Divorced father Representative Tom Pischke (R-25/Dell Rapids) is rallying the angry dad caucus again. The ten bills he is prime-sponsoring include three bills on child custody and child support for knuckleheads like him who couldn’t keep his marriage together.
House Bill 1104 would make joint physical custody the default setting for cases where joint legal custody is awarded. A parent wanting something other than equal time-sharing would have the burden of proving to the judge that joint physical custody would not be in the best interest of the child.
Equality sounds reasonable, and if kids have divorced parents who can still put their personal differences aside and focus on the welfare of their children the way they promised, equal time-sharing may be healthy. But for Pischke’s angry dad caucus, joint physical custody may just be a sneaky way to lower their child support payments:
BUT joint physical custody is being used wrongly to lower child support payments. In my home state, Virginia, for example, child support schedules define joint physical custody as having 90 overnights per year with your child (for the purpose of calculating reduced child support payments) [Robert E. Emry, “Joint Physical Custody,” Psychology Today: Divorced with Children, 2009.05.18].
House Bill 1105 is more clearly about money. Here Rep. Pischke proposes allowing judges to order a custodial parent to release a child tax credit claim to the non-custodial parent. HB 1105 would ex post facto modify previous child support orders.
House Bill 1106 would make it easier for Pischke and other angry dads to lower their child support payment. Current law allows child support payers to seek a “deviation” from the child support schedule if, among other possibilities, “the total amount of the child support obligation, including any adjustments for health insurance and child care costs, exceeds fifty percent of the obligor’s [that’s the person paying] monthly net income.” HB 1106 would drop that hardship threshold to forty percent.
HB 1105 is in House Judiciary this morning; HB 1106 goes to the same committee next Wednesday. HB 1104 awaits scheduling. All three of Pishcke’s angry poppy bills warrant scrutiny. We can only hope (?) they will get C.J. Abernathey to drive down to testify about the kidnapping of his daughter and the need to burn a flag to get her back.
What are you some sort of man hater? What about knucklehead women who can’t keep their marriages together? I watched a very provocative documentary called “The Red Pill” per imdb chronicles filmmaker Cassie Jaye’s journey following the mysterious and polarizing Men’s Rights Movement. It explores today’s gender war and asks the question “what is the future of gender equality?”
She ended up seeing their side to the story, that men don’t have equal rights to their children, that women are also often abusers, and that the law and the courts often place an unfair burden on men. She’s no longer a feminist. If you believe in equality why would you just assume men are bad but women good??? Not always Man Hater!!!
“The ten bills he is prime-sponsoring include three bills on child custody and child support for knuckleheads like him who couldn’t keep his marriage together.”
No fan of the guy, but this is an incredibly dickheaded thing to say.
happy’s rant misses the point. Child support is not intended to punish or reward either parent. It is intended to help provide financial security for the child, whether by helping fund direct purchases such as medical care, clothes or other specific needs or wants of the child. It also in intended to help pay for indirect expenses such as rent, utilities, groceries, and other costs of maintaining a safe and happy household for children. Hence, a mother’s perceived wrongdoing is really irrelevant, just as a father’s questionable behavior is likewise irrelevant to child support calculations.
In contrast to child support cases, it is a bit different in child custody cases – a parent’s misbehavior becomes relevent if it involves domestic violence that might show a danger to the child, or other factors indicating questionable fitness, whether by mother or father. Otherwise, parental fault remains irrelevant in deciding the best interests of a child.
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/south-dakota-law/south-dakota-child-custody-laws.html
As for this bill, it seems unclear how or why creating a presumption in favor of awarding any type of physical custody to either the father or mother is a valid objective of legislation. Although a presumption allocating the burden of proof on any issue can be a useful and equitable tool to guide the court so long as it is based on accepted facts supporting the presumption, it is unclear that there is such factual support for this particular proposal. If there is a factual basis supporting the idea, what is it?
It’s too bad courts have to be involved. I don’t know why parents can’t put kids first. I think joint legal and physical custody is how it should be, but it only works if the parents drop their own personal issues and work it out.
The South Dakota Legislature has become dominated by the “wackies.” Like many of the trolls who invade this blog, their interest is only in venting the warps from their small-mindedness, not in doing what is most beneficial to the state–in this case to children of broken homes. South Dakota has earned a reputation for its corrupt crony government. Now it’s working on the rule by malice.
That documentary is worth watching to see the other side it is free on the Roku channel. Roku has a channel besides being a device everything is free which is good for a day like today.
HB 1104 has nothing to do with child support and this isn’t Virginia.
Cory is being sexist again since women also pay child support.
There should be a law mandating accounting for child support along with receipts.
happy is right about one thing – Roku has an excellent channel with informative programs and entertaining movies (It is also my favorite streaming device).
As for his comment observing Cassie Jaye’s documentary conclusions “that men don’t have equal rights to their children, that women are also often abusers, and that the law and the courts often place an unfair burden on men,” and that somehow feminism is responsible, that is worth considering in SD.
(1) “that men don’t have equal rights to their children” –
As noted above, it appears that SD laws, if followed, assure men have equal rights to their children. Can happy identify any contrary SD laws that deny men such equal rights?
(2) “that women are also often abusers” –
It is true that women abuse children, but is there something in SD law that ignores or permits such abuse?
(3) “that the law . . . often place[s] an unfair burden on men” – see number (1) – what SD “law” or laws does this?
(4) “that the . . . the courts often place an unfair burden on men” –
Certainly some of SD circuit court judges make incorrect decisions, contrary to SD statutes and case law, in child custody cases (relative to both dads’ and moms’ rights). Is there any evidence that this occurs “often” in SD, or evidence that SD Supreme Court “often” issues custody decisions that place an unfair burden on men? Or do Circuit Court Judges get it right in most cases and enforce SD laws designed for equal treatment of each parent; and when they don’t the SD Supreme Court corrects the mistake?
(5) – feminism is responsible for men’s inequality
I have never seen a feminism position advocating that a child’s best interest be subservient to female rights, nor that a female abuser should be given custodial preference of a non-abusive male, nor that men ought to be treated worse than women in child support or custody cases. Have I missed something?
Based only on the laws that I am aware of in SD, and considerable reading of the majority of SD Supreme Court custody rulings, I would conclude that happy’s reliance on Jaye’s conclusions may be inapplicable to SD law and the decisons of our Circuit Court judges and Supreme Court justices. Some other states maybe, and I could be wrong about SD, thus am open to any contrary evidence that might support the conclusions listed by happy.
@BCB – wow … well presented
Then just watch the movie BCB obviously it’s not specific to South Dakota you shouldn’t be driving your car today anyway it’s hard on the battery. I’d love to see Deb’s reaction to that documentary. It points out lots of relevant data one being there are almost no shelters for men with children. Most of the support systems have been tailored still with the idea of women being the caregivers. I’m really surprised you’re saying South Dakota laws are already fair. I will tell you I’ve met parents as Donald talks who worked hard to maintain a healthy relationship for the sake of their kids, but I’m also seeing firsthand multiple examples of those with too many resentments and can’t.
The first thing I noticed in the bills is there is nothing about the children, except as objects. I don’t care who pays support or who has physical custody– it better be All About the Children. Absolutely no exceptions.
Pischke wants equal custody? Fine, as long as each parent puts the welfare of the children first. You parents better force yourselves to get along well enough to honor commitments about sharing the children, attending school events, etc, and behave like adults.
Pischke wants tax changes? I’ll leave that up to tax people. He wants to reduce child support payments due to the payer’s hardship. Not if it leads to the children’s hardship.
I know either spouse can be abusive. She threatens his ego, which can be extremely damaging, no jokes here. He threatens her life.
When I managed domestic violence shelters we took the occasional rare call from a male. We didn’t have a place for them in shelter but we rented motel rooms for them and provided the same services as we did for women.
The things that are said in rage to one another are very damaging and take longer to recover from than broken bones and bruises. That’s also true for children. You do more harm when you tell your child she is stupid and you are ashamed of her than if you slapped her across the room. Both are injurious to a child’s heart and soul. Never, ever do them.
It’s also injurious when the CS payer works at lowering the amount. The children know. They hear things. They figure out that the parent is trying to help them less.
You’re a parent! Your children do cost you! There are things you’re going to miss out on! That’s how good parenting works!
I don’t give a damn how parents feel about each other. They are not to ever take it out on the children. Ever.
Sorry that’s so long. I get really passionate about these things being all about 2 angry adults only.
2 angry adults and $ only.
now, bcb, are you really asking for examples of gender-bias laws to prove inequalities? Would you ask somebody the same question when they talk about the “gender pay gap” or other examples of inequality that negatively impact women?
Your position seems to be “The law says people are equal, so what’s all this talk about race and gender inequality!? Prove it with statutes or it didn’t happen!”
I also agree with happy and dicta that this post comes across like radical man-hating feminist propaganda, with obvious contempt for fathers and husbands who are not as good or fortunate as the author. A majority of marriages end in divorce. Cory seems to think men run all marriages because it is up to the men to keep the marriage together.
Between cory’s idea of men being “in control” of marriages, and debbo’s idea that men make babies, what exactly do you folks think women are capable of doing..? Who do you blame for divorce in a gay marriage? I have so many questions!
Excellent, Debbo. Very well said. I can tell you’ve been on the front lines of this issue. As far as what happens to kids who’re told they’re worthless and are constantly criticized and never praised … some end up in prison. Some end up being jerks on liberal blogs.
Nope, Dicta. Accurate. Pischke is a knucklehead who couldn’t keep his marriage together. The three bills discussed here are designed to benefit knuckleheads like him.
Kuncklehead is a rather gentle term, given the circumstances, and given South Dakota’s professed commitment to the sanctity of marriage.
There is no such thing as men’s inequality. That is the false cry of insecure men sad to see their control and privilege give way to equal rights and concern for someone other than themselves.
Yes, women pay child support to custodial fathers just as men pay child support to custodial moms.
But it’s not sexist to point out that “In 2011, America’s custodial fathers were owed a total of $1.7 billion and custodial mothers were owed $12.1 billion (keep in mind, moms who are owed child support outnumber dads almost 9 to 1).”
There are many more deadbeat dads than deadbeat moms. But all parents who refuse to support their children are deadbeats.
More from the FiveThirtyEight 2015 article:
“The average household income of a dad who doesn’t get the child support money he’s due is $51,791. For moms, that figure is $26,231.“
Debbo you’re spot on….1104 should be about the kids but rather pit the parents against each other.
As a survivor of physical, emotional and financial abuse all 1104 does is opens the door for the abuse to continue. If a spouse is abusive to the other spouse it will happen to the children. This law will only pit parent again parent and takes “what’s best for the children” out of the equation. And I know they say “abuse victims won’t fall under this law” and that’s crap because historically domestic abuse is never reported. Domestic violence is one of the most chronically under-reported crimes. Only 25% of all physical assaults, 20% of all rapes, and 50% of all stalking perpetrated against partners are reported to the police. I myself didn’t report the physical abuse because my ex continued to threaten “If you leave…I’ll take the kids away from you”. So I stayed until I finally gained the courage to leave.
Joint legal and physical works when there’s low conflict and no abuse (reported or not). I know many parents with joint physical custody and NOT ONE entered a courtroom to get to that decision. Those who are in court are there for a damn good reason. Don’t rip away the protection of those who need to step in front of a judge to help make a decision in what’s best for the children.
And don’t even start “well those adults should just grow up”. In some cases yes, but from my personal experience the other spouse was/is so narcissistic there was no working with them. Let our good judges have the tools to evaluate each case. All 1104 does is build a blanket “this is the way it should be for all cases” and that’s not right.
Anybody who doesn’t take care of their offspring is garbage, man or woman. Not every male who is divorced couldn’t keep his marriage together.
Here is a great Ted Talk regarding inequality and men’s rights if anybody cares about real equality and not “Fake quality that benefits me more than others” that is way too common these days:
https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY
Read the latest article from the Argus Leader. Of REPORTED domestic violent crimes there’s been an increase of 16% between 2010-2017 in Sioux Falls, that’s not taking into account other communities. Domestic violence is typically minimized until there’s “clear cut, violent behavior”, states Krista Heeren-Graber.
And I’m not trying to turn this post into a domestic violence conversation, but I strongly believe domestic violence and how child custody is handled in the court room typically goes hand in hand. HB 1104 give the abused zero protection and I’m fearful will only allow the percentage of un-reported cases to significantly increase.
https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2019/01/29/south-dakota-domestic-violence-victims-see-flawed-system/2581549002/
Cory that really is highly discriminatory: “There is no such thing as men’s inequality. That is the false cry of insecure men sad to see their control and privilege give way to equal rights and concern for someone other than themselves.”
Ryan’s link to the Ted talk is a good primer, but watching her documentary is very eyeopening. You might be able to watch it from this link unless you have to sign up for Roku (which is free):
https://therokuchannel.roku.com/details/8728d68ab0db54d0be5dbac610e72e89/the-red-pill
Cory – That’s an extraordinary quote. I saved it under the heading MALE PRIVILEGE – WHITE PRIVILEGE – WEALTH PRIVILEGE.
Focus Ryan. The post addresses 3 new bills aimed at changing laws. Hence I addressed our laws. You can complain about the attitudes you perceive making you and happy victims of discrimination and unfair treatment, but unless you can identify some law that you object to your complaint seems a bit meaningless.
HB 1104 seeks to change the law that a judge must follow pertaining to physical custody. Complaints about how men have it so bad in society seem irrelevant to the legal rules a judge must follow in resolving custody dispute.
HB 1105 and 6 address how a judge (or child support referee) calculates child support obligations. Again, your complaints about how mean society or women are to dads seem outside the scope of these proposed statutes unless you can point to some law that needs to be changed because it permits society or women to treat dads unfairly. What is it about current child support laws that strikes you as inapproipriate or unfair to dads?
Referencing “gender pay gap” or other examples of inequality that negatively impact women doesn’t help your position. Just as with child support and custody determinations one must look to existing law to determine what laws need to be amended or adopted to correct the inequities you raise.
You and happy have not addressed whether there is, in fact, some SD law that you believe results in unfair treatment for dads. Instead, you essentially complain about social attitudes of your frequent target – feminists. Such mansplaining simply doesn’t cut it. Without addressing the issues raised in Cory’s post, namely, the whether there is a need for the proposed laws to correct inequities or unfair treatmentof men. General complaints about feminist bogeymen simply doesn’t cut bait.
bcb – must be an off night for you. You normally have great attention to detail, so tonight I won’t hold this baloney against you. I said literally none of the things you suggest I said. I merely asked you if you think inequality only exists when laws are explicitly discriminatory. And mansplaining? Shoot man, you didn’t strike me as the type to use silly catchphrases at all, much less doing so with no basis whatsoever.
“There is no such thing as men’s inequality. That is the false cry of insecure men sad to see their control and privilege give way to equal rights and concern for someone other than themselves.”
Hmm, a very inflammatory and sexist point of view. Certainly, men are domestically abused and raped at far lower numbers than women….but that doesn’t discount their pain/suffering. Yet the media, including this blog, ignore or demean those men looking for equal representation or recognition. Men in our society also live under the stereotype of being the “breadwinner” or “leader” in a marriage, often leading to extra stress, taking more dangerous jobs, etcetera…
Ryan, sorry to disappoint you. If you are you saying that I erred in describing the intent or meaning of your comment, I guess I must have misunderstand the implications of your use of such language as:
-“radical man-hating feminist propaganda”
-“obvious contempt for fathers and husbands”
-“what exactly do you folks think women are capable of doing”
-“Who do you blame for divorce in a gay marriage”
So help out this old mislead detail oriented-off night person – if not mansplaining or an attack on women and feminists, what did your post mean by using these phrases?
And it sounds like perhaps you actually might agree with my original proposition, SD currently doesn’t have laws on the books that discriminate against men in custody and child support matters. Amiright?
M is absolutely right about the role domestic violence often plays in child custody disputes.
Joe is right, as I stated in my first comment on this post, that men are victims of domestic and sexual violence. The fact that it’s rare compared to assaults on women and girls, doesn’t make it less traumatic to the victim.
That issue, the role of domestic violence and sexual assault, does need to be taken into account when deciding custody. Even if the offense is not explicitly violent or the children do not witness it, they know. In my years of shelter work there was not one single child who did not know. They are very sensitive and highly attuned to mom and dad. They absolutely know there is conflict between the parents. The children are victims too.
If one parent is largely responsible, as is usually the case, that parent should not have custody. Statistically that abusive parent is the father by a very large percentage. Therefore he should not have custody and he should pay child support, whatever is necessary so the children are well cared for.
Another statistical fact is that when parents divorce his income goes up dramatically while her’s declines dramatically. I don’t have the numbers at hand, but that’s what happens.
Again and above all, if the children cannot have two healthy parents caring for them, I believe it is the judge’s duty is to do as much as the law allows so they will have the best life possible. I don’t see any focus on the children, really no attention on the children at all, just getting back at her in Pischke’s bills. I hope I’m wrong.
Using the children to hurt the ex-spouse is a rotten, rotten thing to do!
Tonight I watched the film “The Red Pill” that happy recommended. I made a couple of observations as it related to this post about child custody and child support proposed legislation.
On child custody issues the film did not identify any laws from any state that they said discriminated against men. Instead, it related interviews with men who said they had been discriminated against in the courts, and anecdotes about specific cases. For example, they related two instances where a dad said that the mother gave up a child for adoption without telling him and against his wishes.
Without knowing the law of the jurisdiction where this is alleged to have happened I can tell you that it would be unlawful in South Dakota and likely violates the federal Constitution. In SD only a court can order a legal adoption or terminate a man’s parental rights. SD statutes and the Constitution’s 14th Amendment due process clause both require notice to the man and an opportunity to be heard. Absent the man’s consent to the adoption, a finding that the man is an unfit parent would also be required, and actual evidence would have to be in the record to support that finding. Similar rules apply in SD regarding custody and visitation, namely, notice, an opportunity to be heard and a finding supported by admissible evidence that the man is unfit and it is in the child’s best interest is necessary to issue an order denying visitation. Custody depends on the child’s best interest.
The child support issues addressed in the film were a bit thinner and seemed to be based on the claims of only one individual that he was poverty stricken, yet was threatened with losing every thing he had for child support. Such a result would not be permitted by a court under SD law unless the man did a disappearing act and failed to respond to notices of court hearings. There was nary a word about child support depending on the needs and best interests of the child.
The other fascinating aspect of the film involved men offering statistics about how in many ways they were worse off than women. What was left out was acknowledging that men who were actually worse off were made so by policies instituted by other men, not women, yet the film’s characters tended to blame women for their woes.
All and all, in my view, the film was not particularly persuasive in condemning feminism, or establishing that men as a gender were somehow worse off than women, despite the female director’s conversion and rejection of her former feminism. Incidentally, the version I saw was not on the Roku channel. Rather it was on Amazon Prime, which I accessed through the Roku streaming device.
Joe, the only people inflamed by my comment are insecure men whom I could only not inflame by being silent and never pointing out that they are insecure and incorrect.
As m points out, HB 1104 appears to shift protection away from abused spouses and toward abusers. (Oh, look: I made that statement without reference to sex.)
It doesn’t shift protection at all. Abuse needs to be proved in a court of law.
bcb – focus. I said the POST came across as if it were man-hating feminist propaganda. I didn’t say anything about the current law or the suggested revisions to current law. I frankly don’t know the equal or disparate impact that the laws have between husbands and wives because I have fortunately not had to find out.
I said nothing about men being treated unfairly. I said nothing that could in any way be “mansplaining” (even though that word doesn’t even have a real definition, it has an emotion). I did ask people (cory and debbo specifically, who continue to reduce the woman’s role in marriage and reproduction) what they think women are capable of doing, but I asked it to show off the ignorance of the reduction, not to support it.
Cory seemed to condemn divorced husbands for being failures, and suggested that men must have ugly alternate motives when seeking equality where inequality is perceived. I suggested, and I still suggest, that his post comes across exactly as I said. The “who do you blame for a divorce in a gay marriage” is a good question that Cory didn’t answer. If there are two husbands…or two wives…who’s failure is the cause of divorce? Certainly they aren’t immune to divorce, so who is the knucklehead when there isn’t one and only one husband to ignorantly blame?
Your “gotcha” question about laws not discriminating against men is pointless and can easily be applied to almost any perceived discrimination: are there laws on the book that explicitly BENEFIT men? or explicitly discriminate against women? Or other minorities? I don’t think so. Certainly there is discrimination in this country, so maybe it would be silly to think it only exists when codified.
Ryan … By definition, a Man-Hater hates men. By observation, that has nothing to do with you.
Men need to take responsibility when they bring a pack of kids into the world. Pischke could have worn condoms if he feels he pays to much in child support. I understand it can be hard in the heat of the moment but you have to ask yourself if it is worth it.
Women need to take responsibility also. If you complain about child support, don’t have children you can’t afford. Never before in history has there ever been so birth control options available for both men and women.
porter, by definition you are a mollycoddle.
“I understand it can be hard in the heat of the moment…” That’s what she said. Literally.
Seriously, though, well said, Jenny.
So many birth control options
Just trying to break up the boredom in these horrendously cold days! But really men, wrap it up before you take a dip if you really can’t afford a young ‘un. Don’t always depend on women for the birth control.
The documentarian admitted being so confused after hearing the perspective from the men’s movement. There’s only one shelter in the country for men with children clearly there can be insecure women who are incorrect the numbers from NCADV bear this out: “1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men experience severe intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner contact sexual violence, and/or intimate partner stalking with impacts such as injury, fearfulness, post-traumatic stress disorder, use of victim services, contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, etc.”
Regardless of sex abused children grow up to be abusers but more confounding the dynamics between abused and abuser is a dangerous dance there’s always that question of why the abused stay and why they are drawn back to damaging relationships. It’s too easy to point fingers only at men when the policies should be gender neutral so the judge and system look at each specific case.
https://ncadv.org/statistics
Jason…Have you ever brought forth abuse claims into a court of law? By your statement I’m guessing that answer is no. I’m going to reference again the latest Argus Leaders article: https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2019/01/29/south-dakota-domestic-violence-victims-see-flawed-system/2581549002/ Even when you have evidence it’s a very difficult up hill battle. There’s still the stigma that domestic violence is only proven by what you can visually see (the cuts, bruises, broken bones, etc). There’s so many more aspects to domestic violence. It’s very easy for people on the outside of situations to throw out “you should do this or that” but until you have actually lived horror of abuse you have no idea. So many (men or women) don’t have the evidence needed to prove abuse in court as you claim. How do you prove emotional abuse? Short of the abuser admitting “I was emotionally abusive” you can’t. Some are terrified of what the ramifications would be if claims are brought forth. For some they don’t have the financial means to bring forth the abuse claims.
HB 1104, as Debbo states, takes complete focus off the children because some parent is upset. It takes power away from judges to look at each case individually and pits parent against parent. The judges role should always be “what’s best for the children”. Passing this law will only hurt children and hurt anyone trying to leave an abusive situation.
Absolutely it is a common misconception that Men commit most of the abuse. Having come from an abusive family where my Mom was the mentally and physically abusive parent, I can attest to that.
Men abused by women are also far less likely to report it because of the shame.
It is also a common misconception that men commit the far majority of sexual abuse.
If anyone wants to dispute my claim about statistics being far underreported when women are the perpetrators, look at all the female teachers every year that sexually assault their male students.
I would agree that progressives don’t talk about the female abusers as much.
Just to make it clear: my only point was that trashing a dude for not being able to save his marriage is a petty, jerk thing to say. Most marriages end in divorce, and I don’t think it is healthy to shame people for leaving a marriage if it isn’t a healthy one. Righteous indignation at somebody being a jerk is fine, but don’t lose your own humanity in the process. We have to be better than what Cory started this article with.
So it is false that the far majority of abusers are men. Statistics are very underreported in this country when it comes to abuse by women.
This is the real truth, my DFP friends, just look into and research it. You will come away surprised like I was.
I totally agree with you Jenny, in fact I had that in my comment but removed it because I thought I would get bashed and disregarded for saying it. I’m not saying it’s 50/50, some people think so, one of the women in the documentary thinks so, but she said she was exiled for talking about women even being abusers. Society tends to immediately think it’s just men and the feminist movement has the political power.
I expect to get some criticism from some of my DFP comrades, but I stand by my statements. These are facts and I did the research.
Jenny, I’m researching. Your assertion needs to define the terms. Is the assertion about abuse of men, abuse of children, abuse of the elderly, abuse and neglect of men, children or the elderly, sexual abuse, violent abuse and/or sexual neglect. I can find statistics on each category and believe an overall statistic on simply “abuse” is overly general.
Jenny, welcome to the light. It is refreshing to hear a new voice for common sense and equality on this blog.
I’m cool with the criticism, Dicta, and I recognize that some marriages can’t be saved.
I also recognize that Pischke wrecked his marriage with dumb behavior that he could have avoided. I recognize that perhaps the most knuckleheaded thing I could do would be to make bad choices like he did that would lead to the destruction of my marriage and the subjection of my child to a split household.
I further recognize that Pischke’s entire legislative career appears to be geared to ward lowering his child support payments and winning increased custody rights that he couldn’t win on his own merits in court before a judge looking at his actual behavior… and a personal agenda makes a poor basis for legislation. HB 1105 went down yesterday; let’s hope 1104 and 1106 follow.
It appears that Cory knows some inside stuff about Pischke’s behavior in his marriage that we don’t.
If he has an axe to grind because of his personal life is that necessary to discuss, or simply the merits of the legislation (and related issues)? Seems like his family problems and personal choices should be off limits.
happy camper,
I think the personal digs are just icing on the cake, perhaps to garner a feeling of superiority for real men, like Cory, who is not a knucklehead who failed to keep his marriage together.
One would think that an educated debate coach extraordinaire would be able to refrain from personal jabs, but this is his blog; if we don’t like what we hear from his soap box, we can keep scrolling. Why would someone ever want to use the lessons learned from debate in the real world? Much easier to name call and bully; works for Trump!
“Why would someone ever want to use the lessons learned from debate in the real world? Much easier to name call and bully; works for Trump!”
OOOHHHH! Shots fired.
It’s important to remember that legislation can be initiated for highly emotional reasons, like the feminist policies criticized by the men’s movement. If Jenny didn’t have her own experiences she may not have been aware of this other perspective and so forthcoming – thank you so doing so by the way. But Cory has always had a rule of leaving family out of discussions. Talking about him personally seems unnecessary.
Ryan, thanks for the clarification. Per your request I will try harder to focus on Cory’s post and the content of your comments.
First, you commented:
Focusing on this language first indicates that you are unaware of any current SD statutes that discriminate against men on either custody or child support matters. This indicates that you cannot and have not identified any statutory or other factual basis to challenge Cory’s position that since the three proposed bills are unnecessary, they only seek to benefit men seeking physical custody and individuals who want to reduce their child support obligations (which apparently includes the bills’ sponsor), correct? If you cannot identify a factual basis to challenge these points about this proposed legislation, then how does such a challenge come across as “feminist manhating?”
Indeed, wouldn’t it be “treating men unfairly” for Cory to publish a “manhating” argument?
Next, you also commented that
Just to clarify, I did check an oline definition of the term before deciding to use it. Here is that definition:
I assumed from the name that you post under that you are a man. Describing (mostly) women’s complaints as “feminist manhating” seemed quite patronizing and condescending toward these women.
Lastly, the proposed bills are focused on changing existing child custody and child support laws, not changing the behaviors of private individuals that discriminate against men or women. In such a situation, the only relevant point seems to be whether there is a problem with how existing laws direct government officials to act. Perhaps new laws are needed to change private behavior, but as far as I can see that question is not raised in Cory’s post.
happy’s comment
confirms my point. If you or happy can identify policies that are not “gender neutral,” we can consider how to change them. We know that in the history of our Country and State there have been many such policies, such as denying women the vote. Thankfully many of these have been changed.
Hey BCB would you mind explaining how you make the indentations with the red line and smaller font? It’s more interesting than just boring print.
happy, Cory taught me this technique and I use it because I think it make my normally too long rants easier to read and understand.
I use the s symbols on the key board. I insert blockquote at the begininng and insert /blockquote at the end. This seem to show up in my Yahoo email notification that a comment has been posted and then disappear when I go to the post. I have seem other helpful symbols by looking at the yahoo email before going to the post.
Somehow this didn’t show up above. The symbols are the “less than” or slash then “greater than” at the end. They seem to open and close a command. Hope this works better. Gotta go for a while.
“feminist policies criticized by the men’s movement”? What the hell is a man’s movement? I have one every morning but it’s rarely critical of anything. It just floats there, like your assertion, Happy. Insinuating there’s a “man’s movement” is like believing there’s an “white male movement”. Rich white men are in charge of everything that’s powerful. Movements target that elitism. Fashioning yourself a victim is a weak response to inner neuroses.
Well Porter I didn’t think The Red Pill would influence me, in fact I thought it was going to show a bunch of unlikable whining men. I had assumed they are almost always the abusers, the ones who deserve what they get in court, fail in their responsibilities but I was surprised that much of what they had to say made sense and googling the data verified it to some extent. You seem to be keeping an open mind to what Jenny said about male/female abuse so try to do the same about what men have to say and watch the documentary. There are a lot of everyday folks without any such privileges however much they even continue to exist. So often you say things like “fashioning yourself a victim is a weak response to inner neuroses” that is so easily flipped to apply to any group seeking special allowances rather than equality.
Thanks BCB I may try to jazz things up in the future.
“If he has an axe to grind because of his personal life is that necessary to discuss, or simply the merits of the legislation (and related issues)? Seems like his family problems and personal choices should be off limits.”
It’s necessary to discuss if he, as a legislator, is trying to use that axe to hack away at South Dakota law. I also find it disingenuous to see him shilling for dollars on Capitol premises, even if it is travel expenses – mainly because it’s travel expenses for out of state lobbyists. Believe me, if any citizen were caught doing this, they would be escorted out of the Capitol by armed guards.
HC … No doubt some individual men are and have been victimized. However, I don’t believe men as a group can claim victim status in any shape or form. Male privilege is as real as white privilege and to deny it is false and deceptive victim hood.
happy, my efforts to explain how to blockquote didn’t come out right, but here is a link that shows how it is done:
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/html/html_blockquote_tag.htm
First I have a question for Ryan. Do you have an argument about anything specific I’ve said in this comment section? If not, then stop with the random cheap shots. They contribute nothing.
Jenny, you’re right on the stats. The incidences of violence against men are higher than I thought. Probably men are reporting more, which is good.
This is the place to get the most accurate info on domestic violence and sexual assault:
ncadv.org/statistics
There is a great deal of very important and helpful information on the site, including crisis lines for just about every demographic you can imagine.
It’s apparent from the information presented by NCADV that there do need to be more shelters for men only.
Pischke sounds like an angry and vindictive person. The children and their mother probably need all the protection they can get. He needs to get lots of mental health help.
Just type this,
<blockquote>Doobly doo!</blockquote>
Replacing “Doobly doo!” with the quote.
debbo,
How long ago was it that you called me out by name in a post and said something suggesting I would soon be chirping in because I have gender issues, and I had not yet commented on the post? A couple weeks, I believe.
Now, after I reference multiple actual comments you made about men being responsible for creating life, you consider those to be cheap shots?
Ever heard the phrase “Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it?” The phrase was coined for people like you. At least I was referencing real things you actually said, not taking actual, unfounded cheapshots. Hypocrite.
bcb,
I have an answer for you, but the site keeps giving me an error when I submit it. Don’t worry, I’ll keep trying.
If you use certain phrases you’ve used before, you may have to change them. It thinks it’s a repeat or something.
Porter, Deb is agreeing with Jennifer that some of those stats are accurate, so “men” are the “victims” in real shape and form. Or are they? It seems to me our concepts are outdated and it is more about unhealthy dynamics between people. On a different scale look at the bickering most of you love to do. I think it has more to do about sick relationships people are drawn to more than man versus woman.
I agree, Happy. There’s a group of men (that have no doubt been abused) that post frequently on this blog. They seem to need to bicker and are drawn to we normal men in a confrontational manner. I suppose it’s better for them to bring their sick relationships to an anonymous forum.
Since the topic of domestic abuse has been injected into the discussion beyond being considered as a factor in custody determinations, here are some stats from the National Domestic Violence Hotline and National Violence Resource Center.
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf
https://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/
First, some observations from the stats:
In all categories it appears a greater percentage women suffer intimate physical violence (IPV) than men. While men experience domestic violence, it seems weighted toward emotional abuse, and it does not provide any basis for minimizing the physical violence and emotional abuse suffered by women at the hands of male perpetrators. The imbalance in victims might help explain the relative lack of resources for men, such as shelters other than homeless shelters.
The documentary The Red Pill attempts to paint a different picture of abuse, but, in my view fails, by using misleading or questionable stat claims and relying on mostly anecdotes as evidence supporting the theory that men are the victims of laws that favor women. Many such anecdotes are simply inconsistent with legal standards or likely leave out significant facts clarifying or supporting offical acts complained of, such as denying visitation or permitting adoptions contrary to a dad’s objections.
(Finally!) bcb, You are correct that I did not identify “any statutory or other factual basis to challenge Cory’s position that since the three proposed bills are unnecessary, they only seek to benefit men seeking physical custody and individuals who want to reduce their child support obligations (which apparently includes the bills’ sponsor), correct?” But that wasn’t Cory’s position – that is the position you assigned to him.
Then, you ask “If you cannot identify a factual basis to challenge these points about this proposed legislation, then how does such a challenge come across as “feminist manhating?” Which creates a logical paradox because I did not attempt to challenge his points about proposed legislation. I stated, and reiterate, that his post came across as man-hating feminist propaganda. Cory said: “knuckleheads like him who couldn’t keep his marriage together” and “angry dad caucus” and “angry poppy bills.” and “a sneaky way to lower their child support payments” while referencing a ten year old quote about another state’s child support laws. The apparent message of cory’s post (which is, ahem, “how it comes across”) is that divorced fathers are stupid, angry failures who want to shortchange their kids.
Then you said, “Indeed, wouldn’t it be “treating men unfairly” for Cory to publish a “manhating” argument?” I suppose that you are stretching the verb “treating” to its absolute limit, but that may sort of be a true statement. However, you are moving the goalposts because that is not what you were talking about when you said, “You and happy have not addressed whether there is, in fact, some SD law that you believe results in unfair treatment for dads.” and when you said “unless you can point to some law that needs to be changed because it permits society or women to treat dads unfairly.” So, when I said “I said nothing about men being treated unfairly” I wasn’t talking about Cory’s post treating anybody fairly or not – I was pointing out that you are suggesting I said or implied completely made-up things.
For your definition of mansplaining – are you a woman? Now, thinking about it, cory’s whole post seems pretty condescening, and I believe he is a male, so I will also ignore reality and I will also now accuse him of mansplaining under your flexible definition of this fake word.
(This just keeps going…) THEN you said “. Describing (mostly) women’s complaints as “feminist manhating” seemed quite patronizing and condescending toward these women.” Please provide any example of this accusation. I said that cory’s post come across like that feminist man-hating propaganda. What women’s complaints are you talking about? I can’t even figure out where this completely made-up piece of junk comes from.
Finally, you said “If you or happy can identify policies that are not “gender neutral,” we can consider how to change them.” I never said anything about gender neutral policies or statutory discrimination. From the beginning, I merely challenged cory’s hateful tone toward divorced men and your suggestion to happy that equality under the law actually equates to equality in practice.
Anything else that I didn’t say that you want to disagree with?
Oh, porter, did you google my word? I love when language is beautiful and precise. One usually has to look to foreign, ancient languages for that kind of succinct specificity.
Oh Ryan. Seems like every time… Okay, here’s what you said :
“debbo’s idea that men make babies,”
Men do, 50%. That’s from a number of weeks ago but you brought it up to take a cheap shot.
What I specifically said is that “men are 100% responsible for all unplanned pregnancies.” That’s true. No unplanned pregnancy happens without a male’s participation. Planned pregnancies are a different story, but abortions (the topic back then) are not done to end a planned pregnancy. Planned and unplanned are the key words.
Now Ryan, do you understand the difference between being 100% responsible and being solely responsible? Of course males are not solely responsible and I never said they were.
I’m returning to the topic of this specific post now, child custody and support issues. Please stop lying and distorting my words. Read and think critically.
Sorry debbo, your bull$hit excuse fails. Sorry my cheap shots exposed your hypocrisy. Again.
There’s just nothing anyone can say to help you, and as you can see, many are trying. Maybe you just crave attention so you ignore content. I don’t know, but I’m not playing.
You know, it’s like there’s something wrong in your brain with reading comprehension. I put time and thought into trying to explain my thinking in a clear and concise way that you could understand and, either you didnt read it at all, or it just went ZIP! right over your head. BCB does a similar thing, same result from you. Porter, Don, Cory– doesn’t matter who makes a rational, clear point. ZIP!
Well, I’m sick of your schoolboy shenanigans Ryan. I’m not going to read your comments any longer because they don’t contribute to the conversation.
Well Ryan, I offered you an explanation of how I understood the statements in your comments and now you have provided an explanation on how you understood the statements in Cory’s post.
I re-read his post and could not find a single phrase that I thought condemned “men” or divorced men as some group to be differentiated from women or divorced women. He used the term “knuckleheads” (which actually is gender neutral), but I didn’t take it to refer to every divorced man or men in general. Rather, it seemed to refer to a group of divorced “knuckleheads” looking to find tricky new ways to reduce child support payments unrelated to the child’s needs or the dad’s ability to pay.
He later referred to an “angry dad caucus,” “angry dads,” and “angry poppys” which I also understood to mean dads who were angry or upset with the amount of child support they were ordered to pay and were looking to find tricky new ways to reduce that legal obligation, which I suspect includes only a small minority of divorced men.
I thought the tenor of his comment was to criticize the three bills and question the motives of those who introduced and supported the bills, rather than to criticize men or make any general statements about men, or male divorcees.
In response to Cory’s post happy posted a comment asserting Cory “knucklehead” term improperly referred to men in general from failed marriages and contended men are treated unfairly in child custody and child support matters, citing The Red Pill film. I suggested SD’s current relevant statutes do not treat men any different than women and asked if he could provide specific examples to the contrary.
You questioned why I asked about unfair statutes, and made the following statement
Next you made statements about “inequality” and “men’s rights” in contrast to “fake equality,” apparently in response to my argument that current SD statutes were gender neutral and did not cause inequality or unfair treatment.
You followed up with the statement that you had “said nothing about men being treated unfairly,” but in the same comment said:
I understood your focus on the lack of equality and perception of inequality to equate with “unfair” treatment.
Anyway, this is the history of many statements that seem relevant to your last comment. I stand by my own factual statements about the law in SD, but to the extent I misunderstood what you intended in any statement I apologize. You are definitely in the best position to explain your intent and I don’t mean to speak for you or anyone else on this blog when I address my perceptions of arguments or statements. Generally, my primary goal is to correct factual errors or to add factual information to encourage discussions premised of factual reality. And I do enjoy our discussions!
The Troll shark struck again. Jason, OldSferbrains, Pearson and now Ryan.
M,
Every US Citizen has the right to due process.
bcb –
I appreciate your comments because even on the rare occurrences when I disagree with you, the disagreement is usually a small part of the main issue being discussed. Here, you and I apparently took cory’s tone differently. Considering that I wasn’t the first, or even the second, person to comment about how bad his message came across, I think my point of view is at least reasonable. I believe yours is as well.
debbo, you wanted to be granted the leeway of making snarky comments about other people but not being called out in other people’s snarky comments. Dance around it with your concise excuse all you want, but it’s still a bull$hit excuse. Classic attempt at female privilege.
Every US Citizen has the right to due process.
Tell yer buddy Drumpf that.
Did Ryan ever finally figure out who is responsible for planned and unplanned pregnancies?
So young women are also 100% responsible but worse attracted to the bad boys who will not be faithful in the long run. Science actually bears this out believed to be for evolutionary purposes because bad boy genes are likely to survive not until women get older are the dad types fully appreciated but by then the damage is done. Seems like healthy discussions of the research may help avoid years of heartache and sleepless nights.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/head-games/201310/why-do-women-fall-bad-boys
mike, yes I know how babies are made. You and your friends on here who are confused, feel free to google around a bit. I heard there are a couple websites out there with content specifically regarding the baby-making process.
Maybe Ryan wants to donate sperm or eggs or something, but that would take us back to that gender thingy and all the disgusting stuff that goes with it.
Good thinking, mike! Hey, I guess they’re right. Senior citizens, although slow and dangerous behind the wheel, can still serve a purpose. I’ll be right back. Don’t you go dying on me!
HC, there is a lot of important research that needs to be done in that arena. Some women are indeed attracted to men who show every sign of being unstable, unreliable fathers. There are also girls/women who choose to become pregnant to escape from an abusive family life or in belief that it will bind a male to them.
There are males who think that having sex with many women is a sign of their dominance, masculinity or virility. There are males who believe that it is their right to “take” sex whenever they wish from whomever they wish. There are those who place all responsibility for birth control on the woman.
There are numerous poor choices people make in regard to sexual activity and I believe nearly all of them are due to the larger US culture and smaller community and family socialization.
The burden of child raising continues to be borne largely by women, while the power differential lies largely with males. Those facts need to be taken into account in every custody decision, including child support requirements.
I want to continue to emphasize that my #1 concern is that the children are as well cared for as possible. The parents’ well being is entirely secondary.
Being a senior citizen gets me a 5% discount at Fiesta Foods on Tuesdays. Not to worry, if you accidently live long enough, you can get it, too.
Someone, somewhere in yer misspent youth should have told you about the birds and the bees.
mike, if I make it to that age, I will politely decline the discount. I have a hard time accepting things others aren’t offered. Probably due to my fantastic upbringing with loving parents who are keenly aware of others and who are as uncomfortable with receiving gifts and favors as I am. They also taught me how eggs are fertilized. I’ve tried to share information about the wonders of procreation with this blog before, but I was met with stiff resistance from what I call “blamers.”
I heard there are a couple websites out there with content specifically regarding the baby-making process.
Hate to tell you this, but the sites with the ladies and animals doesn’t count. Try harder.
I didn’t know there were websites with ladies and animals, mike. Not surprised you knew, though.
The hell you beller, Ryan. Yer bosom buddy Li’l Ricky Sanitorium splained these sites to you when you discussed deviant behaviors from normal people. You know- Gays.
mike, your feebleness would be adorable if you didn’t have such a hateful heart.
Sez the Debbo hater.
Child support should be about the children
It never is
It’s a form of control On the woman and children and used as manipulation
Men make more $ in SD
And the self employed can spend their money
On anything it takes to run their business, the rest if anything is shown to the courts that they are broke and don’t have $ for the kiddos
A lot of self employed business in SD
These bills will help woman and children get on Medicaid
Why even have children Mike and Ryan are prime examples of what could go wrong.
hc, most people who have kids didn’t want kids, they were only f&%kin. It’s like violent crime – rarely is it rationally planned and executed; it’s more often the result of passion.
This thread proves that the Democrat party is not for equal rights.
In my case, it hasn’t gone wrong, hc. Yer too focused on yer narrow mindedness to see straight. Ryan is a whole other animal.
Jason’s comment proves that all people named Jason prefer hasty generalizations and red herrings to fact.
17 states require parenting classes for parents
Who are divorcing regardless if it amicable or not
SD does not
When I was younger it was a huge controversy to teach or not to teach sex education in public schools. Life is confusing enough, isn’t it a no brainer to give them all the relevant information? Recently I asked a young woman with money problems if her parents taught her money management skills. She kept responding we didn’t learn it in school the third time around she finally admitted the parents had not taught her anything she’s just trying to pick it up as she goes. Too late!!! Of course responsible parents should be teaching their kids money management, relationships, parenting, but obviously some aren’t and the cycle repeats.
Custody is a problem. Most legislators are there for some personal reasons. Trolls abound here on this liberal blog and they are not the liberals. Ryan is still upset being owned by Debbo’s 100% analogy. MIF is more right than most posters in sheer volume. His folksy colorful delivery is something trolls arrogantly try to dismiss. Grdz, even dicta and HC could be on MFI’s list. Cory perhaps erred in his knucklehead overcharacterization. Healthy Men’s movements toward greater emotional maturity in this paternal society do exist. Toxic messeging (propaganda) that Republicans repeat including “Democrat party” merely foists Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox stupidity coward that dumbs down society. Do you think Kristi’s civics bill will mention that? I don’t. We are liberals living in a repressive misinformed poorly educated state that mixes up religion and policy, politically, and the few trolls the GOP (including Russian NRA spies) installs here are never going to convince liberals the Republican Party has any conscience since 1964. The stakes are the very survival of Republican Capitalism. They certainly waste cyber space. As always, Dems continually repair the damage Republicans cause. The state legislature expects Dems to reasonably support bipartisan measures while governing with an iron Republican hand in all other matters.
Dems may wish to consider withholding ANY bipartisan support needed from Dems, ever, without understanding the LONG GAME Republicans have been playing since Goldwater in about 1964.
For me editing on a don is tough. The second “Dem” in the last sentence should be “Repub”
Again don should be fon and coward should be forward
Too bad I am on a list, I guess. I feel like I need to keep restating my position here: I agree with those that argue child support is about children, not about the parents. I also agree that it feels weird to see men in a race to claim a victimization crowd given women’s relative position throughout history. Again, my sole point is that I just don’t take kindly to trashing people on the basis of a failed marriage. I guess I can take solace in being disliked here and at the war college. At least this place doesn’t delete my posts.
Dicta makes the wholly valid point that we’re not sheep. Cory’s liberal blog entertains those who are part liberal, part conservative AND part unaffiliated. You might be “whole hog”. You might be “blue dog” or you might be “boiled frog”. The little red blog demands agreement or out the door you go.
Most people just want fairness (equality) and accept something close to it but (as a general statement) liberals have an aggrieved mind. Something has shaped or transformed their outlook to see the world as a basically unfair place in which reparations are necessary and constant criticism of people who think differently is warranted. Either the oppressed or the oppressor are the only two camps they see.
You know HC, I overheard an interesting comment not long ago. It was one white man talking to another; both seemed nice enough fellows. They were trading baseball cards.
The older gentleman, mid 60s I’d say, characterized liberals/Democrats as people who feel aggrieved and victimized in nearly every turn. He felt they were simply crybabies who expected the world to suit their needs but what they really needed was to simply get to work and improve their own lot.
That’s a paraphrase but that’s the gist of it. It occurred to me that, in his experience of the world, that impression makes perfect sense. He imagines that the rest of the US population has the same experience in this country as he does.
There’s the problem. The rest of the US population does not have the same experience in this nation as he and other white males do. It’s not his fault. It’s not because he himself created the dominant white male paradigm. That was created long before he was and he would be benefiting from it whether he liked it or not, agreed with it or not, encouraged it or not. White male privilege is the US culture we all live in.
So until he comes to understand that the majority of the US population, who are not white males, do not have the same built in advantages as him, his misunderstanding of the majority of the population will continue.
What he perceives as a culture of victimhood is, in our real lives, fighting to level the playing field. What’s required of white males is deliberate efforts at empathy. Rather than cavalierly disregarding our experiences of our lives that differ from his, the white male can put forth heartfelt effort to believe us and imagine himself in our shoes. Then we can work together and make the US better for all of us.
It’s a win/win.
Well said, Debbo. Asking a South Dakota white privileged male to “imagine yourself in their shoes” is like asking Tom Brady to stop cheating. SD Republicans have near total control, yet still go to work every day intending to illegally stack the deck in their favor, if they can get away without getting caught. They know that even if they do get caught, no penalty will be assessed by their brethren.
Your story rings true only to some extent Deb. You are assuming white males have privilege as though it is a given which is far from true. Much worse however is the elephant story. Tie up an elephant when he’s young he believes that’s all he’ll ever be. The liberal narrative about victimhood, that minorities need special help are exactly those ties. You’re perpetuating it.
White males have privilege. It’s a given. To take my assertion nationally, Trump’s biographer was asked why Trump is a chronic liar, cheat and thief. The biographer replied that Trump fully believes that everyone in business does the same thing and that wholly justifies his crimes.
HC … Thanks for pointing out the difference between you and liberals, so well. You believe we liberals think minorities need special help. We liberals believe that minorities deserve special help. You’ll not understand and that’s fine. I don’t judge you by what experiences and knowledge you’ve been denied.
I agree with most of Debbo’s comment. Lack of empathy leads to the lack of realization of what is happening to people around us. A liberal may not feel personally aggrieved, but many liberals empathize with groups who are uncontestably aggrieved. Too many conservatives, on the other hand, share happy’s elephant view of those who are hurting – it is their own fault for not realizing they could challenge the status quo and lift themselves up.
Meanwhile, the idea that liberals generally feel personally aggrieved is a bit odd in these days under the current so-callled conservative President. Has anyone else noticed that Trump consistently paints himself as a perpetual victim?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/victim-in-chief/544463/
I have noticed that this has been catching among Trump supporters – they too often see themselves as victims. Psychology Today identifies five key characteristics common among Trump supporters, including “relative deprivation” (which doesn’t mean being denied access to a family member).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201712/analysis-trump-supporters-has-identified-5-key-traits
Good links. Thanks BCB.
White privilege gets bandied about on another site I regularly visit. That site is a liberal Black blog and the trolls dash in and blame N’s for all the troubles they’ve endured their entire lives. According to whitey, whites have never been a detriment to blacks ever. They also deny their white privilege has kept them from being discriminated against, attacked by police dogs, hosed down with water cannons and harassed and jailed for being white. They act just as ignorant as the mangled apricot in the kremlin annex.
In this year if 2019, if we haven’t achieved equality in this country we never will. We plug along with legislation that may grant a sense of equality, but stop short of granting full equality. Even the notion of having to fight for and protect personal and civil rights is sickening and disgusting.
When my American Indian parents were born in the early 1900’s they were not citizen’s of this country. My American Indian grandparents were not citizens nor were they allowed to vote.
It took years of lobbying and congressional hearings to allow First Americans basic voting and civil rights.
Until we can achieve the unachievable and see the world and society through each others eyes we are forever limited in our beliefs.
That is the crux of it. “Minorities” as you need to define them do not need special help or deserve your own special flavor of prejudice. You’re the discriminators you just don’t see it. I’ve never mentioned it but my family is totally blended. Gay men with surrogate children, lesbians with kids, Columbians, Asians, black guy, none of them see life as you do they just go out and do it. I’ve never heard one of them complain about racial/minority matters they are all quite successful. It’s an issue just cause you’re making it one. You’re enablers who need to think you’re helping but you’re not. Disclaimer: Sometimes people do need help of course but not as a whole.
happy, you will make no progress with the privilege issue on this blog. The majority of commenters here do not believe in nuance and they think all males, especially all white males, live the same lives and are all equally in charge of pulling the puppet strings on everything.
They don’t get it that everyone lives a different life. They will say things like “white men just don’t know what it’s like to be a woman!” or “white men just don’t know what it’s like to be a racial minority!” without realizing the irony of their apparent position that they know what it is like to be a white male. The stupidity is stunning and only matched by the hypocrisy. Stupid hypocrites abound.
On this we agree Ryan. Their prism is twisted. I respect the fact their perspective could come painful or traumatic experiences, but it also doesn’t mean they are right. It’s 2019 things are so much better than they describe but they’re hung up by their own issues. That used to be the expression: Hang ups.
And the tools that deny white privilege have all benefited from it.
Happy is telling disenfranchised black and Latino voters to just go ahead and vote and all will be hunky dory even if they get arrested or fined, amirite?
Mike is an elephant once tied to stake. At least DFP gives you an excuse to look in the mirror.
mike, other than encouraging people to vote (which seems like a good idea), what are your solutions for disenfranchised black and Latino voters to avoid being arrested or fined? With all your white male privilege, how will you save the day?
HC you weren’t born with the same rights as “normal” white people have. Someone had to fight long and hard to get Gays accepted in to society. Ignore it all you want. It doesn’t go away and your denial does not change facts.
As for disenfranchised voters, who is disenfranchising them, Ryan? White wingnuts and their made up garbage about illegal voting done by US citizens. You see the attempts in every wingnut controlled state in America and the more times voting fraud is proven false the deeper wingnuts dig in and repeat the same tired BS. I don’t vote for wingnuts. I don’t vote for any racists. You and Happy both need to take a close examination of your ownselves in the mirror.
Ryan when was the last time you were beaten and arrested because of your skin color? When was the last time you had tom sit in the back of the bus or drink from whites only fountains?
Oh yes, so of course I should thank you for all the gay rights I fought for like you gave them to me don’t think so. Mr. White Mike gave me equal rights give me a break. You’re an excuse looking for a cause.
WMFI (white Mike from Iowa) 😁 You and I were born with white privilege. Happy and Ryan were born with white privilege. Why do you suppose they’re so bitter and pissed off all the time, while we’re pretty happy and satisfied? I think it’s because you and I care about others and they’re just selfish. The secret to happiness is helping and giving energy to others. The slide into depression begins with relative deprivation and self imposed victimhood.
from BCB … https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201712/analysis-trump-supporters-has-identified-5-key-traits
So Happy is changing his tune from minorities don’t need special rights to claiming he fought for them. What’s it gonna be, Happy?” Do Gays have all the same rights normal people do or not? How about POC?
No point in asking you. You’d say no just to be disagreeable.
Right you are. Porter.
It’s hard to find a family in this country that isn’t blended in some way.
I bring up the history of my parents and grandparents history of citizenship and voting rights to demonstrate how long it took for them to achieve those rights and show that 1915 and 924 weren’t really that long ago.
That is not being a bleeding heart liberal, that is being an elderly American Indian man aware of what it is like to have to have to fight for basic civil and voting rights. Now we don’t fight for those rights, we fight to protect them. That is not being a cry baby.
Don’t be so bitter. HC. I never claimed to have given you anything. But somebody sure as hell helped you and others along the way.
Well and truly spoken, Roger. You and yours still face discrimination none of us whites have ever been subjected to. Because of the color of my skin at birth I have been privileged to not have to face racism and degradation daily.
Whites that refuse to recognize their privileged status are fools in my book.
Well said, Roger. Most of us white people on the blog can’t do a lot to help you and NdN’s get what you deserve but we can be your friends. That’s our meager gift, mi amigo.
Happy and Ryan, Jason, Pearson and others come here just to make someone mad at them. That’s the only attention they get. Being dicks, no one gives a damn about them one way or another. Why would they? You get what you give and all they give are pitiful attempts to suck in any type of emotion. Negative emotion is better than loneliness and they crave something, anything. That’s what being “emotionally starved and selfish” leads to.
But, it’s like OldSarge and his bouts with Alcoholics Anonymous. If we feed their need, they’ll never find the right path and we’ll just be enablers.
Oh lord do you read your own words??? Not white boys Mike and Porter. Gays didn’t fight for special rights they fought for equal rights. Roger is the only one making some sense all Mike can do is divide and hate anyone who thinks differently. You two are the most intolerant people I’ve ever read in Porter’s case I know two reasons why he flipped from Mr. White Republican doesn’t mean he’s become any more accepting and “full of love.”
Well, at least Porter finally admits he’s white what a stupid bigot he is but thinks he’s something else.
As I said, Happy Camper, “Why would anyone love you. You’re a selfish horse’s ass.”
all Mike can do is divide and hate anyone who thinks differently. You two are the most intolerant people I’ve ever read in
Happy is so full of BS he needs to change his name to Happy BS. Truth in advertising.
WMFI … I think “Happy” is an oxymoron. Like jumbo shrimp or calling a short guy Stretch. Calling yourself Happy when you’re a miserable boy is just begging for attention. Enough enabling the kid. He’s getting worse. (He had one good spell when he got back from his America travel trip. Gone deep into the abyss, since.)
Who did I come back to??? Obviously these are internal arguments to some extent. I truly enjoyed seeing my very diverse family thriving. Maybe South Dakota is a harder place for that to occur, but that’s also why we have left for greener pastures. I still think my challenges to you are relevant because most of us have baggage.
Happy, their arguments aren’t handicapped by the constraints of logic. You will make no progress. Porter was raised by his grandmother so his lust for elderly women is barely contained, and he translates that angst into hate for men because he never had attention or respect from male role models so they’re his personal scapegoat. As for mike, go easy on him, he’s what p.c. folks these days call differently-abled. Bless his heart for trying anyway.
Don’t give up yer day job watching soaps, Ryan. You’ll never make it as a comedian.
Raised by my Grandma with no male role models? Really? I don’t remember all that. Good try , though. My dad died when I was young and Mom worked full time when few women did. Although, if I hated men that wouldn’t include you, sweetie. I do enjoy the company of elderly women. At age 65 , that’s my group. 😎
Mommie issues.
Nope, I’m just assimilating to the ways of a few of you commenters: saying anything at all without factual basis, and doing so rudely and confidently. The freedom in this is staggering.
HC, it’s good that your family and friends are doing well. I’m glad to hear that. The thing is, neither the small number of people you are acquainted with, nor the ones I am acquainted with are the gold standard. They’re anecdotes and very important to us, but not not evidence of nationwide fact.
For that we turn to statistically relevant facts from the Department of Labor, HUD and other trusted agencies and institutions that tell us what’s happening in the US, separated by skin color, gender, race, religion, etc. Then people with experience, education and knowledge use those statistically relevant facts to develop studies, surveys and others tools to tease out the causes of the wide disparities. They base their conclusions on tens of thousands of people.
You know that, I know that, I suspect every reader of this blog knows that. So we need to return to my earlier comment. It’s necessary for us to step out of our own experiences and our own expectations that the rest of the population’s opportunities closely mirror ours. They don’t. So we try to see the world through their eyes, imagine ourselves in their shoes, get a feel for their struggles. We develop empathy and compassion that way. Then we can better understand and serve one another.
BTW, that’s what will return the USA to her former greatness.
Oh now Deb has to go off and sound reasonable nothin worse than that, but sorry I’m still thinking about Mike and Porter who say all white people are dripping with privilege. Soakin in it it’s so good. Yet we got White Boy Heidelberger who still can’t win an election, then some Native woman snatches victory makes it look simple. That must hurt but what about the privilege Iowa White Boy? All the white people got it. Can we call him White Boy From Iowa after all he’s got all that privilege never stops talkin number one commenter White Boy From Iowa drippin with privilege everything he says must be right. WBFIDWP. What about Porter? Old Fat White Guy Drippin With Privilege. OFWGDWP. What about Heidelberger? Overeducated Skinny White Guy Drippin With Privilege. OSWGDWP. Man I love this white privilege stuff. Explains everything!!!
Keep going. You’ve almost convinced yourself white privilege is a myth. Use this … The only race that doesn’t believe that white privilege is 💯% real is (wait for it) white people. Every other race KNOWS white privilege is real. ASK ‘em, if you happen to see anyone that looks different than you.
All white people are dripping with privilege- https://www.sheilakennedy.net/2019/02/race-and-american-inequality/
Lose the bitterness, HC, and learn yerself something.
Ryan you rascal. you and Happy did not bother to answer the question when was the last time you were beaten and arrested for being lily white. Your silence speaks volumes about your white privilege.
mike, what a dumb question. I’ll answer your dumb question if you answer mine – do you think a person’s skin color should determine how they are treated? Seems like you think the answer is yes.
Your question is so far from ythe truth it doesn’t need an answer.
Now answer mine.
https://www.the-immoral-minority.com/top-texas-officials-walk-back-claims-of-massive-voter-fraud-after-launch-of-investigation/
Moar white privilege tossing out knowingly false accusations against minorities in Texas and since the whole state is run by wingnuts, nothing will be done to Marty Jackley’s Texas AG clone and others.
Ryan, you have never heard me say that skin color should be a factor in how that person is treated. Your denial of white privilege proves you believes whitey deserves a free pass while others want special rights.
You didn’t answer the question, mike. Why do you think that a person having a certain skin color means so much? I know you grew up during the dark ages, but times have changed, bro.
Put away the pipe for a minute and think. Equality isn’t Fairness.
Equity and equality are two strategies we use in an effort to produce fairness. Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful. Equality is treating everyone the same. Equality aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help.
Porter, I completely agree with you for the first time ever, except for the part about putting away the pipe. The problem is that you and mike apparently think all people of a certain skin color or gender start at the same place and need the same help.
Please do me one favor so I know if our agreement is based in reality or not – tell me if you think all white people “start from the same place” and tell me if you think all people who aren’t white “need the same help.” Your answer will be quite revealing.
Just as there is diversity among genders and races, there is diversity within genders and races. If you label each person with enough of his or her specific traits, you will realize that every single person has a unique experience. Not all men enjoy the same “perks” as you seem to think. Not all women are burdened by the same problems. Not all minorities need or want the pity and favors you so generously wish to assign to them.
Sure, Ryan.
1. It was you who told people to smoke a few joints and get along.
2. You can’t completely agree with me and then have questions. That’s inconsistent.
3. All white people don’t start at the same place. Mike, for instance, was born with a higher IQ than you or me. Women are born into a diminished position within the white race. Donald Trump was born into wealth unequal to most Americans. etc ….
4. Everyone needs different help and some need none at all.
5. Why don’t you keep your words out of my mouth and stop saying what I think or how I label, because you’re completely off base. *see number 4 above I label people into general groups first and then into sub-groups and then into individuals. e.g. All white people have more privileges than all minority people, in general. All men have more privileges than all women, in general.
6. Whether minorities need or want special treatment has nothing to do with providing options to the minorities that do because all minorities deserve to play on a level playing field. No minorities are forced to accept what’s offered.
Conclusion: You generalize about my position while you believe I generalize about minorities. Neither is correct. You personalize and associate with white males, whom you believe are being victimized by minorities getting special treatment. You believe in treating everyone equally. However, equality aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help, which isn’t the case in America.
Whoa, porter, that was a friggin roller coaster ride of a comment. Ups and downs. Flips and turns.
First, I meant I refuse to put away the pipe, not that I refuse a pipe was in use.
Second, none of what you just said makes sense. I told you I agreed with the words you said, but I asked one question to clarify – and I am glad I did. Because here is the problem – I agreed with the words you said. You, on the other hand, apparently don’t agree with the words you said. You said some words, but by those words you meant something else.
You cleverly want to generalize, but you realize making generalizations about people based on their race and gender is…prejudice…right? Also, you know that nobody is “generally” white or “generally” male, right? You are so ignorant you can’t even defend your own ugly position of pity for folks who aren’t white males. I think you have yourself up on a pedestal as a white guy, and you think you are super progressive because you are doling out all this “equity” to all of the people beneath you. You’ve got some race and gender issues to work out, buddy.
Here are some things you just said that are impossible to reconcile:
“All white people have more privileges than all minority people, in general. All men have more privileges than all women, in general.” and then immediately thereafter “You generalize about my position while you believe I generalize about minorities. Neither is correct.” You must be a wizard to even attempt that kind of shape-shifting act.
Here are some things you just said that I agree with:
1) “However, equality aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help, which isn’t the case in America.”
2) “All white people don’t start at the same place.”
3) “Everyone needs different help and some need none at all.”
Where we disagree is that I don’t think race or gender are as indicative of quality of life or “fairness” as you do.
And who is putting words in the mouth of whom? I never said or suggested that white males are being victimized by giving minorities special treatment. But hey, making up half of the “facts” you use to develop your opinion is exactly what I expect from you, so carry on.
Ryan. You have the right to pick on women but if you do, men are going to stand up and call you a jerk but only on the internet. In real life you’re going home with a black eye. Knock it off, jerk.
There goes porter again, just can’t stick with the conversation being had.
I pick on women, true. I pick on men, too. However, I don’t pick on women because they are women. I pick on people for the things they say and do.
I treat people equally because I think all people deserve to be treated equally. You may think you are being a “good guy” with your idea that women need you to protect them from the consequences of their own actions, but to me you really are behaving in line with the historical patriarchal oppressors that women have begun to overcome in the last hundred years or so. You are a big part of the problem with your antiquated ideas of gender – do you get that? Of course not, but I tried.
Ryan, why is that you feel the need to pick on anybody, man or woman? Aren’t you able to have a simple honest discussion with them?
Jerk!!
Absolutely, Roger. I do attempt to have a simple and honest discussion in 99% of my conversations. Are you at all curious why mike or porter or debbo or leslie or anne beal or anybody else picks on people, or just me?
Hypocrisy is rampant on this blog, please don’t let it go over your head. Porter says terrible things to people, and cheers on his friends when they say terrible things to people…and then cries like a wee tot when somebody picks on him or his friends. It’s funny, and I don’t mind having to play the role of bubble-burster when he thinks they can dish it out without having to take it.
Ryan, these days hypocrisy does run rampant throughout this country and any political blog, hypocrisy is to be expected, you and I are not exempt.
Ryan The Pig. It’s your year . năm con lợn – I came to this blog five years ago to fight the bullies that rule in South Dakota. That means you, turd for brains. Take it like a man. Oh, that’s right …. You’re not a man. That’s why you like to intimidate and scare women. Internet bullying against women is sick and demented behavior. JERK!!
Allowing someone to be a unchecked bigot just because she’s a female is sick and demented.
Ryan. Show us an example of when Debbo said anything untrue about you. You can’t because I’ve read every word. You’re a male privileged little pig.
I’ve never said she did, irrelevant fool.
Who’s the unchecked bigot, you’re talking about, then? Or, is that just a general statement about womanhood that gets under your scrotum?
Me calling someone a bigot does not mean they told lies about me, porter. Google every word you read or write from now on.
You’ve become boring, Ryan. LWIY … last word on this thread is your’s – Oink yourself silly
Stop
Enough losing focus here
T is right: at this point, no one new coming to the blog knows or cares what you are sniping about.
Pischke’s angry-dad bills remain bad legislation. 1105 is dead; 1106 comes up tomorrow in House Judiciary; 1104 waits until Feb. 20.
Beautifully expressed sentiment Roger and Debbo.
Tempting fate is not “being picked on” Ryan. You got what you asked for. HC, I am worried about you. Whatever it is you listen to and read is not working.
MFI and Porter are hitting out of the park.
Cory, what is the significance of allowing a secret GOP lobbiest from the biggest political family in SD license to parade about in his undies here for the last several years. Fake news? Right to privacy?
Leslie I’ve been meditating on it. Each person has a prism that guides them on what they think they can accomplish in the world, and what they think are inherent limitations, personal and structural. If they are taught white patriarchal oppression is absolute it holds them back. Yes it exists to some extent but not nearly what I read here. It can also be damaging to tell kids you can do anything when real limitations exist, but all this vengeance I read here toward anything white, anything male, anything Christian, anything Republican has no balance to it especially coming from many white people on this blog dripping with privilege. I’m joking a little but we all have our own perspectives. Arguing here can be an argument with ourselves to a large extent about just how we feel about these topics. I do think some of you hold others back, encouraging them not to go make the most of their lives because in your mind the deck is so stacked against them. I just don’t see it that way from my experiences and observations. I accept we will never agree. I read stuff like: ‘Victim’ Status Is the New Prejudice “what fuels the return of American bias is the new idea that citizens can disparage or discriminate against other groups if they claim victim status and do so for purportedly noble purposes.” These ideas ring true to me.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/07/victim-status-is-the-new-prejudice/
“Victim Status” is an interesting application in today’s political world, mainly starting with Donald Trump. Not since my early years and interest in politics starting with JFK to today have I witnessed a president to play the victim role. In his STOU speech he practically begged the Democratic not to investigate his criminal activity.
It is disappointing to me that HC, whom I do have respect for, would use such a rightwing blog as Daily Signal as a source for information.
HC said, “all this vengeance I read here toward anything white, anything male”
I haven’t seen that at all in this comment section. Naming white male privilege and describing its deleterious effect on others has nothing to do with vengeance. It’s about naming the problem so it can be satisfactorily addressed.
“I just don’t see it that way from my experiences and observations.”
Your experiences and observations are not the Gold Standard any more than mine are. When a preponderance of statistical evidence and surveys of hundreds of thousands of nonwhite nonmales show that white male privilege exists, what should we believe? Our personal experiences and anecdotes? No, the cold, hard evidence, of course.
HC … You’re right. I’m dripping with privilege because I was born white and male. No woman or POC needs to be told that. They realize it early in life. Nor do any women or POC need me to encourage them to go out and do anything. They need me to name the problem, dwell on the problem and counter people like you who are intent on ignoring the problem to bolster your own low self esteem.
Identity politics justifies racism and teaches kids it’s ok to discriminate. From Yale Daily News: “Everyone knows a white boy with shiny brown hair and a saccharine smile that conceals his great ambitions. He could be in Grand Strategy or the Yale Political Union. Maybe he’s the editor-in-chief of the News. He takes his classes. He networks. And, when it comes time for graduation, he wins all the awards.
One day, I’ll turn on the television — or, who knows, maybe televisions will be obsolete by this point — and I’ll see him sitting down for his Senate confirmation hearing. Yes, he’ll be a bit older, with tiny wrinkles sprouting at the corners of his eyes and a couple of gray hairs jutting out of the top of his widow’s peak. But that smile, that characteristic saccharine smile, will remain the same.
When I’m watching the white boy — who is now a white man by this point — on CNN, I’ll remember a racist remark that he said, an unintentional utterance that he made when he had one drink too many at a frat party during sophomore year. I’ll recall a message that he accidentally left open on a computer when he forgot to log out of iMessage, where he likened a woman’s body to a particularly large animal. I’ll kick myself for forgetting to screenshot the evidence.” . . . . . .
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2019/02/07/davis-marks-evil-is-banal/
Or who knows Happy, there may be an old YouTube video of the man in his younger days wearing the racist MAGA cap.
H.Camper is the embodiment of identity politics and criticizes it because of his inherent self loathing. White identity politics are attributed to increased demographic diversity and the prospect of whites becoming a minority in America. Such shifts have driven many to affiliate with conservative causes including those not related to diversity. This includes the presidential election of Donald Trump, who was supported by prominent white supremacists such as David Duke and Richard B. Spencer and Happy Camper.
Equality really wants to bloom but extremes on both the far left and right are attempting to use Identify Politics to maintain power or advance their causes. Most people just see themselves as people all this racial stroking could backfire and a moderate with a fresh message come shooting up the middle.
Custody and Child Support
happy camper, I can’t figure out what Isis is getting at in the Yale piece. What’s your take on it?
I can’t believe this thread is still going
She believes that white male privilege is such a real, encompassing thing that it justifies the student population to keep vigilance against it and keep evidence of it when those incidents occur so it can be used against those individuals in the future.
or it could be someone the FBI needs to investigate except the Potus wants to limit the investigation so no new evidence is uncovered to keep his selection off the Scotus. Because he is unfit.
Kavanaugh made a fool of Susan Collins who was assured Roe precedence would be observed. He wrote a recent dissent which torpedoed that. Proof, testimony, documentation disputing his excuse for drunken attempted rape was there. FBI did not talk to all witnesses as MFI indicated. Lindsey Graham made such a stink. We are stuck with this guy. Rushing judicial appointments is the mark of corruption.
Yale is right to sound the warning. Author Isis is as compelling as NeoCon hawk Dailysignal author. White privilege, male privilege, GOP servicing of billionaires. As Warren said: Enough. Take back our Democracy!
Maybe Klobuchar said that. 10 to go :)
1,709 Days since my daughter was kidnapped by his mother and step father. Do people actually read this garbage?? Just remember, I’m not the keyboard type. I’ll just find you, you won’t see it coming. If you write about me, mention my child again, that meeting will be sooner rather than later.
Hey, CJ, when you make a public cause out of your perceived persecution, you can’t really justify making threats against people who talk about your public statements.
But enough about either of us, CJ—how do you feel about Pischke’s legislation?
Public threats by Carl Abernathey. That should really help his cause and establish him as a fit parent.
It’s behavior like CJ/Carl’s, Debbo, that makes me suspicious of Pischke’s agenda. He’s fighting the wrong people, for angry dads with misperceived grievances rather than for children.
Cory’s group attracts it’s full share of men who have absolutely no business being around children. They don’t come here looking for comrades or sympathy. They come looking to be told what jerks they are. They’re self loathers looking to do their penance in a non face to face situation because deep down they’re cowards.
“I’ll just find you, you won’t see it coming.”
Comma splices in your threats of violence? Tsk tsk tsk. Being a good warrior starts with good grammar!
Indeed, Dicta, a period there would have made the passage much more effectively ominous, expressing cold, calculating patience.
The Democrat party officially voted for the murder of newborn babies in the Senate today.
The republican party officially voted for the clergy to sexually abuse children with the defeat today of HB 1230.
Jason’s both way off topic and spreading another Trumpist lie: