Tuesday, 13 August 2013

Men are victims and women are evil - Feeding the factless narritive

Ah Facebook. A place you can chat with friends, post LOLCat pics, share a recipe, connect with like-minded groups, and play mundane little games to pass the time. It's also a place where ignorant opinions and uneducated assumptions run rampant and where people fall for all kinds of bullshit advice and stupid opinions that make me want to smack my head on the wall on an all too regular basis.

The latest stupidity has been this article by Fathers and Families from 2011 about Jon Cryer being forced to pay $8,000.00 in monthly child support to his ex. The article claims that he has 96% custody of their child and that it is completely unfair to force him to pay her since he basically has sole custody.

It's a story which has been circulating regularly in MRM circles as of late. It's appeared on my timeline countless times and today I had just about enough seeing this ridiculousness and decided that it was time to educate these people with a dose of reality. Sadly, I feel like I am back in a High School setting where the smart kid ends up doing others homework because they are either too lazy or stupid to do it themselves.

But I digress...

Here is the screenshot of the article in question that keeps popping up on my Facebook feed.


And the 10 additional comments to that article:

Look at the comments on the above post. They are all just knee-jerk reactions to something that none bothered to fact check beforehand. It's so fucking frustrating to see people blindly follow the MRM narrative that all men are victims, and all women are evil.

The article is biased heavily towards the mother, as it keeps mentioning how much of a "deadbeat" she is, and that the only reason the court awarded her the child support was to keep her comfortable and to support her, not her child. However, the link provided by Fathers and Families to the court's appeal PDF shows the real reasoning for the judges decision at the time. It was not to keep her comfortable, but was ruled that:

The trial court also faced the strong possibility that visitation and custody arrangements could change quickly, as they often do in dependency matters. Furthermore, while one parent enjoyed an extraordinarily high income and could easily afford to pay monthly child support of $8,000 or $10,000, the other parent had essentially no income, and would be unable to maintain a household of the sort to which child was accustomed absent substantial support. Given these unusual circumstances, and particularly because the trial court's ruling reflected a paramount concern of protecting child's best interest, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion.
 So in essence this fact, a huge part of why the court ruled in the manner it did, has been completely ignored by the Fathers and Families article where they try to spin it as:

According to both courts, that would be too traumatic for their son.  Keep in mind that 4% of a month is a little over a day.  So according to the court, asking the child to spend a day and a night with his mother in an apartment somewhere in Los Angeles would be so emotionally damaging to him that it warrants imposing child support on a custodial parent.
This is an example of poor and biased reporting. Yes her visitation had been temporarily reduced, but is was not permanent and subject to change at any time without prior notice as it was a dependency matter issued by child welfare authorities.

According to TMZ, the custody arrangement did in fact change:


If you check the dates of the appeal PDF, and the TMZ update, they are exactly one day apart from each other on August 29th and 30th 2011. The article by Fathers and Families was published two days after the TMZ update, on September 1st, 2011. What this tells me is that Fathers and Families either were too lazy to fact check before publishing their article, or they just didn't care because that would blow their biased narrative out of the water. I tend to think the latter was the most likely scenario.

Regardless of these facts, which Fathers and Families chose to ignore, the fact remains that this damned article is still circulating in MRM circles and people are too lazy and thick to take the time to fact check this 2 year old article to see if what was written at the time was indeed factual, and to see if the article is still relevant 2 years later, which it isn't.

In an article by Contact Music, dated July 11, 2013, we discover that the courts have ruled that Cryer is no longer required to pay his ex any child support:

Another article states:

 
And on and on when you do a Google search for "Jon Cryer court victory" or "Jon Cryer child support".

So there you have it folks. A 2 year old, biased article, which is being passed around as gospel truth by people in the MRM who believe it is still relevant, is not. How surprising! 

Look people. I know it's nice when things fit your narrative and confirm what you want or wish to be true, but life just doesn't give a fuck about what you want or wish to be true. You need to be a bit more skeptical before drinking the Kool-Aid and do a little research on your own to see if what you are swallowing is real. 

I know most people in the MRM want the men to be the victims and the women to be the villains, but the reality is that everyone gets screwed or has victories regardless of their gender. If you are going to blindly follow others, without asking any questions, then I have to question your intentions within the MRM. Are you part of it because you truly want equality and justice for all? Or is it that you just want to vilify women and victimize men to make yourself feel better?