Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "Jubilee" channel.

@SomeFreeTimeActivities She's referring to a Harvard study that came out a few years ago which demonstrated that this is indeed the case in a significant portion of cases.
369
Best description yet.
105
Daryl is a classic racist in the mold of Richard Spencer, he uses 'support for law enforcement' as a thin pretense for promoting his fundamentally dishonest and unamerican agenda. Nothing new here.
33
@Nick_legit_910 Unfortunately what you're saying is not true. Even when granted secondary custody or visitation, fathers tend to not show up or outright refuse it at a very high rate. The Court, does not advantage the mother. Rather the court advantages whomever was the primary caretaker of the child during the marriage. Besides not desiring primary custody, refusing secondary, and refusing to show up for visitation, fathers tend to demonstrate in court a staggering unfamiliarity with the basic needs or daily routine of their child.
10
Depends on who invited and who chose the place.
7
@yondaimesin Unfortunately what you said is untrue. See my previous reply above.
5
Every MRA in the world is an imposter.
4
@jr.thekid4423 Don't be lazy. Just Google MLK reparations and find out if there is evidence for yourself. Hint: you don't even have to scan past the first 3 results.
4
@WaveformV1.0 100 percent certain of your opinion is just another way to say "my opinion". It has no bearing on the facts.
3
@IamtheeExorcist It's basically free.
3
Custody Battle Myth - Over 90% of custody decisions are made without the involvement of the court. Men generally don't want custody. - In cases where the Court is involved men generally do not request custody. - In instances where men request custody they have a higher likelihood of getting it. - By default the courts generally assign shared custody, with primary custody going to whoever was the primary caregiver during the course of the marriage. - When men are given secondary custody or visitation, they tend not to show up for their scheduled visitation. In short, there is no widespread problem with men being denied the opportunity to raise their children. Rather, it is far more common for men to fail to show up for visitation, refuse to pay child support, and generally refuse involvement in their children's lives.
3
@Kootenay613 It's an interesting theory but is disputed by the other evidence: 1) When men are given secondary custody or visitation, they often do not use it. 2) During the course of the marriage, men generally do not elect to be the primary caregivers and in court often demonstrate a profound lack of familiarity with the child's basic needs and daily routine. Bearing in mind these two facts, we would have to believe that a father who was not interested in being the primary caregiver to his child throughout the course of his life, suddenly developed that desire during divorce, but was too afraid to express it, then immediately lost that desire when he was offered anything other than primary custody. This is an extremely unlikely scenario. The more rational conclusion is that men simply approach divorce the same way they approach marriage. With a tendency to prefer not to be the primary caregiver.
3
@TheFunnyCave The issue is that there is no such thing as a reasonable MR activist since the movement as a whole is silly. So the organizers had to choose between a reasonable person that barely fits the label or a bad faith actor who doesn't even believe her own words.
3
Please boycott Jubilee This is bad programming. Jubilee's enitre business strategy is to create false equivalency by disadvantaging the correct side of a debate. To America's collective detriment. There is no "pro" or "anti" on this particular topic. There is only a tiny group of irresponsible gun nuts and people in favor reasonable and obvious regulation. This conversation should not exist, nor should it be framed as pro vs anti as if it is a reflection of people's like or dislike of guns.
2
@rsbds5791 racist person again.
2
@freudianslip2192 I've already responded to the citation request. Feel free to search it yourself.
1
@freudianslip2192 I've already responded to this and it's a bit selfish to not simply review the thread so that I don't have to retype things. To be clear: As I said before, I have zero citation. I vaguely remember seeing a study about 10 years ago that made a bit of noise. But the study did not corroborate what the woman in the video is saying, and I believe she is misremembering it. The study was only looking at the subset of divorces where the husband was already known to be "app you zing" (filter) the partner, not all divorces. These types of husbands were indeed likely to use custody hearings as another mechanism to harm their partners rather than as a means to ensure the wellbeing of their progeny. This is also corroborated by a large amount of reporting on this phenomenon. But this does not mean that all husbands do this. The issue is that since a significant portion of divorces do involve this kind of harm, it represents a notable portion of the total amount of custody battles, but unlike what the woman said, it is not a majority. If I find the study in my papers I'll post the title.
1
@freudianslip2192 It would have been far easier to simply read my previous comments as the request for citation was literally at the very top of the thread. These are complex issues that require some intellectual rigor and you can't expect others to do the work for you.
1
@freudianslip2192 Please stop strawmanning what I said. I did not simply say "I don't have it". That seems like a fairly unethical attempt on your part to convince yourself the data does not exist. Rather, I gave you additional information about the study itself to assist you in locating it on your own, noted the study's limitations and further advised you on best practices in the future (eg: read the fully commentary, don't lazily ask people to work for you, etc.) for more productive conversation. That is only a waste of time if you are a waste of time. I assumed otherwise. I suppose you proved me wrong.
1
@rouxquier6578 Put in some effort yourself for a change.
1
@rouxquier6578 If I were trying to make an argument, citation would be necessary. But I am not making any argument. I have no intention of convincing you that the woman or the study is correct. The sole purpose of my response was simply to inform others of what this woman is probably referring to. In this same thread I provided information that may help others locate the study if they wish to. However, it doesn't make sense for me to invest the effort if I have no opinion on the matter and no interest in perauading anyone of anything.
1
@ammar3094 No. This is simply poor reading comprehension on your part.
1
Yes. Let's put South African apartheid supporters and ANC members on the same table and imply false equivalency. Let's put "Knot seas" and "Hologram" (yt filter) survivors on the same table and have them pretend they were in the same situation.
1
If there was fact checking there would be no debate. Jubilee is not a neutral party. Their business is to pretend there are 2 sides when there isn't. Instant fact checking would make that impossible.
1
@justincrowe2731 If you say so.
1
No. Feminists have a point and their point includes advocating for men. MRS are just bad faith actors talking nonsense they don't even believe.
1
@Kootenay613 Your third point contradicts your first point. You appear to have rebutted yourself. And of course your second point is a nonsensical strawman.
1
@TheFunnyCave There is a wide gap between saying "there aren't tons of reasonable feminists" and saying there are literally no reasonable MRAs. Even by that metric feminism is infinitely better. That said, there are indeed a ton of reasonable feminists and this is why that particular movement is considered one of the greatest in world history, whereas MRA is essentially a bad joke.
1
Every time the pro side starts cornering the anti-vax, they edit the video to create a sense of false equivalence.
1