Greetings,
for the sake of not having an argument, paradox was
probably the wrong word to use. But my point remains the same.
Fathers rights groups come off as if they want what's best for
everyone. And they base this on the feminist idea that mothers
should get custody in divorce, at least 50% custody!
Maybe this isn't a paradox, but it does contribute to the
problem, because instead of these fathers rights groups coming out
and demanding that judges follow the law and do what's right, they
coward by advocating for joint custody and lower child support.
They are basically no better than the people they say are the
culprits.

Pete

--- In sharedparenting@yahoogroups.com, "fried" <fried@a...> wrote:
> A paradox is an apparently self-contradictory statement, or one
which
> appears to fly in the face of reason, yet still ends up making
some sort of
> sense. A paradox cannot exist all on its own, yet in order to hold
water,
> one of its premises has to be eliminated.
>
> Humans always stumble around such concepts, they never seem able
to accept
> with equanimity that they only have have themselves to go on when
relating
> to others, and thus that what they see in others most has to be
themselves.
> It would seem that to be socially intelligent requires a form of
social
> blindness, when family rights do not exist.
>
> Thus the world of family rights abounds in paradoxical behaviour,
due to the
> perpetuation of paradoxical relational situations.
>
> For instance ...
> Talk of unity from those who practise divide and rule.
> Talk of championing the weak from those who prey on weakness.
> Talk of individual family rights from those who demand sublimation
in a
> group to access these.
> Talk of equal parenting from those who seek paternal or maternal
supremacy.
> Talk of brotherly love from those who practise alienation.
> Talk of sexual hatred from those who melt at the chance of
establishing a
> relationship.
> Talk of selfless parenthood from selfish parents.
>
> The sifting process which results in the dominance of these styles
of
> behaviour is equally self-contradictory. In a sense, it works like
an
> extremely fast evolutionary paradigm in reverse. The parallel is a
little
> too close for comfort, it is after all reproductive and cultural
success
> which is at issue.
>
> Such a complex of burning sensitivities leads to its own
etiquette, system
> of taboos and stereotyped behaviour. These in turn conform to the
paradox
> theorem: the comfort zone becomes one where discomfort is felt,
where
> reassurance in one's own identity is confirmed by rejection of the
identity
> of others.
>
> Perhaps it is as well to view such paradoxical impulses as
symptoms of
> social disorientation, self-made symbolic expressions of an
external
> perturbance internalised, lived confusion. The problem is in
laying these
> ghosts to rest.
>
> The way out of the maze of apparently infinite paradoxes is
essentially by
> way of rejecting both arms of each one and replacing them with a
> non-conflictive other.
>
> Unity is only achieved through acceptance of diversity.
> The weak can only help themselves by rejecting the strong.
> Groups can only serve each other through individual actions.
> Equal parenting can only operate through free choice.
> Both brotherly love and alienation are unneccessary distractions.
> Don't hate and love will find you.
> Parenthood is selfish - this must be good for the children.
>
> j.