exception, according to paternal preference. Children were viewed as property of the father, who had a legal obligation to protect, support and educate them. He had a legal right to use them as laborers or sell them off as slaves if he chose to do so (Kelly). The court system, such as it was, had the biased view that mothers, seeking a divorce, had almost no rights when it came to their children. This paternal preference view of custodial law was the foremost view into the early to mid-nineteenth century and was used in court decisions until as late as 1889 (Mitchell, 1991).
Then, in the mid-nineteenth century court rulings started becoming more maternal based. This change in attitude can be directly attributed to the appearance of the tender years doctrine. This doctrine is the notion that mothers have superior, natural nurturing abilities and a biological connection to their infants (by breast-feeding, for example) (Artis, 2004). Basically the doctrine stated that it was unfair to the child to separate the mother and child during the tender years. Children of tender years were originally considered to be six years old or younger (Artis, 2004). From its first appearance in the U.S. in an 1830 Maryland court decision (Ewald), until late into the twentieth century, the tender years doctrine was the most widely used device in custodial disputes.
Though the original intention of the law was for it to be used only for children of tender years it soon became the norm for it to be used for children of all ages. It became so strictly adhered to in all cases that the mother had to be found completely unfit for the father to gain custodial rights to his children (Leving, 1997, p.28). The tender years doctrine, though originally intended as a device to equalize custodial disputes (Ewald), had completely given the advantage to the mother. The tender years doctrine was a strongly adhered-to belief in the courts system and was officially on the books in some states until as recently as the early 1980s (Mitchell, 1991).
Ironically what brought an end to the tender years doctrine was the convergence of civil rights and gender equity movements of the 1960s and 1970s (which included efforts of the women rights movement), (Leving, 1997, p.28). It seemed that neither gender could ask for more rights than the other, they could simply ask for equality. In the 1973 ruling in Watts v. Watts (Smith, 2003) a New York court noted: Apart from the question of legality, the tender years presumption should be discarded because it is based on outdated social stereotypes rather than a rational and up to date consideration of the welfare of the children involved. The simple fact of being a mother does not, by itself, indicate a capacity or willingness to render a quality of care different than that which a father can provide, (Leving, 1997, p.28). This ruling started a landslide of rulings abolishing the tender years doctrine throughout the United States.
Recent custodial law is an odd mixture of up-to-date equality laws and outdated judicial beliefs. As Jeffery M. Leving states in his book, Fathers Rights:
Since most states have outlawed gender bias in custody cases, eloquent essays on the celestial nature of motherhood no longer clutter family court transcripts. That doesnt mean, however, that pro-female bias has been eliminated . . . The belief that women are blessed with a maternal instinct is still widely held and rarely questioneddespite the fact that no scientist has ever been able to confirm its existence. (p. 29)
Even though according to standing judicial law fathers are to be considered equal to mothers as parents, it is obvious that they are still discriminated against.
In a recent online interaction, at divorcecentral.com, a woman posting under the name of Terri said that her childs father and she were in a custody dispute. He wanted shared custody and she wanted sole custody. She stated that her son was three years old and had certain (unspecified) difficulties. She also said that she and her sons father had been to see a therapist and that the therapist recommended that he live in one home with a frequent visitation schedule. The father apparently did not agree with this assessment and was seeking a lawyers opinion. She stated that the father had paid little to no attention to her son since he was born and that she felt that he was using the child as a manipulative tool. She then asked for any advice that anyone could give her about custodial law and what type of lawyer she should look for.
After reading Terris request for advice a person who posted under the name of Lisa had this advice for her:
It is extremely unlikely that at this age, especially if your son is having problems (unspecified), that a judge - based on evidence presented - would grant a shared residential custody arrangement. So, you need to get your evidence: If your son is having emotional problems, you need to get statements and reports from his therapist. If he has no therapist, you need to get him with one ASAP. Contact a very good family law specialist in your area to assist you with this. On your side also is the Tender Years Doctrine which most states still consult regarding shared custody arrangements. (DivorceCentral.com)
All the advice Lisa gave Terri seems to be good solid advice and probably can be used in court to help her receive sole custody of her son. Assuming that she is stating the whole truth I can see no reason that a judge would give the father shared custody without a long-term show of interest from the father. What appears to be incorrect advice and shows that there is still a strong bias towards mothers is that Lisa told Terri to use an out dated and sexually-biased judicial doctrine to obtain custody of her son. It is unfair to all parties involved that this advice was given. Given that a judge would still actually consider the tender years doctrine and use it as a valid piece of information, it would be grounds for appeal. Also, it would be unfair to the father and the son if the tender years doctrine were to be applied. It would bias the judge towards the mother before an honest assessment of what is best for the child can be obtained, even if the assessment ruled for the mother.
A recent Stanford study of 1000 randomly-selected divorced couples found that mothers are still given custody four times as often as fathers, (Sacks, 2001). Another recent survey of divorce-custody decrees in Arlington County, VA, found that during one eighteen-month-period no father was given sole custody of his children without the mothers permission, (Sacks, 2001). According to the Division of Child Support Enforcement, almost 95 percent of custody cases in Virginia were won by mothers, (Sacks, 2001). Also, according to the 2000 Census Bureau report, mothers constitute 85 percent of single custodial parents, (Sacks, 2001). It is unrealistic to think that 80 to 95 percent of fathers are so unfit as parents that they could not obtain joint custody if not sole custody of their children. Given this information it is impossible to think that anything other than complete judicial bias towards mothers manipulated these findings.
The children of divorced or unmarried couples have long suffered because of gender bias, one way or the other, in the court systems. Mothers and fathers have used their children as pawns in their emotional and financial games These proceedings often force one parent or the other to be physically and emotionally removed from their childrens lives. According to various laws and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (The Equal Protection Clause) both parents should have an equal opportunity to prove in court that they have the best interests of their children in mind. Even though family law has made big strides toward gender equality, it seems it still has steps to take to rid itself of a bias towards mothers.
References
Artis, J.E. (2004). Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges' Accounts of the Tender Years Doctrine. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3757/is_200412/ai_n9471546#continue
DivorceCentral.com. Information retrieved October 27, 2005, from
http://www.divorcecentral.com/forums/legalA/messages/4155.html
Ewald, K.M. (n.d.). Fatherless in America. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from
http://eport2.cgc.maricopa.edu/published/k/ew/kewald47/collection/2/1/upload.htm
Kelly, J.B. (n.d.). The Determination of Child Custody in the USA. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from
http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Child%20Custody%20in%20the%20USA%20(Page%201%20of%205).htm
Leving, J.M. (1997). Fathers Rights. New York: BasicBooks.
Mitchell, A.P. (1991). Hypocrisy of Equality in a Family Law Context. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from http://www.dadsnow.org/essay/MITCHEL2.HTM
Sacks, G. (2001). Fathers Bear the Brunt of Gender Bias in Family Courts. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Sacks/fatherbias.htm
Smith, W.C. (2003). Dads Want Their Day. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from
http://www.mensconfraternity.org.au/menswebpage47.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am so fucking horny right now i could... well i can't think of a way to describe exactly how horny I but trust me. can anyone help me out with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
saw this in another journal thought i'd throw it up.
Let's see if any of you even know me at all. Pick ONE from each pair that you think describes me the best & leave it in the comments. Then copy this and post it in your own journal to see how your friends view you.
* dominant or submissive
* logical or intuitive
* social or loner
* kinky or vanilla
* cute or sophisticated
* kitten or puppy
* warm flannel sheets or sleek satin
* leader or follower
* quiet or talkative
* spontaneous or planned
* teddy bear or porcelain doll
* hiking or window shopping
* tequila or vodka
* top or bottom
* barefoot or shoes
* jeans or petticoats
* tender or rough
* aware or dreamy
* nerd or geek
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUSTODIAL DISPUTES:
Is There a Judicial Gender Bias?
Outline
Thesis Sentence: The family court systems of the United States have a gender bias.
I. Introduction
A. Children are victims
B. Family courts
C. Social influence
II. Custodial Law History
A. Paternal preference
B. Tender years doctrine
1. Definition
2. Expansion
C. Equal rights
III. Recent judicial bias
A. Discrimination against fathers
1. Terris case
2. Lisas advice
3. Critique of advice
B. Statistics
IV. Conclusion
Essay
Children have long been the innocent victims of parental arguments and separations and very often they are forced to endure long and painful court battles. These court cases are, theoretically, for finding a situation in which the child is best suited to be raised. When a case has finally concluded children are subjected to what a judge decides is in their best interests according to their interpretation of legal precedent and doctrines. What should be paramount in these cases is every parents right to have a positive role in their childrens lives and their childrens right to live in a situation that is truly in their best interests. It is necessary to believe though, that despite the influence of certain long-overruled, but still-used laws, the judiciary system tries to do its best to rule in the best interests of the children that come into it and not because of a gender bias.
The court system of the United States was created to dispense justice according to the laws on the books and the current social climate. The history of the family court system should be no different. But it is. The family courts have a long and unjust history, filled with gender bias and discrimination. It has been fraught with injustices that have destroyed parents relationships with their children.
As far back as the beginning of United States history, custody cases were decided, almost without exception, according to paternal preference. Children were viewed as property of the father, who had a legal obligation to protect, support and educate them. He had a legal right to use them as laborers or sell them off as slaves if he chose to do so (Kelly). The court system, such as it was, had the biased view that mothers, seeking a divorce, had almost no rights when it came to their children. This paternal preference view of custodial law was the foremost view into the early to mid-nineteenth century and was used in court decisions until as late as 1889 (Mitchell, 1991).
Then, in the mid-nineteenth century court rulings started becoming more maternal based. This change in attitude can be directly attributed to the appearance of the tender years doctrine. This doctrine is the notion that mothers have superior, natural nurturing abilities and a biological connection to their infants (by breast-feeding, for example) (Artis, 2004). Basically the doctrine stated that it was unfair to the child to separate the mother and child during the tender years. Children of tender years were originally considered to be six years old or younger (Artis, 2004). From its first appearance in the U.S. in an 1830 Maryland court decision (Ewald), until late into the twentieth century, the tender years doctrine was the most widely used device in custodial disputes.
Though the original intention of the law was for it to be used only for children of tender years it soon became the norm for it to be used for children of all ages. It became so strictly adhered to in all cases that the mother had to be found completely unfit for the father to gain custodial rights to his children (Leving, 1997, p.28). The tender years doctrine, though originally intended as a device to equalize custodial disputes (Ewald), had completely given the advantage to the mother. The tender years doctrine was a strongly adhered-to belief in the courts system and was officially on the books in some states until as recently as the early 1980s (Mitchell, 1991).
Ironically what brought an end to the tender years doctrine was the convergence of civil rights and gender equity movements of the 1960s and 1970s (which included efforts of the women rights movement), (Leving, 1997, p.28). It seemed that neither gender could ask for more rights than the other, they could simply ask for equality. In the 1973 ruling in Watts v. Watts (Smith, 2003) a New York court noted: Apart from the question of legality, the tender years presumption should be discarded because it is based on outdated social stereotypes rather than a rational and up to date consideration of the welfare of the children involved. The simple fact of being a mother does not, by itself, indicate a capacity or willingness to render a quality of care different than that which a father can provide, (Leving, 1997, p.28). This ruling started a landslide of rulings abolishing the tender years doctrine throughout the United States.
Recent custodial law is an odd mixture of up-to-date equality laws and outdated judicial beliefs. As Jeffery M. Leving states in his book, Fathers Rights:
Since most states have outlawed gender bias in custody cases, eloquent essays on the celestial nature of motherhood no longer clutter family court transcripts. That doesnt mean, however, that pro-female bias has been eliminated . . . The belief that women are blessed with a maternal instinct is still widely held and rarely questioneddespite the fact that no scientist has ever been able to confirm its existence. (p. 29)
Even though according to standing judicial law fathers are to be considered equal to mothers as parents, it is obvious that they are still discriminated against.
In a recent online interaction, at divorcecentral.com, a woman posting under the name of Terri said that her childs father and she were in a custody dispute. He wanted shared custody and she wanted sole custody. She stated that her son was three years old and had certain (unspecified) difficulties. She also said that she and her sons father had been to see a therapist and that the therapist recommended that he live in one home with a frequent visitation schedule. The father apparently did not agree with this assessment and was seeking a lawyers opinion. She stated that the father had paid little to no attention to her son since he was born and that she felt that he was using the child as a manipulative tool. She then asked for any advice that anyone could give her about custodial law and what type of lawyer she should look for.
After reading Terris request for advice a person who posted under the name of Lisa had this advice for her:
It is extremely unlikely that at this age, especially if your son is having problems (unspecified), that a judge - based on evidence presented - would grant a shared residential custody arrangement. So, you need to get your evidence: If your son is having emotional problems, you need to get statements and reports from his therapist. If he has no therapist, you need to get him with one ASAP. Contact a very good family law specialist in your area to assist you with this. On your side also is the Tender Years Doctrine which most states still consult regarding shared custody arrangements. (DivorceCentral.com)
All the advice Lisa gave Terri seems to be good solid advice and probably can be used in court to help her receive sole custody of her son. Assuming that she is stating the whole truth I can see no reason that a judge would give the father shared custody without a long-term show of interest from the father. What appears to be incorrect advice and shows that there is still a strong bias towards mothers is that Lisa told Terri to use an out dated and sexually-biased judicial doctrine to obtain custody of her son. It is unfair to all parties involved that this advice was given. Given that a judge would still actually consider the tender years doctrine and use it as a valid piece of information, it would be grounds for appeal. Also, it would be unfair to the father and the son if the tender years doctrine were to be applied. It would bias the judge towards the mother before an honest assessment of what is best for the child can be obtained, even if the assessment ruled for the mother.
A recent Stanford study of 1000 randomly-selected divorced couples found that mothers are still given custody four times as often as fathers, (Sacks, 2001). Another recent survey of divorce-custody decrees in Arlington County, VA, found that during one eighteen-month-period no father was given sole custody of his children without the mothers permission, (Sacks, 2001). According to the Division of Child Support Enforcement, almost 95 percent of custody cases in Virginia were won by mothers, (Sacks, 2001). Also, according to the 2000 Census Bureau report, mothers constitute 85 percent of single custodial parents, (Sacks, 2001). It is unrealistic to think that 80 to 95 percent of fathers are so unfit as parents that they could not obtain joint custody if not sole custody of their children. Given this information it is impossible to think that anything other than complete judicial bias towards mothers manipulated these findings.
The children of divorced or unmarried couples have long suffered because of gender bias, one way or the other, in the court systems. Mothers and fathers have used their children as pawns in their emotional and financial games These proceedings often force one parent or the other to be physically and emotionally removed from their childrens lives. According to various laws and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (The Equal Protection Clause) both parents should have an equal opportunity to prove in court that they have the best interests of their children in mind. Even though family law has made big strides toward gender equality, it seems it still has steps to take to rid itself of a bias towards mothers.
References
Artis, J.E. (2004). Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges' Accounts of the Tender Years Doctrine. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3757/is_200412/ai_n9471546#continue
DivorceCentral.com. Information retrieved October 27, 2005, from
http://www.divorcecentral.com/forums/legalA/messages/4155.html
Ewald, K.M. (n.d.). Fatherless in America. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from
http://eport2.cgc.maricopa.edu/published/k/ew/kewald47/collection/2/1/upload.htm
Kelly, J.B. (n.d.). The Determination of Child Custody in the USA. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from
http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Child%20Custody%20in%20the%20USA%20(Page%201%20of%205).htm
Leving, J.M. (1997). Fathers Rights. New York: BasicBooks.
Mitchell, A.P. (1991). Hypocrisy of Equality in a Family Law Context. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from http://www.dadsnow.org/essay/MITCHEL2.HTM
Sacks, G. (2001). Fathers Bear the Brunt of Gender Bias in Family Courts. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Sacks/fatherbias.htm
Smith, W.C. (2003). Dads Want Their Day. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from
http://www.mensconfraternity.org.au/menswebpage47.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the Journal: "You will do what I say, when I say. Back to the front."
VIEW 12 of 12 COMMENTS
It was really crowded. The hall is even bigger than the Avalon (where they do the St. Patrick's shows) and it was still wall to wall.
Despite that I still got to give Ken Casey copies of the pictures of me & him at Fenway. (in my pics folder) It's cool that he can still stop and talk to the fans.
I don't know that we'd be going to the NOFX show, but you should ask me again closer to the date. My brain is going 18 different directions right now...
Thank you