[AdmiralRalwood]

Isn't the evidence on the wage gap similarly flawed though? I'm not arguing it is, I'm simply asking.

I'm going to call shenanigans on this one. A search for the term "custody statistics" turned up pretty much ONLY that review and several websites who I consider somewhat dubious refuting it.

Why is this review turning up so often that it is the first result on any search on the subject? Why did the other websites I found who didn't quote the review directly also include that 70% statistic? Why is it so popular that it crowds out any other research?

I really can't think of any reason that isn't inherently sexist in and of itself.

So, to boil it down, you can't find any evidence to support the contention that men are discriminated against in custody cases. Good to know.

As MP-Ryan has so eloquently pointed out, you haven't exactly found any evidence that men aren't discriminated against despite what you may think.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's my responsibility to provide evidence against the unsupported claim you've made. Do you not understand how "burden of proof" works?

[karajorma]

But even your evidence supports my claim. Not yours.

This fact was explained to you and you then ignored it.

[AdmiralRalwood]

But even your evidence supports my claim. Not yours.

This fact was explained to you and you then ignored it.

No, it was asserted without proof, and then ignored because it was unsupported.

[karajorma]

I think we're done here. There's no point in explaining it to you again.

[Scotty]

And this, folks, is what happens when two sides just keep shouting "I'm right" at each other, instead of actually discussing things.  If there's one thing I've noticed about GD that seems to be different than Gaming Discussion, it's when a topic makes its way up here, people become a lot more focused on winning the argument part of the thread, not necessarily the content part of the thread.

[Luis Dias]

Your portrayal is not correct. It would be a lot more helpful if some people here actually read what is being said and discussed viz a viz what is being put on the table (articles linked, etc) rather than making a "victory lap" because the "others" haven't produced "contrary evidence". It's the kind of intellectual dishonesty that really puts me off. If you are going to disagree with my interpretation of the paper, then please do so, open my mind about it, show me where I went wrong with it, I'm here precisely to learn ****. To demand "evidence" of my interpretation of what the article is saying, then boast one is right because I "failed" to do such idiocy is ridiculous and contemptible.

[MP-Ryan]

This whole line or argument is silly to begin with.  The paper doesn't support what either side has claimed it does.  Both groups need to find some actual evidence for their claims, otherwise the default assumption (null hypothesis, if you will) is that there's no systemic bias toward either gender.  No one has yet made a convincing case for it in this thread.

Along the lines of how Scotty framed the argument sides earlier:  everyone is wrong.

Now, someone make a better argument.

[Luis Dias]

That is not true. Statistics were laid down. There *is* a genuine wide gender gap in custody of children. Now, we can *say* that this gender bias can be explained by other things than "sexism". That is a discussion worth having and there I agree with you, no evidence was put on the able regarding that, except the detail within the very paper we are discussing where it is discussed that men are "motivated" to leave custody to the women instead of fighting for it.

That the existence of this bias is presented as a bias in the exact other direction is also a noteworthy thing in itself, and I would love for Admiral Ralwood to have presented a better argument on this reversal, but we all know how that turned out.

[MP-Ryan]

That is not true. Statistics were laid down.

I see a grand total of three links related to this issue; a book from Scotty (which appears to discuss custody in the state of California, at least in the parts of the book any of us are working from in the thread), a legal review from Ma in 1990, and a self-described-as-dubious refutation of the statistics from karajorma.

So no, unless we're talking about just the state of Massachusetts in 1990, or California, they really weren't.  The book link Scotty posted is the closest thing to a representative study from the abstract of it on Amazon, but since we can't actually see the complete content of the book without a purchase, it's not worth relying on at present

[Luis Dias]

Very well, I concede.

[karajorma]

I asked earlier, why isn't there data on an issue as important as this?

[MP-Ryan]

I did explain earlier why meaningful broad-application data on issues like this so hard to come by: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88327.msg1764936#msg1764936

That said, I haven't done a lit search to look for meta-analysis of child custody.  There may well be some out there; just have to look at their methodologies to determine how useful they are for high-level discussion.

[karajorma]

Oh I understand that it's hard to do in America but you'd have thought that countries with a more unified justice system would have the research. And I don't see why there isn't more meta-analysis.

[0rph3u5]

Oh, I totally forgot that I wanted to contribute here .... betrays how much I care about GamDis/GenDis-boards (reason of which I made clear in my earlier post)

Since it is rather late for me to get into the discussion (and I'm rather preooccupied with other stuff at the moment), I just want to drop my two points which I wanted to contribute originally. Full disclosure: I did't read on after my last post, so everything I say might already have been said and/or dismissed. Feel free disregard all I'm saying, I'm just doing this for sake of a completeness I (OCD'ing as I am) feel waranted.

Firstly, the problem with the sexual objectivication in the video game medium is not an extraordinary phenomenon, but a phenotype of the underlying problem the previously mostly patriarchic domincated atlantic-western societies have. Most people, esspecially activists and academics of all spectra, like to think society is more leaning towards their ideas and ahead on some ideas - which is not exaclty true and often a bad case of confirmation bias and/or wishful thinking on their part. Often this is helped along by the people actually thinking ahead of the curve with little perspective - this is most visible once people begin to make their preconceptions explict.

Secondly, the problematic situation with Video Games as a medium is that while its technological development has been going foward across the board, the artistic development has been at least stagnating in recent years: Many popular developers (read: those who get all the nice exposure) appear to have no better use for the improved capacities in the graphics department than to push for Photorealism.
IMO however Photorealism is a problematic direction for any art form to go down, unless like e.g. many forms of theatre they are almost irrevocalbly married to it (often theatre by its very definition(s) cannot leave the set-up with human performers - you can do a lot with scenery, costumes, props and lighting but in the end it comes down to capacities of human performers). Realism is a crutch for those lacking imagintion, those unwilling to ask the audience for a little suspension of disbelief or those who lack the abilites and/or willingness for sublety. A lot of popular media, esspecially on the TV and Video Gaming side, in recent years has shown a remarkable lack of subtlly when trying to get its point across and instead opts to make things more explict that ever needs be IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to condem the existence both or either, neither their portrail. They exist, they are part of our reality and part of our very "humanity" (meaning "essence of being human" - quotation marks cause there has been a trend going on to use "humanity" as a stand-in for "civilized", as the word became less and less political correct due to its previous chauvinistic use). The problem with both is if we don't learn how to cope with their existence and our exposure to them - to take a critical stand oneself to what you have just witnessed (or in the case of video games, played). As such open ended critique, even by the so-called layman, laywoman or applicable-term-for-a-person-which-does-not-claim-to-a-degree-of-provicency-in-the-subject, is in order. (the best form to do this is in person, in an interactive setting and with as much channels of communication open as possible - but I repeat myself like a broken record now).

[Ulala]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talk

Here we go again.

"You have 24 hours to cancel Sarkeesian’s talk … Anita Sarkeesian is everything wrong with the feminist woman, and she is going to die screaming like the craven little whore that she is if you let her come to USU. I will write my manifesto in her spilled blood, and you will all bear witness to what feminist lies and poison have done to the men of America.”

I'm not sure what's more disturbing, the threat or the police response:

“Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn’t take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event,” [Sarkeesian] tweeted. “Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah’s open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.”

[Lorric]

I'm surprised you chose that part to quote. That part makes this person look like just another one of those dime a dozen trolls. But this part...

“I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs,” the letter said. “This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history and I’m giving you a chance to stop it.”

Makes this person look like an absolute maniac. Even if it's just bluster, there's grounds there for criminal action surely. I wouldn't be content to just leave this person unsearched for.

[Bobboau]

sent via email, claimed to be a student, hopefully this person left enough of a trail for the FBI to find them.

nb4schoolemailaddress

[Mr. Vega]

The university also neglected to inform her of the threat before she got on the plane and learned about it via the news after landing.

[Mr. Vega]

Also, if anyone's still following Gamergate itself, it got kicked off 4chan and moved to 8chan, and it was recently discovered Quinn's doxx had been on the boards for a month without any action by the mods. Since that public revelation an 8chan mod has announced they're refusing to remove her info. It was also recently discovered that a hidden board on 8chan hosts actual child porn. Gamergate everyone!

[Mars]

. . . surprisingly Gamergate may have actually revealed a cesspool of corruption.