Frankly, what I don't like about the MRA is that they are usually guilty of exactly the same kind of sins that they accuse feminists of: knee-jerk reactions, grandiose claims without much support from actual data, preference for small self-justifying echo-chambers (via specialized websites, etc.), and an overly emotional approach to the whole issue. The moderates there aren't exactly a majority, and in an anecdote-filled environment some of them drift more or less naturally towards extremism. Just as happens with radfems (see Dworkin, MacKinnon, etc.).

This is perhaps expectable, and is reinforced by reactions such as Ms Berman's, who ends her post with a question about whether or not they should be heard. This gives them further ammonition: another example of 'a feminist being biased' and 'not wanting to discuss points because of her ideological beliefs' or however they would put it.

Indeed, if one looks at all kinds of polarizations in American culture -- Democrats and Republicans, anti- and pro-choicers, 'anti-weightism' activists and people concern with obesity... i.e., two factions fighting for power and influence, and few people actually trying to understand the other side, I don't know what to hope for in the MRA vs. feminism debate. Sometimes I think the best I can hope for is that it doesn't poison most people's personal lives.

I see the point you're raising, dianita, and indeed the idea that women are 'natural better nurturers' is very old and it certainly is not feminism that made it relevant for custody cases (in case it really is -- Svutlov above is claiming it isn't, that other factors skew the numbers in favor of the mother).

Still, I don't want to dismiss the MRA's just like that. There are points of concern, and sometimes these points are not being discussed the way they should have.

So, for instance, when you attribute favoritism to mothers to old social stereotypes (I don't like the term 'patriarchy', for reasons that are not relevant here), you may well be correct--but this doesn't solve the problem, and a complaint from some moderates is that the feminist movement(s) don't seem to be addressing it. I don't see that NOW or other feminist organizations are addressing this point -- do you? Do feminist organizations often get lawyers to defend fathers against mothers?

So, inasumuch as there is a real problem (and I'd keep Svutlov's remarks in mind), the complaint is not so much that feminism is responsible for it, but that feminism doesn't seem to be doing much to change this. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

how are Rambo services actually going to be avoided?

The flip side is, of course, that some Rambos might be less ethical and just kidnap the kid for you, custody rights or no custody rights. But what should be done -- regulate and unionize kid repo men?

I don't believe in any big conspiracy theories, and inasmuch as people like Pee-Jay seem to believe in that I of course disagree with them.

Which is not the same as saying that cultural stereotypes might still introduce tendencies in the legal system. The idea that 'when in doubt favor the mother' may or may not exist. You claim that the current situation -- more stay-at-home mothers than fathers, more fathers with criminal records than mothers -- already explains everything in custody statistics. OK, maybe you're right. Which is why I'd like to see a study addressing this very point: if you take these two variables into account, do they explain the whole difference? Or could it be that cultural stereotypes -- the kind of thing feminists should be against -- still influence the results?

Chris_C, I would feel better about your claim if you told us what exactly led to the divorce--was it simply your mother being evil, or was there something that would make your father deserve that one-room apartment overlooking the dumpster? Also, did you and your siblings actually try to rectify something -- say, have a relationship with your father after the divorce?