Friday, October 2, 2015

The National Organization for Women, Feminism's Largest Group, Opposed Joint Custody/Shared Parenting

There is undeniable proof of the most prominent feminist groups in both the United States and Canada opposing shared parenting/joint custody arrangements in the event of divorce in 1986, 2001, 2005, again in 2005, 200720092010, and 2016 these bills were designed to ensure that children had both parents in their lives after a marriage between the parents was ended and unless viable proof was provided that the non-custodial parent was a danger to children then shared parenting/joint custody would be the default arrangement. Now I've discovered that The National Organization for Women, the most powerful, and largest feminist organization in the United States and probably the world, also opposed joint custody in 1981.



Here is newly discovered video of the President of Florida's N.O.W chapter, Barbara Devane, declaring N.O.W's opposition to shared parenting bills and an end to permanent alimony payments in the Senate. She flat out lied and said that there is no benefit to children for having equal time with both their father and mother after a divorce.


These actions by the feminist movement's largest representative bodies demonstrates that their main interest historically has been in providing women with more privileges regardless of its impact on the families, on fathers, and especially on children. Despite NOW's dishonest fearmongering about how shared parenting bills would force children into households with dangerous fathers and how shared parenting was psychologically damaging to children, numerous studies have shown otherwise. In the paper titled  "Arguments for an Equal Parental Responsibility Presumption in Contested Child Custody,Edward Kruk Ph.D. discredits those myths. On page 37(page 5 in the pdf) of the paper he states:

"Gunnoe and Braver (2001) and Bauserman (2002) found that the benefits of joint custody on children's well-being exist independent of parental conflict, and Fabricius and Luecken
(2007) concluded that equal parenting is beneficial for children in both low
and high conflict situations. Finally, Fabricius, Diaz, and Braver (2011) determined
that children's ongoing relationships with each parent can counter the
harmful effects of parental conflict, and that limiting parental time when there
is parental conflict makes children doubly vulnerable to long-term physical
and mental health problems."
In addition to The National Organization for Women lying about the psychological effects on children due to shared parenting their claims that the bills would force mothers to send their children off to abusive fathers are bold-faced lies. I exposed that information in my article for A Voice for Men on the subject. This information undeniably proves that the feminist movement has been instrumental and at the forefront of empowering a legal apparatus that has torn apart countless numbers of families all in the name of serving the selfish interests of a segment of the female population. This constitutes a crime against humanity and they need to be held accountable. To my knowledge the National Organization for Women has not changed its stance on shared parenting and continues to oppose it up to the present day. 


  1. In my opinion, they objective has allways been to indoctrinate more feminists. A boy raised by a radical feminist mother who instill in him a despise for his father has more chances to become an "ally" wheter a girl raised by a radical feminist who indoctrinates her with the ideas of "patriarchy" , "oppresion" and "male priviledge" will more likely join the next generation of feminists. Now as with every other cultist ideology , this requires isolation in order to feed and establish the narrative. Something that requires a total absence of the father.

  2. Well, the stated goal of Steinem was to destroy "capitalism," so it is consistent with that aim to destroy the family. This is standard.