# Women Against Feminism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2015, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667 "2015-09-27T03:08:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/621 "2015-11-03T12:44:38Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Feminists are extremists. They didn’t ‘co-opt’ the word, they defined it. Egalitarianism as it applies to men and women (it’s telling, don’t you think, that you referred only to “women’s equality issues”? That’s the one-sided ‘equality’ which isn’t equality by any reasonable definition to which I’ve previously referred) can be described in many ways, of which ‘feminism’ is the least useful - it lumps you in unnecessarily with the bulk of feminists, who are extremists. That the word ‘feminism’ has now been co-opted, if you will (I wouldn’t, but that’s another story), by those who just tend to think that things shouldn’t be unfair (at least as far as the fair sex goes…) is at best unfortunate, at worst a deliberate attempt to whitewash what feminism mostly is and always has been. > > There are always at least two ways to reach equality. Suppose Alice, Betty and Clara all have one apple each, while Andy, Bob and Chuck all have 3 apples each. We can create equality by dividing all the apples fairly, or by taking all the apples away from everyone. Both are equality - just standing for ‘equality’, even when you use the word in its realistic non-feminist sense, says nothing. Using it to mean ‘equality for women, who have less apples’ while ignoring the fact that the girls all have oranges, because the law insists and culture reinforces the boys giving their oranges to the girls - that’s not equality. > > In the real world, consider the focus on the (mythical, but never mind) ‘wage gap’, while ignoring which sex _spends_ most of the money. In working class households, it was commonplace that the working husband took his wage packet home unopened, so that his wife could make the household budgeting decisions, giving him his ‘pocket money’. Egalitarians look at the whole picture, without prejudice. Feminists endeavour to control the narrative and focus, to create a distorted picture, with an aim that is no sense related to ‘equality’. > > You can align yourself with who you wish. There were plenty of proud, patriotic germans who didn’t murder anyone in the 30s and 40s. But being a member of the Nazi party, while advisable to avoid the wrath of the ‘extremist’ Party members, is nevertheless a shameful thing to admit to. > > I feel I ought to forestall the whole ‘but we’re against all gender roles’ nonsense. Again, if you believe that men created gender roles to oppress women, then it isn’t about equality at all - it’s about demonising men. If you believe that nature/evolution got it wrong, then I can’t help you at all. Rubbish. > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > How about you tell me your views? It would be a positive contribution to discussion (as opposed to the merely combative, partisan and unhelpful post you actually made). If you did that, we could all form an opinion as to whether any of your views are ‘extremist’. I put that word in detachment quotes because it applies to the vast bulk of feminists, which tends to weaken its meaning - when the extreme becomes mainstream, it doesn’t help to talk of extremism, but neither does it make the ethically unpalatable magically ethical. > > Let’s suppose you’re using ‘feminist’ in the practically meaningless sense of ‘equality for women’. Already, you’re edging away from any meaningful centre (which would be equality for all). Of course, ‘extremists’ are those people _more_ extreme than _you_, right? So somewhere there’s a detestable, despicable gender-bigot looking down her (or his) nose at the slightly more detestable, marginally more despicable gender-bigot ‘extremist’ next door. She (or he) merely spits at men, while her (or his!) neighbour shoots them. So you see, trying to wave away the issues with some waffle about extremists really isn’t helpful. > > Neither you, nor any other ‘feminist’ claiming an interest in equality has done or said anything of value to the pursuit of equality here. Indeed, the defence of feminism, such as it is, has largely been personal attacks (and petty gotchas) directed at those challenging feminism (but not ‘extremist’ attacks, of course, which are by definition _more_ extreme than anything _you_ do. Or anyone does. There are no extremists! Boom, woohoo, to borrow an idiotic expression). Meanwhile, those feminists actively engaged in issues are detestable and despicable. That the rest of you see the value in joining the party doesn’t surprise me - I, along with other egalitarians, know only too well how easy it is for them to whip up a very damaging hate mob to deal with those who question their faith. > > Do you even know what sort of equality you want? Equality of opportunity is a laudable goal. No, hang on, you can’t use ‘goal’ for something you’ve achieved already (even if that equality is of the one-sided variety). What’s being fought for now is equality of outcome. That can only be achieved through control, and can only be fully achieved through total control. All totalitarians are extremists. Ergo, feminists (no you’re not) are extremists (feel free to insist you are…) More rubbish. > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Things I’ve learned from this thread so far: > > I am a feminist (apparently - you can check with lance). > Only feminists can say what a feminist is. > I can’t say what a feminist is (even though I’m a feminist). > Random strangers on the internet can’t say what feminism is. > Random strangers on the internet have to be told about feminism by…random strangers on the internet…who can’t say what feminism is…unless they can. > ‘Feminism’ is now an utterly meaningless term, a development that only serves to shield despicable, detestable extremists (I regard shielding the detestable and despicable as both detestable and despicable, but I’m quirky like that). > Oh, and the rule about not insulting posters personally appears not to apply to lance strongarm (I haven’t learned why yet, but I bet you can guess what my guess is). > Ah, and there appears to be some confusion about what an accusation is but I think I’m not allowed to say _who_ is confused. No, hang on, lance keeps saying I’m confused without getting modded, so it must be ok…in which case, tomndebb, you’re confused. (Oh! What if the special rules for lance also apply to that?) Butt-hurt rubbish. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/622 "2015-11-03T13:02:36Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > A rational man, looking at what marriage means, for him, might conclude that marriage is not such a great deal, for him. > > > > And in fact, marriage rates are going down: Record Share of Americans Have Never Married. > > > > Women, of course, blame men: Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married: > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Quote: > > > Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.” > > > > > > “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped. > > > > The logic here is simple: if men aren’t doing what women want, they must be shamed into doing it. > > Wait juuuuust a minute here, LinusK: you’re quoting Janice Shaw Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute as an example of FEMINIST criticism of men’s relationship choices?!? > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! > > Oh golly, that was a good one. The LaHaye Institute in fact is a “thinktank” of the right-wing Christian antifeminist group Concerned Women for America. They are diehard social conservatives who hate feminism and feminist opposition to societally imposed traditional gender roles as much as, well, even more than LinusK does. > > Consequently, of course, what Crouse and the CWA are saying has absolutely jackshit to do with any kind of feminist opinion or advocacy. > > Classic own-goal there, LinusK. But thanks for the guffaw. You might look again. I did not use the word “feminist”. I used the word “women”: > [@](#): > > Women, of course, blame men: But I do think it’s amusing that trying (and failing) to find a “gotcha” is your response to my comments, instead of thinking about the substance of what I said. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/623 "2015-11-03T13:04:00Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Apparently I’m not permitted to say that you’re wrong on purpose _or_ negligently. Yet those are the only options, it seems to me. Let’s see if I’m allowed to advise you to reread my post containing those words (hang on, would I be allowed to call you detestable and despicable even if I thought you were?). It seems to me the moderation of this discussion shares much with…let’s say ‘extremist’, if it will help…feminist fascination with censorship and the suppression of opposing views. I do, for the record, find censorship and the suppression of opposing views detestable and despicable. I also find ‘debate’ consisting almost entirely of purposeful or negligent [del]dece[/del] [del]fals[/del] [del]li[/del] error(?) to be detestable and/or despicable. Do you find it detestable and despicable to have outreach events on STEM geared towards girls? Do you find it wrong to do so? Do you consider it censorship when I challenged my male colleague when he said “I don’t want another woman director” for our department? Do you have a job? What is your occupation? In what region do you live? Because if gender equality is achieved in your field and area I’d like to have a look. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/624 "2015-11-03T13:08:43Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > You might look again. I did not use the word “feminist”. I used the word “women”: > > But I do think it’s amusing that trying (and failing) to find a “gotcha” is your response to my comments, instead of thinking about the substance of what I said. Antifeminist women tend to want to return to more traditional society with traditional marriages. Feminist women tend not to. If your beef is with traditional marriages (and it seems to be given your obsession with child support and alimony – feminists support women working outside the home and equal pay, and men doing half the childcare and housework, so there won’t be child support and alimony upon divorce), then leave feminist women alone and go after those who support traditional marriages. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/625 "2015-11-03T13:14:37Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > She (or he) merely spits at men, while her (or his!) neighbour shoots them. It’s funny you say that. There have been a number of mass shootings where the male shooter specifically target women and girls he doesn’t know. Has there been any female mass shooter specifically targeting men and boys she doesn’t know? How do you feel about this as an egalitarian? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/626 "2015-11-03T13:43:34Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No, the point is that children don’t need to have _bad_ fathers playing an active role in their lives, any more than they need to have bad mothers similarly being active in their lives. > > If a biological parent is abusive or neglectful, then the mere fact of being a biological parent doesn’t automatically entitle them to equal parental rights. > > And yes, this holds true for abusive or neglectful biological mothers just as much as for abusive or neglectful biological fathers. > > If neither parent is abusive or neglectful, then their post-divorce parental rights and responsibilities should be shared in accordance with what’s in the child’s best interests. If one parent has consistently been the primary caregiver for the child, it’s not surprising or unreasonable that the child would continue to be primarily cared for by that parent. Ok, so let’s look at the stats. The labor force participation rate for all mothers with children in 2014 was 70.1% For married women the rate was slightly lower: 67.8%. For unmarried mothers it was slightly higher: 74.6%. “The unemployment rate for married mothers was substantially lower than for mothers with other marital statuses–4.0 percent, compared with 10.3 percent.” In contrast, 92.8% of father worked. So, a couple of things. If you’re going to assume “not working” is why women deserve custody after a divorce, there’s a problem. Only about 32.2% of married women with children don’t work. That’s in contrast to the 85% of women who get custody after a divorce. The other problem is that looking backward is not in the best interest of the child. Looking forward is. If you look forward - to post-divorce - mothers are both more likely to be working, and more likely to be unemployed, and looking for work. (It’s also worth noting that “unmarried” is not the same as “not living with a man”: some percent of “not-married mothers” have a partner who is working to support her and the children.) Why should the fact that the mother was not working (if in fact she wasn’t) be a reason to give her primary custody, if she’s going to be working after the divorce? In any case, unless I’m mistaken, the idea that a mother should lose custody of her kids because she job or career is not a feminist position. If that’s not true, please correct me. If it is true, why should fathers lose custody because they work to support their families? Source for stats: [Bureau of Labor Statistics](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/627 "2015-11-03T13:49:14Z")
> [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Do you find it detestable and despicable to have outreach events on STEM geared towards girls? Do you find it wrong to do so? I’d be fascinated to hear the circumstances in which you would consider ‘despicable and detestable’ to be _right_, but setting aside your redundancy (brevity, I’m assured, is your friend), I’d refer you to my earlier comments on equality of _opportunity_ versus equality of _outcome_. If you can demonstrate an understanding of what I’ve said, I’d be happy to discuss the matter further. > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Do you consider it censorship when I challenged my male colleague when he said “I don’t want another woman director” for our department? For a given value of censorship, yes, I do - an attempt to suppress the expression of an idea is censorship, regardless of how…let’s say ‘despicable and detestable’, shall we, since it seems to be suddenly in vogue?..regardless of your opinion of the idea. You’ll note that this board, for example, has once again explicitly refused to censor ‘wrong’ ideas. But you did say ‘challenge’, rather than ‘silence’, so no, I don’t regard spirited debate as ‘censorship’ for most values of ‘censorship’. What was your intent? That’s the pertinent point here. Were you attempting to suppression the expression of an idea you disagree with, or were you endeavouring to educate and inform through engagement? It would have been helpful for you to have considered that before posting. (Feel free to edit down to the first line of that response, stripping the context of it, and then send a twitter-mob after me). > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Do you have a job? What an impertinent question. > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > What is your occupation? In what region do you live? As I’ve previously said when discussing this topic, if you want to dox me, do your own homework. Besides, do you believe everything you read on the internet? > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Because if gender equality is achieved in your field and area I’d like to have a look. See again my remarks about equality of outcome. If gender equality was achieved (or even fought for) in the fields of sewage worker, or the workers I see every day emptying the dog waste bins in the park, then _I’d_ like to have a look. As long as they were easy on the eye 😉 > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > It’s funny you say that. There have been a number of mass shootings where the male shooter specifically target women and girls he doesn’t know. I think that number is one, isn’t it? The Canadian incident of several decades ago (though I think he may have known some of the victims?) Granted, the media often says that a particular shooter has killed x number of women…without giving equal prominence to the greater number of men he’s shot. Have you given any thought to why so many men kill _themselves_? (Have you fought for equality on _that_ issue?) Do you begin to care what hell a young man must be going through to reach a position like that, to kill randomly before killing himself? Are you going to suggest that those young men are just butt-hurt that they don’t get to rule over women any more? Will you reach for the discredited crap peddled by a prominent con-artist - that video games make men murder? > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Has there been any female mass shooter specifically targeting men and boys she doesn’t know? Well, google says yes. Did you consider doing even some basic research of your own before forming an opinion? I don’t know how old you are, but I certainly remember “I don’t like Mondays”. Shooting up a school was actually a trend started by a girl. Does that make her a feminist icon? > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > How do you feel about this as an egalitarian? How do I feel about mass murder? I’m appalled, and saddened. How do you feel about women who kill, as a feminist? Luckily, I don’t blame ‘toxic femininity’ or video games or the myth of patriarchy. What do you blame? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/628 "2015-11-03T14:03:04Z")
To add to what i said before, the average household income in Texas is about $50,000. That’s not the same, of course, as the average income per person, since many household are dual-income. In Texas, the standard child-support order is for 20% of take-home pay, for one child. (25% for two children, 30% for three, etc.) Let’s say the average ex-husband is taking home $35,000 per year. That’s a bit generous, since the median wage in the US per person is $26,695, but let’s go with it. That means the ex-wife will be getting $7000/year in child support. For two children, it’s a bit more - $8750. In any case, the amount she’s going to be getting in child support is not enough to live on. Which means one of two things: 1.) she’ll be raising her children in poverty; or 2.) she’s going to get a job. If she’s going to be working after the divorce, what difference does it make that she wasn’t working when she had a husband to support her? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/629 "2015-11-03T14:11:55Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > In contrast, 92.8% of father worked. > > So, a couple of things. If you’re going to assume “not working” is why women deserve custody after a divorce, there’s a problem. Only about 32.2% of married women with children don’t work. That’s in contrast to the 85% of women who get custody after a divorce. How many of these divorces were contested for custody by the father vs. those that were commonly agreed to by both parties to have the mother becoming the primary care giver? > [@LinusK](#): > > Why should the fact that the mother was not working (if in fact she wasn’t) be a reason to give her primary custody, if she’s going to be working after the divorce? Funny things about custody agreements… they can be changed and adjusted to accomodate changes. What’s more, you don’t need the court to order it. Parents can simply agree to make adjustments to accomodate the changes that life sometimes demands. > [@LinusK](#): > > In any case, unless I’m mistaken, the idea that a mother should lose custody of her kids because she job or career is not a feminist position. If that’s not true, please correct me. If it is true, why should fathers lose custody because they work to support their families? Irrelevant with respect to feminism or whether there’s life of Mars. Orders of loss of custody by the court are generally due to catastrophic events like a parent abusing or neglecting the kid(s) or otherwise being declared as unfit. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/630 "2015-11-03T14:12:08Z")
> [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Antifeminist women tend to want to return to more traditional society with traditional marriages. Feminist women tend not to. Fine. If feminists want dual-income households (and most households are dual-income), why don’t they get behind shared parenting after a divorce? Why do feminists - in this thread - keep saying women deserve primary custody - as opposed to shared custody - because they’re supposedly staying home with their kids? > [@](#): > > If your beef is with traditional marriages (and it seems to be given your obsession with child support and alimony – feminists support women working outside the home and equal pay, and men doing half the childcare and housework, so there won’t be child support and alimony upon divorce), then leave feminist women alone and go after those who support traditional marriages. My “beef” is with feminist hypocrisy, not traditional marriages. ---
**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:** [November 3, 2015, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/631 "2015-11-03T14:14:47Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Why do feminists - in this thread - keep saying women deserve primary custody - as opposed to shared custody - because they’re supposedly staying home with their kids? From what I can tell, most primary custody is uncontested – both parents agree. Do you have different information? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/632 "2015-11-03T14:28:34Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Fine. If feminists want dual-income households (and most households are dual-income), why don’t they get behind shared parenting after a divorce? I’m a feminist and I’m all for it. In fact, I’m livin’ the dream of shared (custody) parenting after separation/divorce. > [@LinusK](#): > > Why do feminists - in this thread - keep saying women deserve primary custody - as opposed to shared custody - because they’re supposedly staying home with their kids? My ex was not working at the time we divorced while I had a full time job. It made sense that she be the primary care giver. I paid child support but never alimony. She got a part time job not long after we separated. We adjusted the child support payments based proportionally on our respective income using the state child support calculator that is used by the court. The court never got involved in telling either one of us how much time we could or should spend with our children. Courts only get involved when the parents are contesting some part of the custodial or child support arrangement. I’m not aware of any ‘feminist hypocrisy’ playing a role in the court’s decisions. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/633 "2015-11-03T14:30:24Z")
> **[Do Dads REALLY Get Dissed In Divorce Court?](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115)** > > We hear a lot about how the courts are biased in favor of mothers when deciding child custody. > [@](#): > > According to [DivorcePeers.com](http://DivorcePeers.com), the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts. > > ``` > In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed -- on their own -- that mom become the custodial parent. > > In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement. > > In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation. > > In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation. > > Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation. > > ``` > > In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court? [http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/more-fathers-getting-custody-in-divorce/](http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/more-fathers-getting-custody-in-divorce/) > [@](#): > > There are now 2.2 million divorced women in the United States who do not have primary physical custody of their children, and an estimated 50 percent of fathers who seek such custody in a disputed divorce are granted it. [http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts\_Gender\_Bias\_Study.htm](http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm) > [@](#): > > ``` > Although perceptions of bias that discourage fathers from seeking custody are a concern, the outcome of cases in which custody is contested provides a more direct source of information about possible judicial gender bias. We heard testimony from George Kelly, a representative of Concerned Fathers, that in contested custody cases, mothers are awarded physical custody over 90% of the time. Mr. Kelly was unable to provide substantiation, however, and our own investigation revealed a very different picture. > > The statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey had collectively represented fathers seeking custody in over 2,100 cases in the last 5 years. They reported that the fathers obtained primary physical custody in 29% of the cases, and joint physical custody in an additional 65% of the cases. Thus, when fathers actively sought physical custody, mothers obtained primary physical custody in only 7% of cases. The attorneys reported that the fathers had been primary caretakers in 29% of the cases in which they had sought custody. > > The preliminary findings of the Middlesex Divorce Research Group relitigation study show a similarly high rate of paternal success, but fewer awards of joint physical custody. In their sample of 700 cases in Middlesex County between 1978 and 1984, fathers had sought custody in 57 cases (8.14% of the sample). In two-thirds of the cases in which fathers sought custody, they received primary physical custody (42% in which fathers were awarded sole legal and sole physical custody, plus 25% in which fathers were awarded joint legal and primary physical custody). Joint physical and joint legal custody was awarded in 3.5% of cases. In 11% of the cases, mothers received primary physical and joint legal custody; in 12%, mothers were awarded sole legal and physical custody; other custodial arrangements were ordered in the remaining cases. Thus, when fathers sought custody, mothers received primary physical custody in fewer than one-quarter of the cases in the Middlesex study. Information about which parent had been the primary caretaker was not available for the Middlesex cases. > > These trends were apparent in an earlier study of a sample of 500 Middlesex County cases filed between 1978 and 1981. Fathers had sought sole custody in about 8% of the cases. They received sole custody in 41% of those cases, and joint custody in 38%. In 5% of the cases, custody went to someone other than a parent. In instances in which fathers sought sole custody, mothers received sole custody in only 15% of the cases (Phear et al., 1983). > > These statistics may be a surprise to many. They are, however, consistent with findings in other states. A study of court records in Los Angeles County, California, in 1977 found that fathers who sought sole custody obtained it in 63% of the cases (up from a success rate of 37% in 1972) (Weitzman, 1985, p. 233). A nationwide survey of all reported appellate decisions in child custody cases in 1982 found that fathers obtained custody in 51% of the cases, up from an estimated 10% in 1980 (Atkinson, 1984). > > The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers. > > ``` [http://homepages.uwp.edu/martinm0/child\_custody\_issues.htm](http://homepages.uwp.edu/martinm0/child_custody_issues.htm) > [@](#): > > ``` > Statistics showing that women gain custody of their children 90% of the time reflect the fact that over the past 50 years, fathers rarely asked for custody. A study of Utah custody decisions between 1970-1993 shows that only 13% of fathers requested custody (Mason and Quirk 1997: 217). > > When fathers do contest custody, studies show they win anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the time. Maccoby and Mnookin studied 930 divorce cases in California in the 1980's and found that only 14 of these ended up before a judge. But of those cases, fathers won custody 50% of the time (Maccoby & Mnookin 1992). > > Weitzman and Dixon found that in Los Angeles County alone in the 1970's, fathers gained custody 63% of the time (Weitzman and Dixon 1986). > > A study by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court Taskforce on Gender found that fathers who contest custody in Massachusetts win sole or joint physical custody more than 70% of the time (Jacobs, 1997:11). > > Another study in Minneapolis found fathers winning custody in 45% of the contested cases (Polikoff, 1993:11). > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/634 "2015-11-03T14:56:38Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Fine. If feminists want dual-income households (and most households are dual-income), why don’t they get behind shared parenting after a divorce? > > Why do feminists - in this thread - keep saying women deserve primary custody - as opposed to shared custody - because they’re supposedly staying home with their kids? > > My “beef” is with feminist hypocrisy, not traditional marriages. Feminists are for shared parenting from day one. MRAs are for shared parenting only after divorce. Why is that? If fathers are equally involved parents before divorce, of course they deserve shared custody after divorce. If they are not, then they don’t. Even in dual working couples, mothers on average spend 70% more time on childcare than fathers. The post-divorce custody ratios are not disproportionate to childcare arrangements in cohabiting couples. Again, _women_ don’t deserve primary custody. _Primary caregivers_ do. Working or stay at home fathers who have been doing the lion’s share of childcare should have primary custody as well as mothers who have done the same. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/635 "2015-11-03T15:30:00Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Why do feminists - in this thread - keep saying women deserve primary custody - as opposed to shared custody - because they’re supposedly staying home with their kids? I missed who said that in this thread. > [@](#): > > My “beef” is with feminist hypocrisy, not traditional marriages. Nobody likes hypocricy (except the hypocrites). A feminists should oppose feminist hypocrisy. The problem is that you seem to want to vastly overstate the level of hypocrisy, to the point of saying “feminists believe” as if most or all believe something, without more focus. And that comes off as opposing feminism, even the egalitarian, non-hypocritical version. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/636 "2015-11-03T16:12:38Z")
Thank you **A’isha** for giving cited support to my preceding anecdotal argument. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/637 "2015-11-03T16:27:25Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > And of course, may women do in fact have men in their life which they love and care for. So if they perceive feminism as hurting men, that might not sit well with them. There’s also the surveys which concludes that women are getting overall less happy by the year. If feminism is not delivering on this most essential parameter, then doubling down for more of the same seems like a counterproductive strategy. > > Here’s a fun article: [It’s time to do away with the concept of ‘manhood’ altogether](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/29/time-to-do-away-with-manhood) Sounds like this guy internalized some Valerie Solanas level bullshit. Probably after being subjected to a life-long diet of “toxic masculinity” teaching. If feminism is teaching men to hate themselves, then it’s long past the time when feminism need to go the route of the dodo. I love it. “Men are pretty terrible people,” who need to be “re-educated.” Consider the kind of feminist rage that gets unleashed when a guy wears the wrong shirt on TV, or a random cop says women shouldn’t dress like sluts, and put it in context. Kind of puts the lie to the whole “feminism is about equality” bullshit, doesn’t it? But, yeah, I think you’re on the right track. Feminism is like candy. It tastes sweet, but it rots your teeth. Eventually it leads to obesity and death. The truth is (heterosexual) women like masculine men. No amount feminist propaganda changes that underlying fact. ---
**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:** [November 3, 2015, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/638 "2015-11-03T16:36:58Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I love it. “Men are pretty terrible people,” who need to be “re-educated.” > > Consider the kind of feminist rage that gets unleashed when a guy wears the wrong shirt on TV, or a random cop says women shouldn’t dress like sluts, and put it in context. Kind of puts the lie to the whole “feminism is about equality” bullshit, doesn’t it? > > But, yeah, I think you’re on the right track. Feminism is like candy. It tastes sweet, but it rots your teeth. Eventually it leads to obesity and death. > > The truth is (heterosexual) women like masculine men. No amount feminist propaganda changes that underlying fact. It must be very comforting to assume the worst about your enemies, rather than the much harder task of trying to understand the reasons behind their beliefs, even when they’re presented to you first-hand by self-identified members of the group in question. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/639 "2015-11-03T16:43:29Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I love it. “Men are pretty terrible people,”… Yeah, that’s a stupid line, albeit an eye-catching one to start an article. > [@LinusK](#): > > …who need to be “re-educated.” If, as described in the article, college students can’t describe the accomplishments of any women from history, then yes, this is a failure of education that needs to be remedied. > [@LinusK](#): > > Consider the kind of feminist rage that gets unleashed when a guy wears the wrong shirt on TV, or a random cop says women shouldn’t dress like sluts, and put it in context. Kind of puts the lie to the whole “feminism is about equality” bullshit, doesn’t it? No. Aggressive violence is a bad thing. Exclusion is a bad thing. That’s what’s being condemned in the article, in the context of those things being linked to masculinity when they shouldn’t be. Sexual objectification is also a bad thing, that should be condemned. Sexual expression isn’t, and shouldn’t be. > [@LinusK](#): > > But, yeah, I think you’re on the right track. Feminism is like candy. It tastes sweet, but it rots your teeth. Eventually it leads to obesity and death. > > The truth is (heterosexual) women like masculine men. No amount feminist propaganda changes that underlying fact. Do women love violent men who exclude them from parts of life? If not, you wildly missed the point of this (admittedly poorly-written) article. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/640 "2015-11-03T16:49:29Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > The truth is (heterosexual) women like masculine men. No amount feminist propaganda changes that underlying fact. Not content to tell all feminists what they think, you’ve moved on to telling all women what they think. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667.md?page=33)