Please do your own research on this one. All it takes is a few simple google.com searches. It has been thoroughly debunked even by people that describe themselves as feminists. It is complete bullshit and should never be supported by anyone on this board ever again.
jsgoddess: If you want to discuss the topic, I encourage you to join in. If you want to lob ad hominem attacks at me, I’d encourage you to start a thread in the pit.
What areas are those?
Here is written testimony by a woman I know who is an expert on prison rape, including male victims of female guards:
She is a feminist, a woman of color, and an attorney and this is her field of expertise.
And here is a review of another of Kim’s articles.
…what does that matter?
NOW isn’t the be all and end all of feminism. Neither is NOW New York State, Inc, and neither is the opinion of NOW New York State, Inc way back in 2005. Now how long did it take you to search and find that opinion?
I’m a feminist, and I’m not opposed to shared parenting. That in itself makes your assertion incorrect. No further examples are required to demonstrate that your assertion “Feminists, by the way are against it” is simply wrong.
You forgot the rest of the passage, which advocates for contested custody (with a reminder that 95% of custody is settled outside of courts) to lean toward the primary caregiver. That’s a different thing than toward the woman.
When I went to college 20+ years ago, we were all required to sit through a lecture about campus rape. The speaker said that if you had sex with someone who was drunk, it was rape. I raised my hand and asked, “If both people are drunk, does that mean they raped each other?” She said, “yes.” At that moment, I knew she was fucking idiot.
Anyway, that story (though true) was mainly just an excuse to quote your post, because I liked it so much.
“Against shared parenting” is a meaningless phrase, and obscures basically everything that the debate is about. NOW is on the right side of that debate, incidentally.
Nobody is “against shared parenting” as like an abstract philosophical principle. The question is whether a court should, in a particular case, presume that 50/50 between parent and parent is the best possible arrangement, or whether a court should look at all the factors in the case that pertain to the child’s best interest and start from scratch in building a custody order without any presumption.
NOW is simply pointing out the obvious true thing that there’s no reason in a particular case to presume that shared parenting is what’s best for a given child, when the alternative is simply to look at the facts and make a decision.
It’s amazing, out of that entire over-long OP, the only thing you got out of it was the Titanic scene.
Here’s the thing about saying you’re for equality, and being for equality: If someone says, “I’m not a racist, but man… black people suck.” The fact that he says he’s not a racist, doesn’t mean shit.
No, I don’t know that. I know the law in my own state, but I don’t know the laws of every state. In the little bit of research I had time to do, the results were not encouraging. There was this, though:
Parent A lives six counties from Parent B. The kid is in middle school, plays soccer, has piano lessons, and has two Scout events a week.
Alternatively: Parent A works 75 hours a week, travels frequently, and lives in an urban highrise. Parent B doesn’t work, and has done 97% of the caretaking. There are three kids, ages 1, 3 and 5.
You tell me how a presumption of 50/50’s gonna work out for these kids. There’s a good reason it isn’t the law everywhere: it’s a terrible idea just begging for a quagmire.
That would be pointless, since I wasn’t talking about you. (Unless, of course, you are a wealthy NY blogger who spends her time trying to think of new things to complain about - but that seems unlikely.)
If you haven’t gotten this from me already, I’m pro-working class. I’m for the people who do the dirty, ugly work so the rich don’t have to. I’m (and anyone who has called me a Marxist in my economics threads will attest to this) way left of the Democratic mainstream when it comes to things like income, taxes, property rights, and full employment.
But yeah, I have done dirty work. And I’m sure you have too.
Sorry that I pissed you off. It wasn’t on purpose.
That one, at least, is easy. NOW (National Organization for Women) has worked to oppose prison rape, and lobbied for law against it.
"Ending sexual and domestic violence
Feminism has fought against sexual violence, including sexual violence against men. Feminists fought to change the federal definition of rape to include male victims, they fought for the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, and they continue to fight to end sexual violence in the military."
In the interests of fighting ignorance, as stated your statement is incorrect. Prior to 1920, local US jurisdictions determined who was permitted to vote- for example, women were voting in Wyoming Territory starting in 1869. Not every woman in the US could vote prior to 1920, but conversely not every woman in the US could not.
Well, I’d like to hear these “very good reasons”, because I find that viewpoint abhorrent.
The evolutionary argument is certainly not one of them. Evolution is just a process, not some angry god we must appease. We owe it nothing.
And it doesn’t suit society right now to try to maximize birth rate.
Done, and not surprisingly, the numbers don’t appear to be “complete bullshit”. 1 in 5 women have probably not been raped, but in some surveys 1 in 5 women have reported being sexually assaulted in some way (which can include things like unwanted groping). I find that problematic. Women do, in fact, make close to 82 cents on the dollar, but much of this can be explained by differences in average experience, job skills, and the like. Not all of it, though – when these various factors are taken into account, women with the same amount of experience in the same field still make about a 5% lower wage, on average, than men. So there really does appear to be some level of salary discrimination by gender (and by race, incidentally).
So, not 1 in 5 get raped - 1 in 5 get “sexually assaulted in some way” if you make your definition as broad as possible.
So, not 75 cents on the dollar but possibly 5% less.
You’ll be vigorously promoting the correct statistics in future, of course?
I, uh, think that the difference between 22% and 5% is pretty damn indicative of bullshit. And yes, declaring rape and sexual assault to be the same thing is to say that I was raped when a stranger smacked my ass in the 7-11 a few months ago.
So, is that the threshold now? 5% of a pay gap indicates a case of serious inequality? Because if so, I’ve got some statistics about violent crime, workplace deaths, suicide rate, and most especially treatment by law enforcement and the legal system that will make a Men’s Right’s Activist of you.
I haven’t promoted any statistics, “vigorously” or otherwise. These numbers might be useful to certain conversations – and even the ~75 cents on the dollar number can be a useful beginning to the discussion… after all, it’s entirely possible that societal gender bias is at least somewhat responsible for women having less experience in certain fields, or being less likely to choose/get chosen for certain jobs, etc.
And the 1 in 5 women being sexually assaulted is, if true, a serious problem, worthy of condemnation and discussion about how to solve it.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii;18532070Women do, in fact, make close to [82 cents on the dollar,]
(Gender pay gap in the United States - Wikipedia) but much of this can be explained by differences in average experience, job skills, and the like.
[/QUOTE]
These “other factors” are not outside of the conversation. They are an essential part of it. Unless the relevant job skill is “having a penis”, this gap is probably problematic.