Why are Canadian feminists against shared parenting?

I thought feminists were interested in equality.





http://www.nawl.ca/ns/en/index.htmlWhy are Canadian feminists against shared parenting?
';In fact, as long as women remain the primary caregivers of children,women’s equality is in the best interests of children, and law reform can and must simultaneously take into account and promote both the best interests of children and the equality interests of women. ';





This is the kind of obtuse logic that feminists use to justify discrimination against dads. When someone figures out what it means let me know. It will still be discrimination but feminists have only one interest, and it is not the best interest of children. It is economic entitlements. They agree they are weaker, less able to support themselves, less able to make their way in the world, less able to compete for pretty much anything, including jobs, than men, and, of course, they believe with the fervency of religious dogma men are the patriarchy with a colossal thumb over them.





It is absurd to think they could ever be equal under the circumstances without the nanny state acting as their new patriarch and protector. These feminists with a victim orientation are the current wave and are a very vocal minority. Real women do not subscribe to this form of crutchology but lawmakers and the MSM have bought into the victimology hook, line and sinker.Why are Canadian feminists against shared parenting?
I like equality and so do feminists. Don't you? Sounds like you're trying to make a very complicated issue into a simplistic good/bad question, how nice. Do you think all couples should have shared parenting too? Regardless of the fitness of the parents involved? Oh, that's right, this isn't about children, it's about the rights of men. Anti-fems don't really care about children, I guess, the interests of men are more important, then? As long as men have their rights, the children don't matter. Lovely. And here I thought women were suppose to be evaluated for their fitness too.
';been exposed to child abusing parents whom they should have been protected from instead.';- Miss Schlonkey





How easy it is to make statements like this while ignoring that even more children are left with abusive mothers. I wonder why abusive mother never get pointed out.





Shared parenting in more cases than not give these children time away from their abusers as well. So the fail point that a few children fall through the gaps and wind up spending time with an abusive parent is a very weak argument.





And feminists detest shared parenting because they believe the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. And they do not want to lose that power.





They make claims that fathers only want shared parenting to avoid paying child support which is also a moot point since the father would be financially responsible for the child while he has the child. But on the other hand if shared parenting is allowed then women lose access to child support from the father.





So really which parent is thinking about the kids and which is thinking about the money?





The fathers financial responsibility does not change with shared parenting it merely changes to whom the money goes to.





So now the abuse argument is shot down and the financial argument is in flames too. Then the only thing left is to decide if children do better with two active parents or if they do better with one parent with all of the authority and one who is merely a visitor.





Edit:Annie.





Without a comprehensive gender equality analysis and strategy, any legislation on custody and access will promote women’s continued inequality. It will not enable women to act in their own best interests or in


the best interests of their children in matters of custody and access; interests that are inextricably linked.





So in the current family law system where fathers cannot act in their own best interests or in the best interests of their children in matters of custody and access. Then you must support shared parenting since men are treated less than equal in this area of law and equality is necassary for every one to be best served.
Feminism was originally about equality, but the modern version is much more about giving women special rights. The real problem is that women are encouraged to make choices based on selfish wishes and needs, not the needs of their family or even children.





Edit


';it's about the best interests of children';


We wish!


';On a BBC documentary shown in May 2009, Rosie Boycott (founder of the feminist magazine Spare Rib) admitted that she and other feminists had failed to think through the effect that feminism would have on children http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00…





On the same documentary, child development expert Prof Jay Belsky discusses years of research evidence leading to the conclusion that childcare makes children more aggressive and disobedient in the short and longer term (Belsky et al, 2007)';.





Feminism has openly waged war against the traditional family and created huge numbers of broken homes and single-parent families in the process, so its crazy to say that it puts children first.





Edit


Well said Chevalier. The fact is that in the US mothers beat their children more than fathers (34.6% Vs 26.8%) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/…
This issue goes beyond equality... it's about the best interests of children and greater social implications. Opposition to the general imposition of shared custody arrangements at law is not confined to feminists. It is not only the NAWL (feminists) who take issue with and are criticising this Bill.





Shared custody rulings in Australia have not been widely succesful in meeting the interests of children who have had their domestic and schooling arrangements disrupted, have been exposed to heightened conflict and litigation between hostile parents and, in some unfortunate cases, been exposed to child abusing parents whom they should have been protected from instead.





The courts forcing shared custody arrangements on parents is not always the right solution. Sometimes it can work, and the courts should still be encouraged to pursue it if it's a viable and fair option. But each custudy case still needs to be judged on its individual circumstances for the best interests of the child to be properly considered.





You'll find on page 10 of the Canadian NAWL report which you directed us to, that this is pointed out:


--------------------------------------…





1. Legal presumptions in family law are not appropriate. Although the concept of general rules can seem appealing on first glance, in application, they don’t work and they are not fair. The best interests of children are significantly dependent on the unique circumstances of each child and her or his family. Appropriate decisions about custody and access can only be made by a careful examination of the facts in each individual case.





Furthermore, by 2009, we have had the opportunity to see how poorly presumptions in favour of shared parenting have worked in other jurisdictions. England, Australia and some American states have implemented such regimes, and the reports are not positive. Judges, lawyers, women’s advocates and families report that litigation has


increased, with families returning to court again and again because of confusion over the language of parental responsibility, parental conflict has increased and women have traded their economic rights to ensure appropriate custody outcomes.


--------------------------------------…
Canadian women are not against shared custody as long as their ex's actually take care of their children. Steven Harper$$$$ is a bit like Bush, he pretends to be transparent but he is in fact doing everything he can to make Canada less of a socialist country and more his own petty little empire.





Without a comprehensive gender equality analysis and strategy, any legislation on custody and access will promote women’s continued inequality. It will not enable women to act in their own best interests or in


the best interests of their children in matters of custody and access; interests that are inextricably linked.


In fact, as long as women remain the primary caregivers of children,women’s equality is in the best interests of children, and law reform can


and must simultaneously take into account and promote both the best interests of children and the equality interests of women.





The Divorce Act:


The current Divorce Act last saw significant reform in 1986. The provisions dealing with custody and access are flawed and long overdue for revision.


They present significant challenges and barriers to women with children,especially but not only those who are leaving abusive situations, including:


i. the absence of any spelldown criteria in applying the best interests of the child test;


ii. the maximum contact provision, often referred to as the “friendly parent rule,” contained in Section 16;


iii. the absence of any provisions specifically dealing with violence against women and children


iv. the ban on any consideration of past conduct, unless it can be proven to be directly relevant to the best interests of the children


The Reality of Mothers, Fathers, Children and Families in Canada: Much is made by those who favour equal parenting regimes of the changing role of fathers in Canadian families and of stay at home dads who spend at least as much time with the children as do the mums. Thoseof us who work for women’s equality know such men and hope for continued and meaningful movement towards increased equality for family and home responsibilities between the sexes.


However, law reform must reflect and acknowledge reality and not individual exceptions or hopes for future change. Family law reform must take account of the fact that women continue to hold most of the


responsibility for child rearing and general household management and tasks in most Canadian families, both before and after separation. It must promote women’s equality within the family and in society at large.


“A woman with children is always a mother, whether in the work force or at home with her children. The presence of children affects women’s lives


differently from the way it affects most men, in terms of both her life choices and her life chances.”In the vast majority of cases, women continue to be the primary caregivers for children and do most of the housework.





According to data gathered in


the 2005 General Social Survey, women spend 4.3 hours per day compared to men’s 2.5 on unpaid housework and child care. This at a time when more and more women, especially those with young children are employed outside the home: by 2004, 65% of women with children under the age of 3 were working, a figure which is more than double the employment rate for women in this category just 30 years before.


Women miss more time from work because of family responsibilities: in an average week in 2004, 5% of women and only 2% of men missed work


time due to family responsibilities. Overall that year, women missed 10 days of work and men just 1.5 to take care of family responsibilities.


The inequality and disadvantaging of women in the labour market (women continue to earn just 73 cents for every dollar earned by men), in tandem


with the heavy load of unpaid housework and caring for children and other family members, places women in a situation of social and economic inequality compared with their husbands, and increases their dependency.





The economic dependency of women in turn exacerbates their vulnerability to the power and control that may be exercised by a spouse after divorce, and their vulnerability to the volatility and violence exhibited


by former spouses.





Women’s economic vulnerability only increases after separation. Women who are single parents of children under 18 years of age live below the poverty line at a rate more than double that for single parent fathers: 47% compared to 20%11.Before considering Bill C-422, it is important to look at the reality of custody and access determinations under existing legislation. In 44% of custody cases that go to court, the outcome is an order for joint custody,which is more than double the number from the mid1990s and four times the figure when compared to the late 1980s. The rate at which women are awarded sole custody in cases that go to court has fallen from more than 70% to just 44% from the late 1980s to 2003.


In other words, even without legislation spelling out a mandatory shared parenting, courts are making such determinations in nearly half the cases that come before them.
I'm not Canadian and I don't really describe myself as a feminist except that I believe in rights for weaker minorities. I believe women are not equal to men, therefore I do not believe in equality. I think that a couple where both parents have heavy serious jobs is not good. One person should take primary responsibility for child raising. It usually works better.
You are very naive if you thought that.





Feminism has always been lesbian-driven, and as you know, some lesbians hate and resent men, so it is in Feminism's best interest to keep children away from men in order to indoctrinate them into their brave, new world of lesbian supremacy.
They are against an automatic granting of a shared status. They want each case to be viewed independently. In many cases its a great thing in others its the worst thing for the child.
We don't want those evil males to have any power.





Men having joint custody means they get to have a say on how their children are brought up. We can't have that!





Men just need to pay up and shut up.
';Equality'; for women only, even if it means at the expense of others. Equality for men is obviously a threat to feminists..
Its simple.





Feminists have lost sight of what is really important.


Not to mention they really are one big contradiction after another.
Now that feminists have equality, they want to be the man. It's sad...so sad...
Because feminists are confused at what the word means.





Happens when they leave the kitchen. (Kidding)
Well said Julz.