Current Events > Female Teacher repeatedly rapes 13-yo male student. Receives 60 days in jail

(+) Yeah! (+)

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Do you think courts hand down rulings based on the sorts of assumptions that laypeople make?
It's not an assumption, it's a calculation. Women tend to be a child's preferred parent, they tend to have a closer bond with them, more likely to take time off work to be with them, less likely to be the parent that ran out on them, etc.
The "blank slate" theory of human behavior that progressives often hold is weird

You are literally describing an assumption. The majority of people can receive O-positive blood. Assuming a specific person can receive O-positive blood has a 15% chance of causing an auto-immune response. You should not assume a person's blood type when you have the means to test and actually find out. You should not assume a specific case follows the majority when you have the ability to find out clarifying information. That's what a calculation would do. Calculations look at this specific scenario and don't care about generalized trends that may or may not apply here.

The fuck? Only 60 days? If it was a man with a 13 year old girl he would never see the light of day again. Double standards man.

Kamen_Rider_Blade posted...

Maybe we should raise the minimum age of marriage nation wide to be:
- 18 y/o with approval by all parents/guardians & judge.
- 21 y/o for parents/guardians approval only
- 25 y/o for marriage w/o approval by anybody else.

That is utterly ridiculous.

Oh_Boy_ posted...

"Hubba hubba, where was she when I was in school?" It's sad.

Nobody says "hubba hubba" anymore.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Do you think courts hand down rulings based on the sorts of assumptions that laypeople make?
It's not an assumption, it's a calculation. Women tend to be a child's preferred parent, they tend to have a closer bond with them, more likely to take time off work to be with them, less likely to be the parent that ran out on them, etc.
The "blank slate" theory of human behavior that progressives often hold is weird

Yes.

Ruvan22 posted...

Do you have a link to a progressive advocating this? I know tabula rasa has valid criticisms, but that's not what you are describing..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa#Social_pre-wiring_hypothesis

That sounds like a totally different thing from what I quickly skimmed
I'm talking the apparent desire for men and women to be just the products of social expectations, in other words, men and women would behave the same (on average) if not for society demanding otherwise

It's a very progressive assertion and it's BS. That's the bailey anyway, the motte is usually something like "I just think we should be free to choose" or "well my husband cries more than I do actually" or something like that

bfslick50 posted...

You are literally describing an assumption.

Let me just stop you there. An observation of a tendency isn't an assumption. Rolling two dice and betting on the sum coming up 7 isn't an assumption, it's a safe bet based on tendency.

Before you say it, cases should be judged case-by-case, that's what courts literally are for. Women get custody more often because judges can't be informed on every detail of a child's experience with their parents so they do their best, and going with the safe bet is just that.

If I need help carrying furniture upstairs I'll bet on the nearest man over the nearest woman.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Let me just stop you there. An observation of a tendency isn't an assumption. Rolling two dice and betting on the sum coming up 7 isn't an assumption, it's a safe bet based on tendency.

An action assuming this case will be like the majority is literally an assumption. Also if you think 1/6 is a safe bet its the safest bet but still a 5/6 chance youre wrong.

Before you say it, cases should be judged case-by-case, that's what courts literally are for. Women get custody more often because judges can't be informed on every detail of a child's experience with their parents so they do their best, and going with the safe bet is just that.

In a lot of scenarios the safe bet would be joint custody.

If its the kid picking the mom more often then thats not the judge favoring the woman.

If the kid is too young and the judge has to make a decision, use a fact of the case not an assumption based on gender.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Let me just stop you there. An observation of a tendency isn't an assumption. Rolling two dice and betting on the sum coming up 7 isn't an assumption, it's a safe bet based on tendency.

Before you say it, cases should be judged case-by-case, that's what courts literally are for. Women get custody more often because judges can't be informed on every detail of a child's experience with their parents so they do their best, and going with the safe bet is just that.

If I need help carrying furniture upstairs I'll bet on the nearest man over the nearest woman.

And that's exactly why the custody courts make so many mistakes lol. They make "safe bets" and are wrong. They make safe bet assumptions because they automatically and wrongly assume that the mother is the best option without considering the actual facts. That's a problem.

Just like it's a problem to always assume the man is the perpetrator in a domestic abuse 911 call and arrest him because it's a "safe bet" that he did it. You include every single person that doesn't fit the bet.

Man, you guys would be fuming then when I got my client a deferred judgment when she had a sexual relationship with a minor at a behavioral health facility. No jail time at all with a deferred. Same genders as this case, slightly smaller age gap.

Granted, she still had to register on the SO registry. Still can't step foot on schools or daycares. Also, the victim had no mental disorder and was very much against her getting into any type of trouble (case was started because his supervisor was a mandatory reporter).

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Do you think courts hand down rulings based on the sorts of assumptions that laypeople make?
It's not an assumption, it's a calculation. Women tend to be a child's preferred parent, they tend to have a closer bond with them, more likely to take time off work to be with them, less likely to be the parent that ran out on them, etc.
The "blank slate" theory of human behavior that progressives often hold is weird

I don't even know what to say other than thanks for proving my point.

orcus_snake posted...

BUT IS SHE HOT?

CE thread

She is actually pretty hot. No wonder the judge only gave her 60 days.

VFalcone posted...

And that's exactly why the custody courts make so many mistakes lol. They make "safe bets" and are wrong. They make safe bet assumptions because they automatically and wrongly assume that the mother is the best option without considering the actual facts. That's a problem.

You can't get it right all the time, that's a ridiculous standard. Nothing with a human element is ever always right.
That's a problem with the court system itself, though. There are a fuckload of these civil cases every day, I'm sure bad calls are made every day.

But I should walk back what I said earlier in post 157, because I'm not sure your assertion that courts (essentially) make assumptions based on gender roles is even true. From what I've read, it doesn't work that way anymore, they DO favor the parent that is best for the child based on the evidence and it's usually a joint custody arrangement anyway. It doesn't change the cornerstone of my argument though; as I said, women are more likely to have a closer bond with the child and to be their main caregiver, that's something that's an innate tendency in women vs. men. I don't mean that they're operating on that assumption, but that women are, typically, going to be the parent that is the main caregiver in these cases. That's why you see them get primary custody in most cases when they seek it.

Acting like the man is just as likely to be the one who gives them the most care is lol and acting like it's the "patriarchy" that is taking dads' kids from them is just lmao.

Here's an interesting analysis I found:
https://www.bikellaw.com/blog/219/gender-bias-in-divorce/

If There Is No Bias, Why Such Disparate Outcomes?

Critics point to the fact that about 90 percent of child custody arrangements give primary custody to the mother. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 79.9 percent of custodial parents are women. Why are the results so lopsided? Does the Tender Years doctrine still haunt family court despite legislative reforms? Or is there another explanation for the custody imbalance?
The truth is most child custody arrangements come from negotiated or mediated settlements between the parents. The judge only approves the settlement; he or she doesnt impose it. This means that the overwhelming majority of couples agree that the mother should be the custodial parent and primary caretaker.
How do the parents arrive at this decision? Numerous factors come into play, but most often, it's to maintain the status quo. The mother is already acting as the primary caretaker, and having her continue in that role is the least disruptive option for their children.

Furthermore,

The good news for men who want to challenge the status quo is that fathers tend to win about 60 percent of child custody disputes that go to trial.

It seems certain folks (prestoff, gladius, revelation) have been meme'd hard on this issue (tbf I got meme'd a bit too, I had also believed mothers usually get the edge in custody battles) and the idea that courts favor women here is itself an assumption. Ironic

My main ares of practice is family law. Granted, I'm only licensed to practice in one state.

However, anybody who still parrots how family law courts favor the mother over the father has no idea what they are talking about. This stopped being the case around 50 years ago.

99% of the cases I read from the 70s onwards have abolished any sort of gender favoritism.

In my practice, judges of my state have shown 0 preference for one gender.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Here's an interesting analysis I found:
https://www.bikellaw.com/blog/219/gender-bias-in-divorce/

If There Is No Bias, Why Such Disparate Outcomes?

Critics point to the fact that about 90 percent of child custody arrangements give primary custody to the mother. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 79.9 percent of custodial parents are women. Why are the results so lopsided? Does the Tender Years doctrine still haunt family court despite legislative reforms? Or is there another explanation for the custody imbalance?
The truth is most child custody arrangements come from negotiated or mediated settlements between the parents. The judge only approves the settlement; he or she doesnt impose it. This means that the overwhelming majority of couples agree that the mother should be the custodial parent and primary caretaker.
How do the parents arrive at this decision? Numerous factors come into play, but most often, it's to maintain the status quo. The mother is already acting as the primary caretaker, and having her continue in that role is the least disruptive option for their children.

Furthermore,

The good news for men who want to challenge the status quo is that fathers tend to win about 60 percent of child custody disputes that go to trial.

It seems certain folks (prestoff, gladius, revelation) have been meme'd hard on this issue (tbf I got meme'd a bit too, I had also believed mothers usually get the edge in custody battles) and the idea that courts favor women here is itself an assumption. Ironic

The men's right activists shrieking about custody battles and unfairness to men etc... are at best useful idiots. At worst they are malignant misogynists.

Right off the bat, we know that in most families the mother is the primary care provider for the children whether both parents work or not. The idea that men who act in that capacity are being denied custody left and right is ridiculous, and then to think the courts in America are falling over themselves to give women the benefit of the doubt across the board is also delusional.

Ninjaluver posted...

My main ares of practice is family law. Granted, I'm only licensed to practice in one state.

However, anybody who still parrots how family law courts favor the mother over the father has no idea what they are talking about. This stopped being the case around 50 years ago.

99% of the cases I read from the 70s onwards have abolished any sort of gender favoritism.

In my practice, judges of my state have shown 0 preference for one gender.

And yet only 6 states have legislated default shared custody or that shared custody even be required to be considered. If you're in one of those states, of course that's what you're going to see.

Far more have had legislation started and killed.

willythemailboy posted...

And yet only 6 states have legislated default shared custody or that shared custody even be required to be considered. If you're in one of those states, of course that's what you're going to see.

Far more have had legislation started and killed.

I'm not in one of those states. Nor do I think that's even a good idea. Why would "shared custody" (in my state it's known as joint physical care, which is separate from the legal custody status) being the default be in the best interests of the child?

In my state, as in many others, there is no default assumption. It's up to the parties to establish what is in the best interests of the child. You start from a blank slate.

Now people, even in my state, will declare it biased in favor of women. However, that's not true. Nobody is given greater weight because of their gender.

What actually happens is that one of the biggest factors in serving the best interests of the child to a court is what the routine has been leading up to the hearing. Stability and consistency are key.

The reality is that women are far more likely to have taken a primary caregiver role prior to the hearing because many couples are happy to let the woman be the "stay-at-home mom" or at least the mother who spends more time with the child. This is because husbands often want to be the "breadwinner".

In those cases, the established routine is such that the mother spends far more time caring for the child than the father. So of course it's going to be in the best interests of the child to preserve that established routine.

It works both ways though. Any time I have a "stay-at-home dad" (much rarer, but it happens) he has the same advantage and will likely win primary physical care at the hearing.

TheSavageDragon posted...

I feel like every judge dealing with cases like this needs to be a woman and a mother at this point. Male judges just seem to think "NOICE!" when presented with cases like this.

Its cute you think only men give slaps on the wrist for this.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

That sounds like a totally different thing from what I quickly skimmed
I'm talking the apparent desire for men and women to be just the products of social expectations, in other words, men and women would behave the same (on average) if not for society demanding otherwise

It's a very progressive assertion and it's BS. That's the bailey anyway, the motte is usually something like "I just think we should be free to choose" or "well my husband cries more than I do actually" or something like that

Ahh - so who were/are the progressives that you've seen advocating that?

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Here's an interesting analysis I found:
https://www.bikellaw.com/blog/219/gender-bias-in-divorce/

If There Is No Bias, Why Such Disparate Outcomes?

Critics point to the fact that about 90 percent of child custody arrangements give primary custody to the mother. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 79.9 percent of custodial parents are women. Why are the results so lopsided? Does the Tender Years doctrine still haunt family court despite legislative reforms? Or is there another explanation for the custody imbalance?
The truth is most child custody arrangements come from negotiated or mediated settlements between the parents. The judge only approves the settlement; he or she doesnt impose it. This means that the overwhelming majority of couples agree that the mother should be the custodial parent and primary caretaker.
How do the parents arrive at this decision? Numerous factors come into play, but most often, it's to maintain the status quo. The mother is already acting as the primary caretaker, and having her continue in that role is the least disruptive option for their children.

Furthermore,

The good news for men who want to challenge the status quo is that fathers tend to win about 60 percent of child custody disputes that go to trial.

It seems certain folks (prestoff, gladius, revelation) have been meme'd hard on this issue (tbf I got meme'd a bit too, I had also believed mothers usually get the edge in custody battles) and the idea that courts favor women here is itself an assumption. Ironic

Thanks for sharing this. I was definitely of the assumption that men got hosed in custody hearings because it seemed like everyone from all sides and angles accepted it as true and never really contested it.

Ninjaluver posted...

Why would "shared custody" (in my state it's known as joint physical care, which is separate from the legal custody status) being the default be in the best interests of the child?

See the rest of your post for an answer to this. Not being the default is WHY you get such lopsided custody results.

Torgo posted...

The men's right activists shrieking about custody battles and unfairness to men etc... are at best useful idiots. At worst they are malignant misogynists.

Probably the former. It seems pretty much everyone just accepts that as being true because the perception hasn't caught up to the reality yet

Ruvan22 posted...

Ahh - so who were/are the progressives that you've seen advocating that?

Twitter freaks, mostly

dave_is_slick posted...

Its cute you think only men give slaps on the wrist for this.

This. Male judges will probably tend to be more sympathetic towards the victim here, if anything

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Twitter freaks, mostly

Do you have a link to one?

Ruvan22 posted...

Do you have a link to one?

No.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

No.

Why not? You said progressives often hold the "blank slate" theory ...

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Do you think courts hand down rulings based on the sorts of assumptions that laypeople make?
It's not an assumption, it's a calculation. Women tend to be a child's preferred parent, they tend to have a closer bond with them, more likely to take time off work to be with them, less likely to be the parent that ran out on them, etc.
The "blank slate" theory of human behavior that progressives often hold is weird

Ruvan22 posted...

Why not? You said progressives often hold the "blank slate" theory ...

Because I don't save links of weird twitter posts. Why would I do that. Who does that

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Because I don't save links of weird twitter posts. Why would I do that. Who does that

But if it's held by progressives, it should be easy to find an example?

Ruvan22 posted...

But if it's held by progressives, it should be easy to find an example?

Not sure, I haven't tried

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Not sure, I haven't tried

Then why do you claim it's a belief widely held by progressives?

Ruvan22 posted...

Then why do you claim it's a belief widely held by progressives?

Because I've seen it

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Exactly.

You can find a right winger pretending to be a "leftist" or a progressive atheist non-binary gay black Muslim trans-woman spouting the stuff they imagine a progressive atheist non-binary gay black Muslim trans-woman would spout.

Texas and Florida competing for most backwards legislation

Ah, the "they were all antifa" defense

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Because I've seen it

You've seen that "most progressives believe blank slate" but refuse to prove evidence? And then bring it up in a conversation about child custody.. are you sure you aren't mistaken?

Remind me of that South Park episode where everybody was saying nice.

mach25687 posted...

Remind me of that South Park episode where everybody was saying nice.

It reminded others too, but they were modded for it.

Ruvan22 posted...

You've seen that "most progressives believe blank slate" but refuse to prove evidence? And then bring it up in a conversation about child custody.. are you sure you aren't mistaken?

Why would I just have evidence of that on hand? I don't save twitter posts. I'm supposed to search through twitter to find something that probably won't satisfy you anyway? Lol, I'm not doing that. Agree with me or don't but the sealioning ends now, no more responses for you.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Why would I just have evidence of that on hand? I don't save twitter posts. I'm supposed to search through twitter to find something that probably won't satisfy you anyway? Lol, I'm not doing that. Agree with me or don't but the sealioning ends now, no more responses for you.

Generally, a person making a claim about a group's behavior.. then presents evidence of such. If its as prevalent on Twitter as you say, the search would be very quick.

(Sealioning would be applicable if you actually provided answers or things to discuss, neither of which you've done.)

Pedophile rapists should all get much harsher sentences than 60 days.

mach25687 posted...

Remind me of that South Park episode where everybody was saying nice.

Came here to post just that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hdbns1Xdk0

willythemailboy posted...

See the rest of your post for an answer to this. Not being the default is WHY you get such lopsided custody results.

The results being "lopsided" isn't necessarily bad if it turns out that the results are actually what is in the best interests of the child....which is what the court is tasked with determining.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Why would I just have evidence of that on hand? I don't save twitter posts. I'm supposed to search through twitter to find something that probably won't satisfy you anyway? Lol, I'm not doing that. Agree with me or don't but the sealioning ends now, no more responses for you.

"Just trust me, bro"

Revelation34 posted...

"Just trust me, bro"

Similar argument he made to Gladius about "toxic masculinity" not having an established definition