N.O.W. (National Organization for Women) is likely the largest, oldest, most reputable and most powerful feminist NGO in the United States (except for the U.N.). N.O.W. is mainstream American feminism. That’s why it may surprise those who believe the popular lie that feminism is “just about gender equality” that N.O.W. has carried on a decades long campaign against men in divorce law, especially against allowing men equal access to their children following divorce.

This time N.O.W.’s target was Florida’s SB668 bill that would have eliminated lifetime alimony following divorce and created the “premise” (not even the presumption, just a weaker “premise”) of 50/50 equal shared child custody between parents following divorce. After 3 years of setbacks for similar legislation, the bill passed through the Florida State Senate with 24 Yeas/14 Nays and the Florida State House with an impressive 74 Yeas/38 Nays. The bill was then suddenly vetoed by Florida Governor Rick Scott after an intense opposition campaign by N.O.W. and several other women’s organizations.

How long has N.O.W. opposed shared parenting?

So many misdeeds by feminist organizations are hidden from the public eye because no one reports on them or makes a stink about them. In N.O.W.’s case, it doesn’t help that politically inconvenient articles tend to inexplicably disappear from the N.O.W. website, such as N.O.W.’s 1997 bulletin “Father’s Rights Group Beware Their True Agenda” (archived here) demonizing father’s rights organizations and their ridiculous (when you know anything about modern feminism anyway) and tellingly the brief “How Feminism (and N.O.W.) have Helped Men” (archived here).

There are plenty of reasons to criticize N.O.W. I wrote about one of the more recent ones, N.O.W. is literally petitioning the U.S. government for Internet censorship. However, I’m going to focus on N.O.W.’s lobbying in family court. Although I’m sure a more thorough search would turn up more, I’ve found references to N.O.W. opposing shared parenting bills in New York , Michigan and Massachusetts as well as legislation in Florida.

There are articles talking about N.O.W.’s opposition to shared parenting going back to 1986 and it probably goes back even farther. Warren Farrell (New York N.O.W. board of directors 1971–74 and now prominent men’s right activist) has stated the main reason he split with (or was cast out of) N.O.W. is because N.O.W. started to campaign against father’s having equal access to the their children following divorce.

Karen De Crow (National N.O.W. President 1974-1977) claimed her support for joint custody following divorce made her “persona non grata” among her peers. The National Parents Organization called her the “last N.O.W. president to support shared parenting”, claiming that since De Crow’s term almost four decades ago “no feminist organization anywhere has ever supported an equal parenting bill, and many have outright opposed them” (although I don’t know of any shared parenting legislation N.O.W. has ever supported).

Florida N.O.W. and misinformation about SB-688: Shared custody is not “forced”

Although the facade often drops, when N.O.W. is being more politically careful they will talk about genderless “spouses” and how they prefer the establishment of “primary caregiver” and that should be whomever spent more time with the child during the marriage. The primary caregiver just happens to be a women since the person who spent the most time with the child tends to be a housewife or woman who took a year or more off to raise the child with the finical support from the husband.

If you have looked at my links, you may have noticed that one of the arguments that N.O.W. and other opposites over the presumption of joint custody of children following divorce use is that it will force innocent women and children trapped in child custody arrangements with dangerous beastly men. This could be a valid point, except it’s normally a lie. Shared parenting laws normally establish only the “presumption” of joint-custody as the default. They do not make joint-custody mandatory, especially in instances where one spouse is dangerous. These laws merely establish joint-custody as the default starting point for custody arrangements. Parents and judges can still challenge/negotiate these arrangements.

This is especially the case with SB688, which wouldn’t have even established a proper “presumption” of joint-custody, but only an even weaker “premise”.

However, this didn’t stop Florida N.O.W. from claiming that this would still be an “egregious injustice” in a post on the Florida N.O.W. Facebook page. They claim SB668 was an “attempt to force 50/50 timesharing on all families regardless of the circumstances” [EMPHASIS ADDED].

FLWAR (Florida Women for Alimony Reform) posted an incredible response debunking N.O.W.’s misinformation:

“Misstatement: Equal time-sharing/custody is the default Senate Bill 668 requires a court to begin a child-custody determination with “the premise that a minor child should spend approximately equal amounts of time with each parent.” The bill does not establish a presumption for equal time-sharing or establish equal time-sharing as the default child-custody arrangement. For an example of a presumption for equal time-sharing, see SB 250 (2016).5



By definition, a premise is a starting point for reasoning. Accordingly, the premise of equality in the bill is a starting point for judicial reasoning based on evidence in a child-custody case. By defining the starting point for custody decisions, the bill prohibits the use of other starting points, such as judicial biases.



The opponents have incorrectly stated that the premise in SB 668 is the same thing as a presumption. A presumption, however, establishes facts that can be overcome only with contrary evidence. Nothing in the bill changes a parent’s evidentiary burden. A court order establishing a parenting plan or time-sharing schedule must simply be supported by evidence, which is required under existing law.”

You should definitely read the full response (also posted here), which completely tears apart N.O.W.’s opposition to the shared parenting portions of SB668. I will also run through a couple of arguments that N.O.W. and other opponents of shared parenting often use:

50/50 custody agreements have worse outcomes for children?

I didn’t see this in the SB668 debate, but N.O.W. also commonly claims that children in unequal custody arrangements do better (or at least don’t do worse). They may cite various experts, sources or statistics. However, there are also plenty (if not more) studies showing equal shared parenting arrangements are more beneficial for children. I haven’t delved really deep into this research, but from what I’ve seen the argument for shared parenting producing better outcomes for children is much more sensible and compelling.

Unequal custody arrangements are less stressful?

N.O.W. also sometimes claims that unequal custody arrangements that established a “primary caregiver” are less combative because one parent is in-charge of the child. It boggles the mind how N.O.W. thinks an unequal parenting arrangement could lead to a less conflict between divorced spouses. Without even the flimsy guarantee of a “premise” of equal custody, child custody becomes almost inherently combative with both parents feeling they need to fight as hard as they can to get whatever they can. They are often urged on by expensive divorce lawyers, which may be why bar associations often oppose shared parenting (less conflict = less billable hours). This can all lead to false allegations of abuse as well as emotional scars that negatively affect both the parents and the children for the rest of their lives. Unequal custody arrangements create winners who feel very entitled and losers who feel very bitter.

Shared parenting is bad because men are selfish?

The most insulting and ridiculous argument N.O.W. and other opponents of shared parenting sometimes make is that fathers…I mean “spouses” (totally no misandry going on this is debate) only want 50/50 shared parenting so they can avoid paying more child support. Since being alloted more time with the child means you receive (and the other parent has to pay) more child support (and what child-support actually gets spent on it often not very well regulated).

Again, the logical inconsistences are mind-blowing. First, it seems much more likely that money will influence custody decisions under N.O.W.’s preferred scheme of unequal custody that establishes a “primary caregiver” that gets majority of/all child-support (again, the spending of which often isn’t very well-regulated). Without even a basic guarantee of equal child custody, child custody is fair more likely to be used as a bargaining chip in a divorce’s finical negotiations.

Second, it unfairly assumes the worst in human nature from certain “spouses” (men).

Finally, it is really doesn’t matter if in the back of some parents minds’ they mainly want 50/50 child support so they don’t have to pay all or an unequal share of child support - its still his/her child too and 50/50 shared custody is still the most fair option. Equal access to your child should be considered a basic human right.. Rejecting even SB668’s flimsy “premise” of default 50/50 custody for all parents because some parents might maybe mostly want it for less than admirable reasons is ludicrous. It would be like denying everyone the right to free speech because you think some people might want it so they can say racial slurs.

SB668’s Alimony provisions: Not retroactive

I’m less familiar with alimony law than child support law. N.O.W. vaguely argued that the alimony provisions would have been unfair for women. One of the bogeymen presented by SB668’s opponents is that SB668 alimony reform previsions could be retroactive. However, SB688 clearly read:

“The amendments made by this act to chapter 61, Florida Statutes, apply to all initial determinations of alimony and all alimony modification actions that are pending as of the effective date of this act, and to all initial determinations of alimony and all alimony modification actions brought on or after the effective date of this act. The enacting of this act may not serve as the sole basis for a party to seek a modification of an alimony award existing before the effective date of this act.” (933-940) [emphasis added]

No one would have been able to march into court and ask for their alimony agreement to change simply because SB668 passed.

Opponents of SB668 tried to muddy the issue during final house debate by proposing an amendment that clearly stated absolutely nothing in SB668 could be applied retroactively. However, the amendment was quickly voted down. Supporters of SB668 stated it was an “unfriendly amendment” (not endorsed by the SB668’s sponsors) that was brought up suspiciously late in the process when it easily could have been brought earlier. Supporters of the bill stated repeatedly SB668 would not be retroactive with Representative Workman saying, “I’ve spoken to the governor and he and his staff realize this bill is not an anyway retroactive.” Workman called the amendment “an attempt to paint the bill as retroactive when it already isn’t”.

Furthermore, the parts that seemed they could possibly have effected preexisting agreements seem very reasonable. For example, in instances where someone is paying 55% of his/her current income in combined child support & alimony, they can petition the courts to lower child support payments (but not alimony) to keep the number under 55% (but the courts aren’t forced to change anything). Similarly, in instances where someone is involuntarily unemployed, the can petition to have their alimony payments temporarily re-adjusted. So, yeah…if you are being bled dry by preexisting alimony arrangements, you should be able to ask for a readjustment.

There were parts of SB668 alimony reforms I didn’t agree with. For instance, if the alimony payer’s income raises by 10%, the party receiving alimony could petition for an adjustment. I think this actually would have been an improvement from the current standard (which I think are around 1%). However, there didn’t appear to be any mention of a ceiling on alimony payments. Alimony should be about having enough money to have a decent lifestyle while you get back on your feet, not an endless supply of free money.

Furthermore, I couldn’t find a similar provision that would allow a payer to adjust his/her payments if income decreased. Double-standards like this make alimony law generally unfair and very hostile toward people without incredibly steady salaries, such as contract, commissioned workers (actors, contract workers, musicians, salespeople, business owners, etc) or small business owners who may have good years, bad years or sudden temporary windfalls. You will likely have your income placed at the highest possible level for the purpose of determining alimony and be unable to get it readjusted. Payments can go up, but they don’t normally go down.

Still, while SB668 wasn’t perfect alimony reform, its would have definitely been a step in the right direction.

Shared parenting legislation will not pass as long as Rick Scott is Florida’s governor

Scott mysteriously vetoed a similar bill at the last minute in 2013 just 4 hours before the deadline. The official position was that Scott was worried the bill would be retroactive (although I heard rumors N.O.W. got to him - which now seem confirmed).

Scott seemed to be avoiding both sides. My hope was that Scott wanted to seem neutral. Maybe wouldn’t actually sign the bill into to law, but just run out the clock as a symbolic gesture. That would mean that bill would still pass, but Scott could be seen as not strongly supporting it.

Unfortunately, Scott vetoed the bill last Friday. The reasoning he cites in his veto letter is very disturbing:

“Current law directs a judge to consider the needs and interests of the children first when determining a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule. This bill has the potential to up-end that policy in favor of putting the wants of parent before the child’s best interest by creating a premise of equal time-sharing. Our judges must consider each family’s unique situation and abilities and put the best interests of the child above all else.”

Scott didn’t say he vetoed SB668 because it could be retroactive. Scott didn’t say he vetoed SB668 because of some detail in how it handled alimony. Scott didn’t say he vetoed SB668 because it left some part of the law unclear. The sole reason Scott gave for vetoing SB668 is that it would create a “premise of equal time-sharing”. Again, SB668 would have created only a very weak “premise” of shared parenting that judges could deviate from if they saw fit. If Scott cannot support this, it is highly unlikely Scott will ever support any shared parenting legislation.

No word yet on whether or not the Florida legislature will try to overturn Scott’s veto. The House has the necessary two-third majority, but its unclear whether you could get the necessary votes in the Senate. I hope they at least try. One thing is clear - Rick Scott will never pass a shared parenting bill and that’s just the kind of “gender equality” N.O.W. wants.

More Reading - I may update this section more later

General Rant Against the Family Court System

For the sake of brevity (I know it still wasn’t very brief), I didn’t go into detail about the general state of corruption and intense anti-male basis common in the U.S. family court system and other family court systems around the world. That could easily fill a book. Countries that have abolished debtors prisons as unjust routinely jail men for failure to pay child support. Punishments for failure to pay child support can result in the punishments that make it even harder to pay child support (such as losing your driver’s license). Women can hide the existence of child for many years (for whatever reason) and then reappear and claim incredible amounts of back child-support in addition to establishing regular child support payments. The story of Carnell Alexander, a man forced to pay child support for a child that is not biologically his and he has no relationship to or knowledge of, is not an uncommon one. Underage boys have even been forced to pay child support to their rapists.

Feminist lobbists that push anti-male policies are part of the problem, but the government itself invites corruption by taking a cut of child support/alimony payments incentivizing the government to make these payments as large as possible. Even when a mother does not actively want/seek child support from the father, the U.S. government often seeks it from the father if the mother applies for welfare assistance. Criticism of this system and the men it grinds into dust are too often dismissed by claiming these are merely “deadbeat dads” that don’t deserve sympathy.