# Anti-Feminism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2015, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390 "2015-07-17T06:05:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 53
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1041 "2015-08-08T19:31:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think that’s utterly ridiculous. “You shouldn’t wear that shirt on TV” is not an attempt at control – it’s a criticism. _Criticism is not control_, at least not most of the time. > > You’re just choosing to interpret it in the way that confirms your beliefs on feminism. I think that Taylor’s apology was sincere, that he’s a good guy who recognizes that the shirt is seen as disrespectful to women by some, and made the right decision. I see no evidence that Taylor was forced to apologize – he chose to apologize. The right choice, in my view. We may have to agree to disagree: we’re arguing mostly perceptions now. He certainly chose to apologize (he’s the only one who could have done it, after all). The question is why he felt compelled to change his mind so fast. Personally, I would never have worn that shirt. I wouldn’t even own a shirt like that. My main point is feminists made a mountain out of a anthill: it’s typical of feminism’s determination to constantly paint women as victims - whether it’s of a shirt, or something else. > [@](#): > > So what? Men (or anyone) were free to respond to the criticism of Taylor in the same way, but they chose not to. I think this is because many or most recognize that it actually was reasonable criticism. There are reasonable and unreasonable sorts of criticism – I don’t feel “women shouldn’t dress slutty” is a reasonable criticism, because “slut” is a misogynistic slur (among other reasons). I think a slutwalk was a reasonable and appropriate response by those who felt the criticism was unreasonable. Again, something we probably have to agree to disagree about. Personally I think the slutwalks are silly, accomplish nothing, and are probably counter-productive; because they draw so much publicity: I think there’s a whole bunch of regular people scratching their heads and saying, “Really? This is what feminism has come to?” > [@](#): > > Some feminists are saying that men shouldn’t wear shirts with imagery that is disrespectful (due to objectification) to women, any more than they should wear shirts with imagery disrespectful to black people or Jews (such as Confederate flags or swastikas), and they are also saying that women should be free to choose how much of their bodies to reveal. Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Another is: If you’re going to insist on wearing whatever the fuck you want, you should let others do the same. > [@](#): > > I’ve never heard an argument against dressing in revealing clothing that asserts that revealing lots of skin is “disrespectful” to men, so I don’t believe these two things are at all comparable. Feminists would and should similarly criticize a woman who choose to wear Confederate flag imagery, swastika symbols, or other bigoted imagery on their clothing. Are you saying that Matt’s shirt was the equivalent of wearing a swastika? > [@](#): > > It’s a minor little thing, and sometimes it’s fine to criticize minor little things. Taylor apologized and it’s over. Taylor’s a good guy, it seems to me, who made a little mistake, was criticized for it, and apologized. Good for him. I have no problem with people speaking up, even for little things, if they think it’s wrong. Well, he cried, so I guess it wasn’t a little thing to him. But in the big scheme of things, you’re right. One guy wearing a shirt is a little thing. > [@](#): > > No. Not according to this feminist or most feminists I know and read about. How does “patriarchy” hurt men, according to you, or most feminists you know or read about? > [@](#): > > Yes, virgin-shaming is wrong. This sort of thing is bad and I (and most feminists I know and read about) oppose it. And yet, they’re quick to do it. > [@](#): > > But we’re not automatically doing so – it’s based on evidence. No, I don’t believe every penny of the gender pay gap is due to discrimination. But I think it’s very likely that some of it is, and this is a big problem that should be corrected. You said it’s based on evidence. What evidence? > [@](#): > > Facts aren’t an attack on women. Saying something to the effect of “we shouldn’t worry so much about domestic violence”, or “men are abused just as much as women” might be – combining incidents of murder, serious injury, and all other forms of abuse, it seems pretty clear to me that women are hurt a lot more than men by domestic violence. I think it’s reasonable to classify assertions that are intended to dismiss or downplay the disparate affect of domestic violence on women as rhetorical attacks on women. My conclusion, having read a number of studies - many of which are quoted and linked up-thread - that women are about as likely to resort to domestic violence as men. I don’t doubt that, on average, in the minority of cases that result in serious injury, that women’s injuries are more serious. The best approach to ending domestic violence is not the Duluth model - which assumes that men are abusers and women are victims - but to look at the actual evidence, and to examine at what causes domestic violence in the first place. > [@](#): > > And there’s more to the health-care cost numbers than just the ones you mentioned. Per incident, it appears to cost women about 3 times more than men, in health cost. But “The average medical cost for women victimized by physical domestic violence was $483 compared to $83 for men” – which is a disparity of about 6 times. This indicates to me that there are significantly more incidents (or at least more incidents of a serious enough nature to cause injury) in which women are the victim. Those aren’t the numbers I remember from the Wikipedia article, but that’s not surprising. Particularly when it comes to politicized topics, Wikipedia pages are full of contradictory information. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1042 "2015-08-08T19:38:25Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post > > Your cite doesn’t claim that there were fewer rapes because of this course, only that recipients of the course were less likely to be raped. That’s all fine – I’m all for giving women tools to keep themselves safe. That’s not victim blaming. > > But as the article says, that is not attacking the cultural problem of rape. Men who want to rape will rape, and they’ll find victims who are vulnerable. I think helping women reduce their vulnerability is fine, but it doesn’t attack the source of the problem – men who desire to commit rape and are willing to actually commit rape. And considering how many men don’t see certain kinds of rape as rape, this just shows us the scope of the problem. Educating those men might actually lead to less rapes in society – educating women might reduce their own chance of being raped (a good outcome, to be sure), but I don’t see what it does to reduce rape as a problem in society. > [Bolding mine.] I’m glad we’re on the same page. I sort of inferred you thought telling women to take precautions - the same way we do with other kinds of crimes - was victim-blaming. I’ll make an effort to look at the cite in your second paragraph, when I get time. Darn it. iiandyiiii, your link is to the debunked 1/3 story. You can’t just trust everything you read in Jezebel, dude. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1043 "2015-08-08T19:44:38Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Darn it. iiandyiiii, your link is to the debunked 1/3 story. You can’t just trust everything you read in Jezebel, dude. This is priceless. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1044 "2015-08-08T20:02:37Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > All this “supposedly” stuff (and referring to Twilight or 50 Shades rather than the utterly enormous Romance genre) is rich. I haven’t seen Twilight or 50 Shades (and please kill before I do) but for reasons I won’t go into I happen to know something about historical romance novels. Here’s the Wikipedia entry for [The Flame and the Flower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flame_and_the_Flower): > [@](#): > > The Flame and the Flower (published 1972) is the debut work of romance novelist Kathleen E. Woodiwiss. The first romance novel to detail physical intimacy between the protagonists, the book revolutionized the historical romance genre. It was also the first full-length romance novel to be published first in paperback rather than hardback. The hero of the story, Brandon Birmingham, rapes Heather (the heroine) in graphic detail. She becomes pregnant, he marries her, and they eventually live happily ever after. > [@](#): > > The book was scheduled for an initial print run of 500,000 copies.[1] By 1978, it had been through 40 printings[10] and had sold over 4.5 million copies.[14] It was still in print as of 2000. > > Influence > Avon followed its release of The Flame and the Flower with the 1974 publication of Woodiwiss’s second novel, The Wolf and the Dove and two similarly themed romance novels by newcomer Rosemary Rogers. In 1975, Publishers Weekly reported that these four “Avon originals” had sold a combined 8 million copies.[6] Avon’s “extraordinary success” led other paperback publishing firms to begin featuring original works by new authors.[11] Avon became known as the premier publishing company for new writers of romance novels.[10] ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1045 "2015-08-08T20:04:35Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Darn it. iiandyiiii, your link is to the debunked 1/3 story. You can’t just trust everything you read in Jezebel, dude. There were multiple other cites in other posts showing alarmingly high numbers of young men being okay with rape. And the 1/3rd number was not debunked, just dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1046 "2015-08-08T20:13:19Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **iiandyiiii** View Post > > I’ve never heard an argument against dressing in revealing clothing that asserts that revealing lots of skin is “disrespectful” to men, so I don’t believe these two things are at all comparable. Feminists would and should similarly criticize a woman who choose to wear Confederate flag imagery, swastika symbols, or other bigoted imagery on their clothing. > > Or imagery that objectified men, but that’s not really a thing. Funny, that. > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **iiandyiiii** > > Yes, virgin-shaming is wrong. This sort of thing is bad and I (and most feminists I know and read about) oppose it. > > **LinusK** got to see it in action, back on page 4 of this thread: > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **Larry Borgia** View Post > > I’m sorry all those women were so mean to you, LinusK. Can you show us on the doll where they didn’t touch you? > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **jsgoddess** View Post > > His points and his logic are lousy, but I wish we’d get away from the notion that men turn weird and bitter because they aren’t having sex. > > An avowed feminist, objecting to virgin-shaming/correlating anti-feminism with lack of sex. Those aren’t the only examples. It’s the go-to ad hominem whenever anyone criticizes feminism. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1047 "2015-08-08T20:14:27Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > My conclusion, having read a number of studies - many of which are quoted and linked up-thread - that women are about as likely to resort to domestic violence as men. I don’t doubt that, on average, in the minority of cases that result in serious injury, that women’s injuries are more serious. > > The best approach to ending domestic violence is not the Duluth model - which assumes that men are abusers and women are victims - but to look at the actual evidence, and to examine at what causes domestic violence in the first place. You know, **camille** spoke about this in post [798](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18569186&postcount=798), and admitted that the Duluth model is not the only model considered nor even the most effective. Now she knows more than I do about domestic violence and advocacy, and she called you out on this. I would read more of her posts and comments before repeating something that another feminist has already discussed. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1048 "2015-08-08T20:15:05Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > We may have to agree to disagree: we’re arguing mostly perceptions now. > > He certainly chose to apologize (he’s the only one who could have done it, after all). The question is why he felt compelled to change his mind so fast. > > Personally, I would never have worn that shirt. I wouldn’t even own a shirt like that. > > My main point is feminists made a mountain out of a anthill: it’s typical of feminism’s determination to constantly paint women as victims - whether it’s of a shirt, or something else. No mountain was made. Criticism is not a mountain. > [@](#): > > Again, something we probably have to agree to disagree about. Personally I think the slutwalks are silly, accomplish nothing, and are probably counter-productive; because they draw so much publicity: I think there’s a whole bunch of regular people scratching their heads and saying, “Really? This is what feminism has come to?” And perhaps many see them differently. > [@](#): > > Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Another is: If you’re going to insist on wearing whatever the fuck you want, you should let others do the same. > > Are you saying that Matt’s shirt was the equivalent of wearing a swastika? It’s not “wear anything”, it’s “if you wear offensive imagery, expect criticism”. > [@](#): > > How does “patriarchy” hurt men, according to you, or most feminists you know or read about? Expectations of aggression and anger, holding in emotions, being “tough”, worse treatment in prisons, must make more money, shouldn’t stay at home, I and more. > [@](#): > > And yet, they’re quick to do it. Most are not. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1049 "2015-08-08T21:01:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Expectations of aggression and anger, holding in emotions, being “tough”, worse treatment in prisons, must make more money, shouldn’t stay at home, I and more. That “normal” men are always horny and therefore can’t be harmed by predatory women (for example, teachers having sex with teen boys). That women are soft and good and gentle and maternal, so kids should always go to them. That men cannot be trusted around kids. That women are “safe” and men are “dangerous.” That a man without a job is less than. That a man without a woman is less than. That a man who doesn’t fight is less than. Homophobia and its resulting fear of looking gay is part and parcel of this ugliness. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1050 "2015-08-08T21:13:01Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > So, if Linus’s point was an unequivocal “feminists never do this,” then his cites are a fail and his edits misleading. But I think it’s likelier that he meant that “most feminists don’t do X” and he framed it in a manner that perhaps overstated his point. Based on his previous 131 posts (in this thread), he clearly meant that feminists never do this. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1051 "2015-08-08T22:07:38Z")
Still no response to post 1004, **Linus**? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1052 "2015-08-08T22:54:27Z")
> [@hildea](#): > > In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. I must wade into this thread. > > LinusK, you’ve mentioned several times your hypothesis that human beings are inherently prone to see men as less valuable and more expendable than women. Tomndebb debunked that claim with a single word back on [page 6](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18534280&postcount=256), but you didn’t notice, so I’ll expand. > > The single word was “infanticide”. When people can’t or won’t raise all their children, the ones they kill will be those they consider least valuable. The victims of infanticide are _by definition_ expendable. If your hypothesis was correct, we’d expect more boys than girls to be victims of infanticide. But what we see is the opposite: When there’s a sex difference in infanticide, it’s almost always in disfavour of girls. And we’re not talking about obscure customs among tiny populations: In both China and India, there’s a measurable lack of women due to sex-selective infanticide and abortion. > > So, either we have no inherent tendency to see males as less valuable than females, or if we have such a bias, it’s so weak that it can be overridden by culture. > > I trust you’ll reexamine the evidence that lead you to your hypothesis, and decide if you were mistaken about the existence of this bias, or if you believe it’s a cultural trait instead of a biological one – and if so which cultures you think are affected. Usually when I assert a fact, I try to provide evidence: Let’s start with you presenting evidence of Indian and Chinese infanticide, and go from there. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1053 "2015-08-08T23:17:05Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Usually when I assert a fact, I try to provide evidence: . . . Other than claims that there is a biological aspect to men protecting women, of course. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1054 "2015-08-08T23:37:46Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Usually when I assert a fact, I try to provide evidence: Let’s start with you presenting evidence of Indian and Chinese infanticide, and go from there. Still waiting for you to respond to the evidence that was presented to you about prison rape and child custody. Why do you keep asking for more evidence you’ll probably ignore if it doesn’t suit your purpose? It doesn’t say much for your argument, or your claim of wanting an honest debate. Here is a post by **Emiliana** about it: > [@Emiliana](#): > > We aren’t talking history. We’re talking today, in many parts of the world but especially in China and India. According to _The Economist_, there are almost [4 million “missing women” in the world](http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/09/gender-inequality) due to sex-selective abortions, female infanticide, and high levels of maternal mortality in childbirth. > > You are correct in saying that males are conceived and born at higher rates than females. Consider that in China, 120 boys are born for every 100 girls. This isn’t nature, it’s the ability of parents with a strong preference for boy children aborting their female fetuses. Gender disparities in China and India (to few females in relation to males) are so significant as to cause a significant increase in transnational sex trafficking and wife buying. Nature isn’t acting here–people living in cultures which devalue female lives are. And in case you need it spelled out for you, **LinusK** : > [@](#): > > [**Gendercide**](http://www.economist.com/node/15606229) > > Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising. > > Most people know China and northern India have unnaturally large numbers of boys. But few appreciate how bad the problem is, or that it is rising. In China the imbalance between the sexes was 108 boys to 100 girls for the generation born in the late 1980s; for the generation of the early 2000s, it was 124 to 100. In some Chinese provinces the ratio is an unprecedented 130 to 100. The destruction is worst in China but has spread far beyond. Other East Asian countries, including Taiwan and Singapore, former communist states in the western Balkans and the Caucasus, and even sections of America’s population (Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, for example): all these have distorted sex ratios. Gendercide exists on almost every continent. It affects rich and poor; educated and illiterate; Hindu, Muslim, Confucian and Christian alike. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1055 "2015-08-09T00:12:32Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Do you support equally distributed rights no matter what? That’s sort of a vague question. I think that after a divorce, shared parenting should be the default, unless there’s some good reason why it should be otherwise. In general, I think that having a father actively involved in a child’s life is a good thing for a child. From [Psychology Today](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201106/the-decline-fatherhood-and-the-male-identity-crisis): > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics.[/li][li]Child abuse is significantly more likely to occur in single parent homes than in intact families;[/li][li]63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census;[/li][li]72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. 60% of America’s rapists grew up the same way according to a study by D. Cornell (et al.), in Behavioral Sciences and the Law;[/li][li]71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes according to the National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools;[/li][li]80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes according to a report in Criminal Justice & Behavior;[/li][li]90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes;[/li][li]Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes according to a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation.[/li][li]85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes according to a study by the Center for Disease Control;[/li][li]Of all violent crimes against women committed by intimates about 65% were committed by either boy-friends or ex-husbands, compared with 9 % by husbands;[/li][li]Girls living with non-natal fathers (boyfriends and stepfathers) are at higher risk for sexual abuse than girls living with natal fathers;[/li][li]Daughters of single mothers are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 111% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages.[/li][li]A large survey conducted in the late 1980s found that about 20% of divorced fathers had not seen his children in the past year, and that fewer than 50% saw their children more than a few times a year.[/li][li]In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed “greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households,” according to a study published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.[/li][li]At play and in other realms, fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative, risk taking and independence. Mothers, as caretakers, stress emotional security and personal safety. Father’s involvement seems to be linked to improved quantitative and verbal skills, improved problem-solving ability and higher academic achievement for children. Men also have a vital role to play in promoting cooperation and other “soft” virtues. Involved fathers, it turns out according to one 26 year longitudinal research study may be of special importance for the development of empathy in children.[/li][/ul] Which isn’t to say that every father is a good one, or that every mother is a good mother. Rather, I’m saying that 50/50 custody should be the starting point: not something a father _might_ achieve after a long expensive custody battle - one that will inevitably hurt the same children the father is trying to help. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1056 "2015-08-09T00:47:51Z")
> [@camille](#): > > From your own cite: > > - Fathers Rights groups continue to promote the myth that courts are biased in favor of mothers. In litigated cases, father who sue for custody almost always win. In fact, fathers are often awarded sole custody even when sexual and physical abuse of the children is alleged and substantiated. According to The American Judges Association, 70% of the time the abuser convinces the court to give him custody. > > - Existing law currently says that there is no preference for shared parenting in New York. The court may award joint custody, but in practice rarely does so. Legislators should be aware that the reason that more mothers have custody after divorce is that most arrangements are worked out between the parents. 95% of the litigated cases, including matrimonial cases, are settled out of court. > > Once again, you seem unwilling or incapable of comprehending the whole story in its complexity. > > Ever hear of Thomas James Ball? You can read about him and the “Father’s Rights” movement [here](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/leader%E2%80%99s-suicide-brings-attention-men%E2%80%99s-rights-movement) and [here](http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/12/father-s-rights-angrywhitemen.html). Right. NOW resorts to blatant lies to support its embarrassing failure to support actual equality. Or rather, its embarrassing promotion of inequality. Did you know they also say that fathers want to see their kids, not because they want to be good fathers, but to get out of paying child support? Because, you know… men are bad. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1057 "2015-08-09T01:14:36Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > It’s certainly interesting that the quote you provided was edited to remove any reference to the actual subject of the article. It’s a memorial piece about feminist and former NOW president Karen DeCrow, who was also an advocate for men’s rights and specifically argued in favor of shared child custody. The article does make it clear that many feminists disagreed with DeCrow’s views, but it also says “She certainly never stopped being a feminist.” > > Here’s some of the text that was cut from **LinusK** ’s quote, in bold: > The article continues on for several paragraphs about DeCrow’s work – which included talking about the kind of things you’ve claimed feminists don’t talk about – before the point where your edited quote picks up again. > > A quick look at the [Salon article](http://www.salon.com/2000/07/06/crusade/) reveals that it’s about women who support the father’s rights movement and, according to a passage you edited out of your quote, “many of whom consider themselves feminists.” > > So according to your own cites, feminists are notably _present_ on both sides of this issue. It’s fascinating that you failed to notice this while reading these articles, choosing passages to quote, and carefully editing out the evidence that disproves your claim to the contrary. Yeah. I also didn’t quote this: > [@](#): > > Quite a few feminists disagreed. Marjory D. Fields, then co-chair of Governor Mario Cuomo’s Task Force On Domestic Violence and later a family-court judge, described the defense tactics in the case as “almost a classic antiwoman presentation: that women seduce and entrap men with their feminine wiles.” DeCrow was unfazed. In a 1982 letter to the Times, she wrote that since men have no legal power to either veto or compel an abortion, it is only just that they shouldn’t have to pay for a woman’s unilateral decision to bring the pregnancy to term: “Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.” And this: > [@](#): > > many divorced mothers whose professional lives would benefit from shared custody were unreasonably opposed to this option—not only because of the social stigma of being viewed as “bad moms” but out of sheer hostility toward their ex-husbands. In a 1984 Father’s Day column, DeCrow described a conversation with a client, a divorced mother of three who was having childcare troubles because of an unusual work schedule: “‘What about the father?’ I asked. ‘Is he willing to take them during those hours?’ ‘Their father?’ she exclaimed. ‘That’s just what he wants!’” And this: > [@](#): > > In a 1994 interview, she lamented that “in the battle between the sexes, men and women will go practically to the end of the earth in illogical, irrational ways to give each other pain.” It’s telling that DeCrow saw such behavior as mutual; she was also sympathetic to the controversial argument that domestic violence is a two-way street. In the 1970s, she had fought sexist rape laws that allowed victims to be questioned about their chastity; in the early 1990s, she applauded Katie Roiphe’s critique of “rape-crisis feminism,” The Morning After, as a courageous challenge to a “new puritanism” that depicted women as perpetual victims of male predation. Recalling the bad old days when girls were taught to deny both their brains and their sexuality, DeCrow was tangibly impatient with the idea that “being whistled at, or even slurped at” amounted to “oppression.” And this: > [@](#): > > There were other heresies, too. DeCrow, who started her feminist journey by fighting sex discrimination in the workplace, contributed a foreword to Warren Farrell’s 2005 book, Why Men Earn More, which argued that the pay gap is due largely to men’s and women’s different workplace behavior and career choices; understanding these patterns, DeCrow believed, could help women’s advancement. The message aside, she was quietly bucking the party line by the mere fact of her collaboration with Farrell, who served on the board of NOW’s New York City chapter during her presidency but was excommunicated from the women’s movement over his championship of men’s liberation. And this: > [@](#): > > DeCrow herself was increasingly at odds with the organization she had once led, though she never broke with it. By the mid-1990s, NOW was openly hostile to the fathers’-rights movement, arguing that women were the real victims of bias in family courts. An “action alert” issued at the group’s 1996 annual conference compared fathers’-rights activists to batterers seeking control over women; a resolution three years later made it NOW’s official policy to champion women’s interests in divorce and custody cases and counter the “undue influence” of fathers’ group. DeCrow, then head of NOW’s Greater Syracuse chapter, refrained from criticizing these moves. In 2000, she told me she had heard about the resolution but hadn’t read it and couldn’t comment. In his tribute to DeCrow on LW4SP’s blog, Farrell wrote that she “walked [a] tightrope,” not wanting to alienate feminist friends and colleagues. Or this: > [@](#): > > **her [DeCrow’s] voice is the kind sorely missing from today’s feminist discourse.** Or this: > [@](#): > > she honored men as parents and partners, noted that “fathers still have a difficult time being recognized as equal parents,” and wrote, “We should cease thinking about men as the enemy of children and women.” I did, however, [supply the link, so people could read it](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-now-president-who-became-a-mens-rights-activist/372742/). Thank you for reading it. And yes, **DeCrow’s voice is exactly the kind that is "sorely missing from today’s feminist discourse**." Oh wait. You didn’t quote that, did you? I wonder why not? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1058 "2015-08-09T02:01:00Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Right. NOW resorts to blatant lies to support its embarrassing failure to support actual equality. Or rather, its embarrassing promotion of inequality. You’re kidding, right? It was your cite. Why are you citing a source you yourself don’t believe? > [@LinusK](#): > > Did you know they also say that fathers want to see their kids, not because they want to be good fathers, but to get out of paying child support? > > Because, you know… men are bad. Why should we believe that? Maybe the part I quoted is true (I do have the actual study available), and the things you quoted are the lies. Maybe they’re just putting that out there to make anti-feminists angry. Some people do that you know: they like to get people riled up, so when they give up on debating and resort to attacks in return, you can tell yourself that you hit a nerve; makes it seem like there’s some truth to what you’re saying about them. I’m pretty sure I heard someone mention that in a video somewhere; I suspect you did as well. but I’m guessing you’ll ignore what I’m saying because I’m a feminist. Because you know… feminists are bad. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1059 "2015-08-09T02:24:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Based on his previous 131 posts (in this thread), he clearly meant that feminists never do this. Yes, I’ve come around to this conclusion, that that’s what he meant. Though he has most recently contradicted his prior contention. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1060 "2015-08-09T02:36:47Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I agree the articles were more nuanced than Linus’s summary perhaps implied, but I read the Salon and Atlantic articles as representing these positions as exceptions–using phrases like “heresy” and noting the wider opposition to “men’s rights” in many feminist philosophies, citing the belief that these female supporters are the dupes of oppressive males. > > So, if Linus’s point was that the largest “consensus” in feminist circles opposes such men’s rights, his cites are to at least some extent–perhaps largely–supportive of such a notion. If his point was that there is not a single feminist anywhere, anytime, who supports these men’s rights, then I guess you got him. > > BTW, I’m not taking a position either way, just explaining my read of the articles, for what they’re worth (and for what my reading comprehension is worth)… You’re correct. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=52) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=54)