V.S.
Earlier you mentioned skeptics. You know what makes me skeptical? When someone tells me they don’t have the numbers, but continues to appeal to them (appeals to the numbers they don’t have).
There’s no specific numbers, unfortunately. Hopefully, an organization with the resources will research it, and through multiple randomly-gathered studies. These are the best that I have so far.
I can pull up the articles that stated that 70 to 80% of MRAs identify as atheist, if you would like.
If you feel the desire to post data: perhaps post the data for the number you appealed to?
That is nice, but what are the numbers for atheists who support women’s rights or feminism? You referenced numbers for a comparison. You can not compare with just one set of numbers.
No, I don’t really have specific numbers on atheists who support women’s rights or feminism, sadly. I know that I cannot compare just one set of numbers. Perhaps what could help is that many atheists on Friendly Atheist are either feminist or pro-feminist, and there is also other sites like that.
You keep telling us you don’t have the numbers; then keep referring to numbers that you imply that you have.
Is that a typo? I’m so confused I can’t tell. It’s a red flag, imo.
Not intended to be hard on you Drew, but to point out that you must be able to support an assertion.
Skeptics must have good reason to believe or accept anything. An unsupported assertion is not good reason.
What I mean is that I don’t have specific numbers that can 100% verify something, but rather that I have numbers that can help to guess.
No, it’s not a typo. Many on friendly identify as feminist, or they don’t identify as feminist but instead are merely supportive of it.
Could you please clarify what you want specifically? I read back on my quote, and I’m still a little confused.
I’ve only known one bloke who advocated men’s rights. It was his opinion that the law is skewed in favour of women, to the disadvantage of men.
He was a lawyer and generally brilliant man. He had also left two marriages. Each time with toddlers.
Our family court puts the needs of any children first and has teeth. The rule of thumb is that the non custodial parent pays 40% of their income as child support for one child. Obviously a sliding scale with multiple children.
Now I’m not saying his anger and bitterness towards the Family Court and women was caused by his perception of injustice. Could be a coincidence for all I know.
My attitude was that his behaviour was appalling and no fucks were given. When it came up I would change the topic.
It is my experience (in the USA) that any experience in family court is going to turn out badly for everyone involved. A necessary evil.
Hopefully it is better there than it is here locally:
Probably not. although I’m not convinced the legal systems are necessarily the problem. (apart from Piranha divorce lawyers who pour petrol on fire)
From Observation of friends going though divorces, the issue is that each partner can be very hurt angry and bitter towards the other. So much so that children can get caught in the middle. As far as I can tell, children can be severely damaged by a divorce. I guess it’s a matter of degree, perhaps depending on their age and on how dysfunctional the family.
As far as I can tell, the Australian family court really does put the needs of any children first and unapologetically.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))0)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
We had no children by choice. She left and she got a lawyer. I did not. She earned slightly more than I and everything was in joint names. The divorce cost me $0.00. Even so, not an experience I would wish on my worst enemy.
You stated there was a gap.
Then when pressed on supplying these “numbers”, your response was
Opinions are just opinions, trends are also subjective. But when one states “there are numbers”, then we are dealing with hard facts, and those numbers must be provided to support the assertion.
Like I said Drew, I bear no ill will. I want you to do well, learn, and feel comfortable in here. But in this band of skeptics, one needs to have their evidence ready to support any assertion. You would have been better served by stating “my opinion is…” instead of stating “the numbers”.
1 Like
My first post too! I never noticed a divide
2 Likes
Welcome to Atheist Republic Astrid. I hope you find this a place you can enjoy and feel comfortable and not threatened.
I agree, I know many atheists embrace many human (and animal) rights, but I never noticed any strong feminism or men’s rights activist. In fact, when I first encountered “MRA” in this post, I had to Google it to learn what the heck it was.
I try not to make those distinctions, I don’t like grouping people.
1 Like
The court, however, often assumes that having only a mother (or mostly mother) is in the best interests of the child, even when there is contrary evidence otherwise. Furthermore, there is much research showing that letting a father be involved is better for the children. Now, to clear up something, I will just also point out that two-parent families (male-female, male-male, female-female) are better and function better than one-parent families, so when I use fathers specifically, it is because many single-mothers, a vast majority, are straight.
Also, there is bias against men. A reanalysis of a study found that when mother request sole custody, they get it 65% more often than fathers who request sole custody.
Another thing - I heard about a situation in which a father had to settle it out of court because he had spent so much money trying to fight for his kids, that he couldn’t really spend more. That’s why he settled it out of court. This may be what’s happening in the vast majority of cases in which it is settled out of court.
That video was horrible to watch. Just because someone claimed that they were se.xually assaulted doesn’t mean you arrest them. I expect men to be given a fair trial when they’ve been accused (or accuse), so I expect women to be given a fair trials when they’ve accused (or been accused). A society cannot be equal if people are being arrested without evidence when they are accused or accuse.
Do you mean that you want me to pull up the articles that stated those numbers?
Oh, I think I see what you mean. I guess I’m being confusing.
Here’s what I mean:
While there are not any specific numbers that point to this, there are other numbers that can help us to guess. The reason I say that the 70 to 80% number isn’t fully foolproof is because there are some problems with the study. A randomly gathered population study, rather than one just off of r/MensRights would be better to use than those other ones, but they are a start.
So you want specific, well-researched numbers? Perhaps I can bother some atheist organizations to help me research that. Then at least I can have specific numbers to use.
Well, I suppose it’s built off of both opinion and some numbers. I wish there was a specific number I could use that would state how many feminists were atheists, because I could base it off of the number that around 20% of the US (female?) population was feminist, and could get a closer number then?
Ah. Welcome aboard. Maybe it’s the places I’ve been that have given me this noticeable divide?
Some people don’t know what that is either, I’ve noticed that only very recently have people actually started to know what an MRA is.
That wasn’t my point, but okay.
Oh for fucks sake!!! Jesus fuckin’Christ! Do YOU personally have any experience being married or having kids?
Culturally, religious people are dominant in our society. Western culture is predominately Christian. Do you know anything of their teachings? A woman is the “compliment” to a man. The man is the head over the woman, as Christ is over HIM. This is reflected pretty much everywhere - from jobs, pay, “roles” (stay-at-home-moms to working moms)…so it’s reflected in the courts too. You get a male who has mostly worked and she’s raised the kids, so yes, that mostly continues after divorce. There are lots of parts in this and both mates can use “power plays” against the other - money vs access to kids.
A parent can be a good parent regardless of finances, two or single households, number of kids, etc. They can be a good parent regardless of mental or physical issues (affecting them or the children). AND likewise they can be shitty given the best of “circumstances”.
God - human interactions are not clear cut, one above the other, etc.