Usher's custody win a massive haul for FATHER'S RIGHTS movement

In case you were unaware, there is a subversive movement in the country right now, and maybe even around the western globe, called the FATHER’S RIGHTS movement. What it is is a fringe group of men (maybe not as organized as the Tea Party movement, or quelque chose comme ca, but perhaps more like Anonymous, in that the group is kind of dispersed and it has no real leader per se) who are working behind the scenes to get dads better post-divorce deals with respect to not just how much money they get to keep from their wives (or get from their wives as the case may be), but most importantly, to wrestle custody of their children away from their unsuspecting ex spouses. It’s a real, active, bonafide movement that a lot of wives and mothers are still oblivious about and need to wise up to. Because often times these men folk can have an adverse and detrimental impact on the lives of these women and sometimes the children as well. 2849036095_1829f257ab_z
Nothing against Usher and we wish him well and congratulate him. Maybe he was the better custodial parent in that circumstance. We don’t know. We are looking at the issue more globally, even though he was the catalyst for the post. We are looking at what the larger more broader meaning may be for other women, when judges make decisions like the one they made in the Raymond case. Why is this win by Usher important? It is important because mothers, not just those in Georgia and not just those who are affluent, are starting to lose their kids left and right and they need to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that after a divorce, they could really see an implosion of their lives as they know it and they need to protect themselves. Women will not necessarily be “making out like a bandit” the way women did in the past as far as financial settlement in divorces in the new world we live in. Wake up and smell the coffee, girls. It is not a foregone conclusion that a woman will get spousal support and a big lump sum payoff anymore, in other words, and it doesn’t matter what she contributed to the marriage. Indeed, more and more she finds that she has to be the one to make the big payout to a husband who was calculating enough to ascertain that he was the “under-earner” in the marriage at the right time.
The human jungle is starting to resemble the habitat of lions and lionesses in that sense. The male lion is very privileged to have his mate do all the hard work while he sits in his lair. Our human species is starting to look the same. Women are starting to find themselves resembling lionesses in their marriage jungle and are really bearing the brunt of the financial, social and physical burdens of the marriage. But unlike the lioness, they are not getting the kids when the marriage falls apart.
This is all because of this very powerful underground lobby of powerful, tough, affluent and sometimes angry men who are bonding together and waging major war in divorce courts, against their ex wives and the mothers of their children. Now let me qualify this a little bit. It is not my general opinion that mothers should receive presumptive custody of children after a divorce. Well, actually, no. That is not true. I am lying. I do believe that mothers should receive presumptive custody of children after a divorce. Especially young children. I still believe that the maternal instinct is the maternal instinct and very different from the paternal instinct and if I had to pick and the parents can’t co-parent, then definitely I would say that mom should get custody and dad parenting time with his children after a divorce. But I want to be very clear that I am not suggesting that dad should be wiped off the map of his children’s lives after a divorce. And I am also not saying that if mom is clearly incapable of being an appropriate custodial parent, that she should receive custody just cause she is the mom. But I am saying that as a general rule, all things held equal, mom makes a better custodial parent that dad and so the children are better nurtured and cared for with her after a divorce.
The thing is, most courts are now not necessarily in agreement with me on this. And this is because, as I said, of this powerful group of Father’s Rights advocates. Some of these men mean well and just want their fair share of time with their children. They feel “why should I be relegated to a ‘visitor’ in my child’s life? I don’t want ‘visitation’ with my son! I’m his father!” And they are right in that sense. I don’t believe in that. But other men are really vicious, angry and vindictive and this Father’s rights movement is scary because of them. Because this is about sticking it to the biT$@ and not so much love of the kids; and because men are usually so much more financially powerful than women, they are able to hire really aggressive attorneys who will happily railroad their wives and basically when they are done with her and her attorney, she will wish she never even met the gentleman she used to call her love of her life.
Now, this thing with Usher and Tameka, I don’t know the facts of the case. I only use the case as a reference point because this Father’s Rights concept is clearly at play when a judge takes young children away from a stay at home mother and gives them to a father who is constantly on the road doing music concerts and all the things that come with that. Why would the judge have deemed Usher a better custodial parent in a situation like this? Traditionally, Usher would have never gotten custody of those kids under this situation. Ok, granted another child died on Tameka’s watch while water skiing in a lake in Georgia. This was unfortunate for everyone, not the least of which is Tameka because the timing of that just played right into Usher’s hand.
But at the same time, notwithstanding an accident such as this, Tameka normally would have won custody, but for this new movement that, as I said before, women need to be more aware of. It can be very devastating to women’s traditional rights and roles in the family and in society. Women are not on par with men in a lot of ways in this world we live in – a world that is still largely a man’s world. Now you can think me a sexist for stating the truth. But this is still a man’s world and for women, there have been few fringes, one being her territorial claim on her children both during the marriage and mostly, after it. Now, men are encroaching on that. And when men encroach, women are as good as finished, because they can’t win. Women can’t win wars with men. Not even custody wars anymore.
The takeaway? Women need to first wake up and smell the coffee that this very below the radar movement is going on. And protect themselves from the beginning. Before you even begin to breed (I’m sorry if that was coarse) but before you begin to breed, start thinking written agreements. You can’t really say in your prenup that you get custody. I mean, you can. But it won’t necessarily stick. But it at least shows that the parties had a certain intent for the mother to have custody. And if not, maybe re-evaluate whether you will have kids in the first place. If you want to go ahead and have them, it’s your prerogative. But understand you are increasingly becoming a vessel for what will be, not your children, but the children of the most powerful and financially stable person in that equation — which will normally be your husband. And you can thank the Father’s rights movement for your current state of affairs.
foto credit