Here’s an article with an outside perspective : What Happened on the Mattress?, which illustrates what American feminism have come to represent to me in the context of universities.
Pseudo legislation of byzantine complexity and provisional courts of kafkaesque absurdity ruining innocent men’s lives, extreme group bullying and shaming of individual named men with public support of very powerful actors (university leadership, public prosecutors, politicians), the exhalation of ideologue over science, the obstruction and undermining of free debate and the liberty of people and universities to be free to pursue the direction of their interests and science, the closing of minds.
It’s basically all rubbish. There’s nothing worth saving. At some point these kind of feminists transformed from a movement which sought to set women free in the world, to a movement which sought to protect women from the world. Fortunately it doesn’t seem to have not come to this here yet. Although I already see some those cancerous ideas like rape culture, trigger warnings, safe spaces, etc. seep into local discussions, but they feel kinda alien and silly.
Anyway, no I’m not a feminist, because feminism as it has come to be and illustrated by the mattress bullies, is a totalitarian ideology.
“of sorts” being a key phrase. Chances are, your daughters have benefited from feminism, and will benefit from future advances made by feminism, but will benefit a lot more from being born into a relatively wealthy family with connections. “Of sorts” indeed.
Point of order: this process isn’t limited to men. There was a recent kerfluffle Googlable under the phrase Title IX Inquisition that shows that this process is very egalitarian, and quite willing to turn the nonsense charges on women, as well.
Of sorts whatever. I don’t subscribe to the theory of the blank slate. There are innate differences, and of course there are physical differences. Only a fool would think we’re the same in all aspects of life. Of course they will benefit from the sort of feminism which sought to set them free and put them on an equal footing. Nobody but a few interest groups will benefit from retarded mattress activists and Rolling Stones rape hoaxes.
If you feel that “retarded mattress activists and Rolling Stones rape hoaxes” are representative of feminism, I would suggest that your confirmation bias is working overtime.
Miller, I’m pretty sure I’ve already corrected you (although it may have been somebody else), but I’ll try again.
I didn’t say “Feminists don’t talk about this.” I believe the word I used was “complain”. I don’t mean to be petty, but it turns out to be a pretty important distinction.
It’s important because in this context “talking about” and “complaining about” can have two entirely different meanings.
For example, if there’s a bias against fathers in custody disputes, “talking about it” could mean saying, “Hey, some people keep bringing this up. We need to find a way to silence them.”
Complaining about it, on the other hand, would mean saying something like, “You know, there’s a bias against fathers in custody disputes. As feminists who’re genuinely concerned about equality, we should voice our support for them, and demand that fathers get equal treatment in family courts.”
The link that you provided was an example of “talking about it”.
There may be an article somewhere on the internet complaining about it, but your article wasn’t it.
I asked before, but I’m going to ask again: if the problem was women getting paid less, do you think that feminists would say: “You know, the problem is really women. It’s up to them to change the stereotype that women are not as good workers as men”?
There’s no need to find out, though, because there’s a way more important comparison there. The problem of women getting paid way less was a huge GD problem the solution to which was NOT women changing the stereotype when they started “complaining” about it.
The problem of men not winning primary custody as often as women is 1. a way less significant social problem considering the multiple factors that contribute to it and 2. a problem to which a great deal of the solution, if a solution is needed, IS men changing the stereotype, because the stereotype isn’t a stereotype per se, it’s the actual state of the game. You only have to see a handful of custody trials play out to see that there’s no equivalence here. In the vast, vast majority of households that end up in custody proceedings, the mother does the vast majority of the parenting. Not all, and not all, but vast majority and vast majority, absolutely. And as long as that’s true, when you get a judge on the case whose job it is to determine which parent if any is going to do the majority of the parenting going forward, it’s not a tough call in most cases. And that’s the cases where they’re both reasonably decent parents. Many many more fathers also just don’t give a shit about parenting than mothers. I don’t have a narrative to present you with to explain that, and I’m not hating on men when I say that. It’s just what’s out there. If you’re going to point to the percentages of cases that lean this way or that way, you have to confront the fact that some significant percentage of those cases have shitty deadbeat dads on the other end of them. What are you gonna do?
So sure, in that piece they weren’t complaining about men not winning custody enough. What they were doing was telling the truth.
That’s for sure! Say I, as a male, get paid more for my work than a woman would be paid for identical work. I’m opposed to this, and I will work to change it. But I’m not “complaining” about the extra money. That’s a pleasant thing to have.
I’m complaining about the injustice. Not the dollars.
She says, “the most revolutionary change we can make in the institution of motherhood is to include men in every aspect of childcare.” I agree, except that I would have said, “Fathers should be involved in raising their children, because they’re fathers.”
With one exception, there’s nothing particularly objectionable about Ms. Doucet’s article. The exception is this:
The answer is “No”. Men don’t “mother”, they “father”. Being a good father doesn’t involve changing your gender. It’s bad for two reasons: 1.) It perpetuates the stereotype that taking care of your children is “mother’s work”, and 2.) it implies that being a good father is somehow emasculating. Nothing good be more poisonous, and wrong, in my view.
Otherwise, my gut-instinct reaction one of frustration: she uses a lot of words to say very little. For example:
I think she would have been fine, without making references to Foucault, or coining new words. (I mean referencing Foucault was fashionable back when I was in school, and that was 20 years ago.) She could have just said, “People and groups have world-views (or paradigms) through which they filter their experiences and which inform how they react to others.” (Or, more poetically, “people hear what they want to hear, and disregard the rest”.) But, that criticism has nothing to do with feminism: it’s about academia. (And btw, I don’t hate academia: it’s a love-hate relationship, not a hate-hate relationship.)
Her main point seems to be that both sides have at least some valid points, and they’re really bad at listening to each other. I agree, but I don’t see it as ground-breaking.
Those two statements make similar recommendations, but for slightly different reasons. You’re focusing on increasing father responsibility for reasons of basic morality; she’s focusing on doing so in order to lessen the unfair burden on mothers.
I kind of agree: you’re right that when I change diapers, bathe kids, read them stories, make them dinner, fix their hair, etc., I’m doing it as a father, not a mother. However, it’s possible she’s using this inappropriate word advisedly, trying to shock people into examining their gender stereotypes. Without reading her book (which honestly I’m unlikely to do), I’m not going to criticize her too much for the word choice.
I chalked that one up to academia :). Yeah, she talks like a perfesser, and it’s a bit annoying.
I cited her to show that feminists are aware of, and concerned about, disparities in custodial rights, not to show that she’s groundbreaking.
As I understand it, MRA folks often say, “WOmen aren’t oppressed, they always get the kids in divorce!” Feminists often respond, “Fuck off, women are oppressed, this isn’t proof of anything, and anyway women generally get custody of the kids because they do a disproportionate amount of childcare during the marriage.” Then MRA folks say, “But even when they don’t, they still get custody!” and feminists say, “Then change the stereotype.”
I think the last step is problematic. But I think feminists say that, not because they’re blaming the few equal-childrearing men for the stereotype they’re under, but because the behavior that leads to the stereotype causes a lot more societal harm than the unfair application of the stereotype causes, and changing that behavior solves two problems at once.
I don’t really know what really know what you’re talking about, but I accept your non-substantive response as an admission that you misquoted me, and don’t want to admit it.
I know nothing about the mattress case other than the news article in you link, but there’s some troubling stuff in there:
The alleged victim “only reported him eight months after the night in question and only to the university authorities.” After the University found the allegation “unfounded” - and two years after the event - Emma reported him to the police, “making it possible for his name to be made public, which the college newspaper promptly did”. Paul was interrogated by the police, “but Emma withdrew the complaint, giving the reason that the proceedings were too lengthy.” (bolding mine)
It was after that that Emma began carrying the mattress.
The University itself absolved Paul of “wrongdoing” and then subsequently gave Emma credit for her senior thesis for carrying the mattress. That’s not just endorsing a false rape allegation: it’s actively rewarding it.
According to Paul’s lawyer:
According to the article:
If the Zeit Online article is accurate, it sounds like Columbia, at least, has given up on ideas like due process, or any of the other ideas Americans normally associate with justice. At least in rape cases.
Not to worry, Dutch (female – taking femsplaining to a higher level) scientists are on the case! Experimenting with “administering hormones” to coming fathers to optimize their fathering to become more what she thinks is better, that is more like the not so clumsy mothers.
1.) The problem with stereotypes is that they apply even to people who don’t fit the stereotype.
2.) Another problem with stereotypes is that the people who don’t fit the stereotype have no power to change the behavior of those who do.
3.) Have you seen a handful of custody trials? If you have, is that enough evidence (for you) to decide that’s the “state of the game” - that men are bad fathers?
4.) If the stereotype was “black men commit more crimes,” would you support store security following ALL black men around, to make sure they don’t commit crimes? Would the stereotype justify following ANY black man around?
5.) Would you tell black men “if a solution is needed, it IS [black] men changing the stereotype”?
6.) The question of whether custody or getting paid more is a question of values, isn’t it? Specifically, whether you value money more or less than your relationship with your child?
What do you consider the “vast, vast majority of households”? If your conclusion comes from watching custody hearings, can I ask why you were there, and what you were doing there? If it comes from somewhere else, where does it come from?
But I want to concentrate on the last couple of sentences: "And as long as that’s true, when you get a judge on the case whose job it is to determine which parent if any is going to do the majority of the parenting going forward, it’s not a tough call in most cases. And that’s the cases where they’re both reasonably decent parents."
If we’re talking about cases where “they’re both reasonably decent parents” why is “not a tough call”? If both are "reasonably decent parents, shouldn’t it be a tough call?
What it sounds like you’re saying is that if other fathers are bad fathers, good fathers should be punished too. What is the logic behind that?
If that’s not what you’re saying, please correct me. Maybe what you’re saying is that good fathers should have the same chance at getting custody as good mothers. If that is what you’re saying, let me know.
Also, I need to ask: you haven’t said anything about bad mothers. Are there any bad mothers out there?
I need to ask what “many many” means. I mean, I know there are some. My father was one. But what is the ratio? is it 100:1? 99:1? How do you know? Is it just “what’s out there”?
When you say “It’s just what’s out there,” it makes it sound like you’re talking about a bias, or stereotype. Do you know any good fathers? If you’re a man, and a father yourself, are you one?
The problem with stereotypes, is that when you actually examine them, sometimes it turns out they’re not true. The other problem with stereotypes, is that when you apply them to really important issues, like custody, instead of examining the actual case at hand, you wind committing injustices, which hurt everyone.
You give custody to the mother. But you do it because he’s a shitty dad, not because of a stereotype about dads generally being shitty.
The truth is that:
1.) If you rely on a stereotype, rather than the facts at hand, you’re committing an injustice.
2.) Good fathers - and their kids - should not be punished because you’re relying on a stereotype, rather than the facts at hand.
3.) You say “that’s just what’s out there”. Are you sure that’s a good way decide the ratio of good fathers to good mothers?
Women get custody of children after divorce because, the vast majority of the time, fathers don’t want custody. But when men do want custody, they get it far more than women do. In several studies of custody cases, fathers only sought custody about 8% of the time…but in those instances where they did seek custody, fathers were awarded it between 60 and 90% of the time.
