I think the problem is that there is a kernel of truth, and a real grievance to the issues the MRAs are speaking about. This is the unfair and uneven treatment of fathers in family law cases. In states like Nebraska, the father is given primary custody something like 3% of the time. I don't believe that the mother is the best choice in 97% of the cases!

The confiscatory nature of the child support laws, combined with biased courts and outcomes that do not take into account the best interests of ANYBODY are maddening and wrong. Parents can't get back the time and relationship they would have had with their children, nor the influence they could have had on them to help them grow up into well-rounded people. The courts and false accusations really have become, in some instances, weapons unbalanced mothers can use to remove the father of their children from their lives (except for his money) in way too many cases. In fact, 1 case is really too many.

In my opinion, (we know what that's worth!), child support should be set for each child at the amount the state is willing to pay to foster parents to raise a child. That is the amount it costs, right? Then that should be proportionately split between the parents. If either parent wishes to provide a more-enriched upbringing for their children (note that this is a choice in intact families, and for parents with primary custody), they can give gifts, pay for extra lessons, take trips with the child, etc. as they choose.

While I don't think personal background matters, I will say that I was a single mom with primary custody of a child. I have not personally been impacted by these problems that are damaging relationships and separating parents from their children. Nevertheless, it is wrong that it happens. It is wrong that my ex was able to have a good and strong and loving relationship with my son ONLY because I wanted my son to have the love of his father. That should NOT have been up to me.

Can't wait now, till BS and MMM and the "Parson" weigh in to make me sad that I have any tiny point of agreement with them, at all.

Double X was almost impossible to register in order to be able to comment on the articles. So yay, back to Slate!

Arrgh! On all the Greenwald posts, the "continue reading" link doesn't work. Either it expands the article, and immediately condenses it, or nothing happens. I use Firefox. This is maddening!

Thank you. I had the exact same thought.

Did she mean cow-catchers, I wonder, the wedge on the front of locomotives that is supposed to push cows or wildlife off to the side and out of the way of the train?

Because a cattle prod is more like, I don't know, a stun gun for cows. And it bears no resemblance to any stroller I have ever seen.

What paid leave are you talking about? If someone takes 2 or 3 months off to have a child (both mothers and fathers qualify) under FMLA, that leave is UNPAID unless the person has stored up enough sick leave or PTO to cover it, or has some kind of short-term disability insurance policy (which is separate from salary) and generally pays 60 or 70% of the person's gross weekly salary. Short-term disability pay, if available at your employer, is used for all kinds of things, like knee surgery or other surgery, after car accidents, etc.

It's really hard to copy those links to hallucinations!

Not me.

Vicious, but not unwarranted.