# 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:** 33
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/641 "2015-11-03T16:50:32Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > 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). To start with, “primary caregiver” is not about working or not working. It is about giving care. Who packs the lunch, who goes to the PTA meeting, who gives the kid a bath and puts them to bed, who stays at home when they are sick, etc. Secondly, labor force participation just tells us who has a job, not hours worked or time dedicated to the job. A part-time job during school hours is an entirely different beast than a consultant with 50% travel. ---
**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, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/642 "2015-11-03T17:18:29Z")
> [@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. Please respond to the fact that over 90% of child custody agreements are settled without court intervention and arguably in the best interest of all parties concerned. Also offer your explanation on why/how feminists are to blame for this seemingly favourable outcome. > [@LinusK](#): > > The truth is (heterosexual) women like masculine men. No amount feminist propaganda changes that underlying fact. Non-sequitor. This makes as much sense as: Heterosexual women like apples. No amount of feminist propaganda will make them like pears instead. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/643 "2015-11-04T01:38:57Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > You might look again. I did not use the word “feminist”. I used the word “women”: You used “women”, unqualified, to characterize a particular **conservative antifeminist** group of women. And you’re trying to blame “feminism” for that group’s social “shaming” of men’s behavior. So I stand by my description of your illogical reasoning: you’re deliberately using explicitly antifeminist ideology to provide “feminist” strawmen for you to complain about. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/644 "2015-11-04T01:47:20Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Can you, more usefully, advise me how to address the deceitful behaviour of posters who, for example, “quote” other posters as saying something they have not remotely said? “I have not said that.” “Please quote the passage that you believe conveys that idea.” What I actually said was [_quote your actual post_]." There are a number of ways to challenge errors in others’ perceptions of your statements or intent. Making accusations of deceit or of lying will receive Warnings. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/645 "2015-11-04T01:49:58Z")
> [@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? Calm down. If you actually read the article, you’ll see that the (male) author isn’t actually criticizing men as human beings, but rather the socialization of men into artificial and antisocial ideals of “masculinity”: > [@](#): > > Until men en masse consider women to be part of the same ecosystem, masculinity will continue to be primarily a rejection of everything feminine, the tool men use to measure and gauge their own self-worth to other men – the foundation of bro culture. And until then, when they feel that their masculinity is in jeopardy, when they don’t feel man enough, manly violence will seem like a reasonable way to react to their feelings. Do you believe that being masculine means that a man “can’t” wear pink, say? Or that he “shouldn’t” help his daughter paint her fingernails? Or that a real man “doesn’t” ever cry? Or that he “must” be physically taller or stronger than other men in order to attract women? Or that he “ought” to respond to conflicts with other men by automatically threatening physical violence? If you don’t believe that true masculinity depends on conforming to these rigid behavioral stereotypes, then relax, because your masculinity is not in fact being threatened by this article. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/646 "2015-11-04T01:56:44Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > 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?) This is a long thread in which I find the walls of text boring. If you feel that someone has insulted you, report the post and i will review it. If you want a poster to be modded for simply saying he thinks you are “confused,” I am pretty sure that your own statements will invoke rather more Warnings. You have not been Warned for any number of statements that I would regard as much more insulting than “confused.” You have, after repeatedly violating the rule regarding accusations of lying, been told to stop that with no Warning issued, so your attempt to play the martyr is a failure. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/647 "2015-11-04T02:57:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > From what I can tell, most primary custody is uncontested – both parents agree. Do you have different information? Yes. 95% of divorces are settled out of court. Given that they’re uncontested, it shouldn’t matter - should it? - if the standard judgment was 50/50, rather than every-other-weekend. Yet feminists think it matters. Why do you think that is? ---
**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 4, 2015, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/648 "2015-11-04T03:03:00Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Yes. 95% of divorces are settled out of court. > > Given that they’re uncontested, it shouldn’t matter - should it? - if the standard judgment was 50/50, rather than every-other-weekend. > > Yet feminists think it matters. Why do you think that is? Because every case is different and there shouldn’t be a standard judgment. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/649 "2015-11-04T03:03:13Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > And do you think an article would be possible in a large newspaper with a title like _“It’s time to do away with the concept of ‘femininity’ altogether”_ containing a list of a number of toxic feminine traits considered universal to women, such as hysteria or manipulative or overemotional or slutty behavior and which needed to be removed? > I doubt it. For some reason it has become perfectly reasonable on large mainstream media sites to comment extremely negative on masculinity and associate awful traits with that, but not on femininity. Must be the patriarchy or something. > > Btw. the first google result of “toxic masculinity” is to a feminist site. Oddly enough the same site doesn’t seem to have an entry on toxic femininity. You don’t get it. There’s no such thing as “toxic femininity.” Anyone who believed in such a thing would be a misogynist. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/650 "2015-11-04T03:16:25Z")
> [@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. The labor force participation rate of married women with children in 2014 was 67.8 percent. [Source](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm). Which means a little over 30% of married women with children were stay at home mothers. Given that there are many more stay at home mothers than stay at home fathers, the fact that _on average_ women spend more time with their children is not surprising. On the other hand, 67.8$ of married women work. If almost 70% of married women work, why are women awarded custody 85% of the time? Are you assuming all those working mothers are spending more time with their children… and if so, why? If we’re going to go by whether both parents work, we should be seeing shared custody about 70% of the time - instead of mothers getting custody 85% of the time. Perhaps there’s something else in play, that you’re not considering? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/651 "2015-11-04T03:19:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Because every case is different and there shouldn’t be a standard judgment. Ah. But there is a standard judgment. The standard is that one parent gets primary custody, and the other gets every-other-weekend. If you want no standard, you’re parting from your NOW sisters (and divorce attorneys) who very much want the standard to stay the same. ---
**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 4, 2015, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/652 "2015-11-04T03:20:56Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > You don’t get it. There’s no such thing as “toxic femininity.” Anyone who believed in such a thing would be a misogynist. [Toxic femininity](https://books.google.com/books?id=GYItqqv_l_cC&pg=PA126&dq=%22toxic+femininity%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIvIrVq-f1yAIVTDM-Ch0n5g9-#v=onepage&q=%22toxic%20femininity%22&f=false) as explained in _Talking the Walk, the Grassroots Language of Feminism_ by [Marilyn Casselman](http://www.nywift.org/article.aspx?ID=556). ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/653 "2015-11-04T04:05:59Z")
> [@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. So your problem isn’t with “feminists,” as you have long postured. It is in fact with “women.” ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/654 "2015-11-04T04:12:38Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > The labor force participation rate of married women with children in 2014 was 67.8 percent. [Source](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm). Which means a little over 30% of married women with children were stay at home mothers. > > Given that there are many more stay at home mothers than stay at home fathers, the fact that _on average_ women spend more time with their children is not surprising. > > On the other hand, 67.8$ of married women work. If almost 70% of married women work, why are women awarded custody 85% of the time? > > Are you assuming all those working mothers are spending more time with their children… and if so, why? > > If we’re going to go by whether both parents work, we should be seeing shared custody about 70% of the time - instead of mothers getting custody 85% of the time. > > Perhaps there’s something else in play, that you’re not considering? And the vast majority of custody cases are decided by mutual agreement. AGAIN. Why are men agreeing to such an unequal division? Because they don’t feel that it’s in the best interest of the child? Why are you blaming women for the agreements reached in divorce cases? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/655 "2015-11-04T04:14:18Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I mean, come on, do you think we can’t see you just making up random self-serving crap to fit your pre-determined opinion? Back off. This goes beyond attacking the post and well into attacking the poster. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/656 "2015-11-04T04:24:02Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > The labor force participation rate of married women with children in 2014 was 67.8 percent. [Source](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm). Which means a little over 30% of married women with children were stay at home mothers. > > Given that there are many more stay at home mothers than stay at home fathers, the fact that _on average_ women spend more time with their children is not surprising. > > On the other hand, 67.8$ of married women work. If almost 70% of married women work, why are women awarded custody 85% of the time? […] > > If we’re going to go by whether both parents work, we should be seeing shared custody about 70% of the time - instead of mothers getting custody 85% of the time. But it’s been patiently explained to you time and again that what “we go by” in custody disputes is not “whether both parents work”, but rather which parent is _actually providing most of the childcare_. The studies that other posters have cited show conclusively that on average, mothers do more childcare and other domestic duties than fathers do, **whether or not** they also work outside the home. Now, if you’re complaining that it’s unfair that more mothers than fathers are stay-at-home parents without outside work responsibilities, then I and most other feminists are right with you. Individual couples should make whatever arrangements they freely and mutually choose for dividing responsibilities for household duties/childcare/financial support. But it should not be automatically expected that women should be stay-at-home parents or that men shouldn’t be. If men want to be equal or primary caregivers for their children right from the get-go, and are willing to adjust their career expectations as necessary to make that possible, then all the feminists I know of will support them up to the hilt. But you can’t expect a responsible family court judge in a custody dispute to assume that it’s in a child’s best interests to assign the father as the primary caregiver _if the father didn’t do much (or any) of the caregiving prior to the divorce._ > [@LinusK](#): > > If you want no standard, you’re parting from your NOW sisters (and divorce attorneys) who very much want the standard to stay the same. Strawman “feminists” again. You haven’t shown any actual evidence of a significant real-life cohort of “NOW sisters” who actually advocate for any such “standard”. What feminists in general want for post-divorce arrangements is for children to be happy and cared for and adequately supported. There is no mainstream feminist principle that endorses any custody “standard” for achieving this aim. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/657 "2015-11-04T04:48:19Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Perhaps there’s something else in play, that you’re not considering? Post 633. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/658 "2015-11-04T04:56:13Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > There’s no such thing as “toxic femininity.” Anyone who believed in such a thing would be a misogynist. Nonsense. **A’isha** has shown you a very representative example of that very phrase in the Casselman book she cited. Here’s some more of Casselman’s description of the concept, from that link: > [@](#): > > There are different ways of looking at this subject [femininity]: as the thing itself and the pseudo-femininity fabrications that purport to qualify that which is inherently female. […] > > The other parasite attached to pseudo-femininity is […] femininity prescribed as a single standard of belief and behavior that confines women to superficial behavior, passive traits and sexual availability […] It often escalates into toxic femininity—debilitating exaggerations of overdone female appearance and behavior. Casselman’s book was published within the last ten years, but this concept of a form of socially imposed “femininity” that is rigid, artificial and toxic in its effects goes back much, much further in feminist thought. In particular, it is sharply articulated in Betty Friedan’s 1963 book [The Feminine Mystique](http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/socphil/texts/05a.Friedan.pdf): > [@](#): > > In the early 1960’s McCall’s has been the fastest growing of the women’s magazines. Its contents are a fairly accurate representation of the image of the American woman presented, and in part created, by the large-circulation magazines. […] > > The image of woman that emerges from this big, pretty magazine is young and frivolous, almost childlike; fluffy and feminine; passive; gaily content in a world of bedroom and kitchen, sex, babies, and home. The magazine surely does not leave out sex; the only passion, the only pursuit, the only goal a woman is permitted is the pursuit of a man. It is crammed full of food, clothing, cosmetics, furniture, and the physical bodies of young women, but where is the world of thought and ideas, the life of the mind and spirit? In the magazine image women do no work except housework and work to keep their bodies beautiful and to get and keep a man. […] > > [G]oing back through bound volumes of American women’s magazines for the last twenty years […] I found a change in the image of the American woman, and in the boundaries of the woman’s world […] > > In 1939, the heroines of women’s magazine […] were New Women, creating with a gay determined spirit a new identity for women–a life of their own. […] It is like remembering a long-forgotten dream, to recapture the memory of what a career meant to women before “career woman” became a dirty word in America. > > And so the feminine mystique began to spread through the land, grafted onto old prejudices and comfortable conventions […] > > The feminine mystique says that the highest value and the only commitment for women is the fulfillment of their own femininity. It says that the great mistake of Western culture, through most of its history, has been the undervaluation of this femininity. It says this femininity is so mysterious and intuitive and close to the creation and origin of life that man-made science may never be able to understand it. But however special and different, it is in no way inferior to the nature of man; it may even in certain respects be superior. The mistake, says the mystique, the root of women’s troubles in the past is that women envied men, women tried to be like men, instead of accepting their own nature, which can find fulfillment only in sexual passivity, male domination, and nurturing maternal love. […] > > The end of the road, in an almost literal sense, is the disappearance of the heroine altogether, as a separate self and the subject of her own story. The end of the road is togetherness, where the woman has no independent self to hide even in guilt; she exists only for and through her husband and children. So feminists absolutely do criticize the social imposition of toxic stereotypes of “femininity”, just as they criticize the social imposition of toxic stereotypes of “masculinity”. There’s nothing “misogynist” about that whatsoever. ---
**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 4, 2015, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/659 "2015-11-04T10:46:28Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Ah. But there is a standard judgment. The standard is that one parent gets primary custody, and the other gets every-other-weekend. > > If you want no standard, you’re parting from your NOW sisters (and divorce attorneys) who very much want the standard to stay the same. Cite that this is a standard or default, and that NOW supports this as a legal standard/default? My recollection is that NOW supports every case being treated differently, without a standard or default. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/660 "2015-11-04T11:49:50Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > T Are you assuming all those working mothers are spending more time with their children… and if so, why? There is no need for assumptions. The American Time Use Survey keeps track of time spent on various activities for people of all demographics. The data is available [here](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus2.t02.htm) and [here](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus2.t01.htm) for example. Raw data for every year is available for download and analysis. Full time employed mothers spend about 50% more time with children than full time employed fathers. Full time employed mothers spend more time with children than non-employed fathers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667.md?page=34)