I didn’t finish reading the first link, because I stopped here:
:smack: “We feminists are all about eliminating double standards… unless they benefit us.”
I made it through most of the Jezebel article, and here are the highlights:
There’s not much to say about that, except that this is feminism at it’s core.
Note that it doesn’t say Solange’s methods of attack were reprehensible (kicking him in the balls, spitting on him, beating him with her shoe…) but that Jay Z “must have” done something reprehensible to deserve it.
Imagine anyone anywhere saying a woman “must have deserved it, because of the viciousness of the attack.”
Now, I don’t know anything about Jay Z, but a quick google image search seems to show he’s a strong young man. My guess is he could have knocked Solange on her ass with one good punch to the face.
[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.
I’m a broken record about this stuff by now, but, as with Linus, I don’t think you have the level of knowledge required to make an informed critique of this law. I don’t either, but my reading suggests I might be a little ahead of you, and it seems a lot more complex than you’re treating it. I mean, we’re dealing with a Wiki summary of the interplay between a French criminal statute about using someone’s genetic fingerprint and French custody and child support laws. And all the statute really says is that if you’re going to DNA test somebody for the purposes of establishing parentage, it has to be in conjunction with some kind of civil proceeding, and you have either get their consent or you have to go to the court and get a court order.
In other words, you can’t just send away a vial of pee to French Wal-Mart, get a letter back saying “not the father,” and then just walk away, leaving the other parent with the burden of figuring out how to litigate the case to get some kind of legal determination to find out whether or not you’re even telling the truth about it. Instead, you have to go to the court and say that you aren’t the father, and that you can prove it, and then prove it. Then you can walk away and not pay child support or whatever you’re attempting to do.
You can feel however you like about the wisdom of this approach - I think it’s at the very least debatable, and maybe you believe you shouldn’t have to have a court’s stamp of approval before you sever ties with very small people who erroneously think you’re their father. But as with pretty much every subject that’s come up thus far in this thread, it’s a little more complicated than “matriarchy imposes one year in prison to test your kids, feminism is tyranny, QED.”
No, that’s nor what the law says. It is quite reasonable and goes without saying that to cut your obligations you require valid proof – that is from a sanctioned test facility. However that’s not what is going on here. It’s the mere usage of DNA testing for private use which has been made illegal. Supposedly this is also so that a person cannot take biological samples from a stranger and submit them for DNA testing, which might be reasonable, but a man’s child is not a stranger.
In any case, this need not be discussed on the basis of what goes on in France. We’ve already established in this thread that it’s meaningless to talk about feminism (and anti-feminism) since there’s no agreement on what feminism constitutes, however I certainly reserve the right to be anti-feminist when feminism is defined by opinion like this vile witch who’d use paternity uncertainty as a tool in her perputal power struggle against men:
What you’re not taking into account is: what’s step two?
Step one, totally legal, non-sanctionable private DNA test without the consent of the people being tested and without the approval of a court, and without filing any cases in which the result will be used as evidence (which is what you’re looking for with the repeal of that statute). Regardless of what the result is, what have you succeeded at doing, practically speaking? I go and get my baby tested, and I’m not the baby daddy. And therefore… what?
And sure, this is just what one person said in France, and you have every right to think it’s crazy, like I said. But if you’re going to hold it up as an example of a powerful nation legislating on the basis of some crazy matriarchal impulse, I think it’s fair to look at what the law is really saying, regardless of why that one person thinks it’s a good idea.
Maybe feminist come in different varieties based on their location or something? My wife considers herself one, and this really doesn’t sound like her. I even asked her some questions yesterday just to check:
Me: Are you a feminist?
Her: Yes . . .
Me: So men and women should make the same amount of money?
Her: Yes.
Me: What about maternity leave?
Her: You know I wish you had more than a week off for our kids! I would have loved if you had taken longer-
Me: OK, so you think men should have time off for child care too.
Her: Yes, both parents are important when it comes to kids!
Me: What about criminal sentences? Should they be reduced for women?
Her: I’m sorry to say it but no, a crime is a crime. I can’t affect what a judge or a jury will decide though.
I like taking care of my wife. I hold doors for her, get her coat, ask her if she needs things while I’m up, and like to think that I would sacrifice my life to a rampaging monster to save her. However I do those same things to random people too, male or female. We are teaching both our son and daughter to be the same way.
If you want to do heavy lifting, take risks, and be on the front line that’s cool. The world needs people to fill those roles. But you’ve decided that it has to be men doing it for women and not you doing it for [random person].
That’s what the feminist I know say, at least. Apparently the ones around you say different things.
Yes, that’s exactly what he’s doing, and it’s been explained to him over and over again.
He’s witnessing for the anti-feminist propaganda. He doesn’t care about reality. He doesn’t care about how it impacts women - or men. It’s just another “factoid” he likes to repeat in the hope that someone will believe it if they hear it often enough.
Here’s a handy bar graph showing the impact levels for women and men from the CDC study (which he actually quoted from at one point):
I don’t care to second guess other people. What they do with the knowledge is up to themselves. Presumable many will use it to demand a divorce and termination of child support (& contact) – requiring another test by a state sanctioned service provider; others may chose other options. I don’t know and don’t really care either way. The important thing is that the state has absolutely no business going out and actively prevent cuckolded men from discovering the truth – like you know, how it is in most nations.
Beyond that, then I personally think it should be possible to sue the deceiving mother for fraud and force her to pay back any child payments which may have been made while the couple were separated. Perhaps a cause for feminists?
…which was quickly totally discredited when it was released (sample size of 72, from one class at one university, dubious questions, etc.) I’ve seen surveys with a higher and more representative sample size, which showed a higher percentage of Americans think the world is flat. Just another example of how feminists insist on using bogus statistics and surveys. In any case, a good part of humanity (men and women) would visit a great deal of harm on other humans if there were no consequences. It’s just the way we are.
No, not your bad at all. Believe me you saved yourself a lot of aggravation and time by not reading the whole thread. And it’s good that others refute him on this and most of his other claims without letting his repeated posts stand without comment.
Your second-to-last sentence seems to invalidate your criticism of the study. If lots of humans would visit harm on others were there no consequences, then that’s a sign that we have a lot of things to improve.
That’s true. I’m thinking of some other movies… Harry Potter, Jacob’s Ladder, Game of Thrones (technically not a movie), Unforgiven, Gran Torino, Shane, Out of Africa, Sid & Nancy… but none of these really fit the womyn’s studies template you described.
The Princess Bride comes closest, which I’ve already mentioned. Perhaps you can think of some.
That’s sort of the point: if the template you described was accurate, Reese would have killed the Terminator, and Sarah would have been his reward. That’s not what happened.
I would have thought that a movie could have more than one protagonist. But either way, it still doesn’t fit the model. Because even if you want to say Sarah was the protagonist, that only makes it worse. The protagonist, according to womyn’s studies, is supposed to be a man.
Finally, Sarah quickly became as violent as Reese, once she learned the skills.
OK. That’s one interpretation. Another is that Rose survived because Cameron was making an effort to appeal to female viewers: if she’d died, it wouldn’t have been romantic.
It’s true she doesn’t earn the reward, but she nevertheless got it.
To paraphrase Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes) “I never knew anyone who couldn’t live with it.” (Getting a reward s/he didn’t earn.)
It’s worth remembering, Wesley took ridiculous risks to learn the skills that allowed him to save Buttercup, (“Nice work, Wesley. I’ll most likely kill you in the morning.”) And experienced excruciating pain (including being “mostly dead”) along the way. YMMV, but I’d rather wait in the castle. Especially in the real world, where there’s no such thing as “mostly dead.” There’s only “dead.”
Anyway, the moral, if there is one, is that skills and confidence are earned through hard work and sacrifice. Does feminism demand hard work and sacrifice from women? Or does it demand that everyone and everything else to change to accommodate them? Is it concerned about getting women into logging, construction, or working on oil rigs? Or is it mostly concerned about getting women into the plum jobs at the top of the pyramid?
You’re on to something, but onto it in the worst possible way. Yeah, there’s a strand of feminism that focuses on “getting women into the plum jobs at the top of the pyramid,” and yeah, that kind of feminism can be kind of gross. But the reason it exists is because there’s a branch of feminism that’s by, and caters to, upper-class white women. Those women, like women at pretty much every socioeconomic level and of pretty much every race, notice the equivalent men having doors open that don’t open for themselves. This branch–I think bell hooks calls it “white supremacy feminism” but that’s based on a very old memory–can make the mistake of thinking that the struggles of upper-class white women are somehow universal. And that’s gross.
[edit: not to say that upper-class women shouldn’t fight for parity. That’s fine–as long as they don’t act like that’s the alpha and omega of equality.]
But that’s not remotely the only kind of feminism out there. And it’s a kind that comes in for plenty of criticism from other feminists. Here’s an example of feminists fighting for women in more blue-collar jobs. Check out Tradeswomen, Inc. Don’t be afraid: you can do it!
