Women Against Feminism

[Jack_of_Words]

@lance_strongarm

It’s not a cheap stunt. He shouldn’t say things he can’t support.
Now you’re pulling a “cheap stunt.”

Do not speak for me or tell me what I think. You have no idea. If you want to know, ask.

Explain why you disagree then. I did.

Nope. Your article doesn’t support that assertion.

If you want honest debate, stop calling me an “ideologue.” You have no idea what my ideology is or how strongly I hold it.

I don’t even know what “mra” or “mantivist” are. Never heard them before. Again, if you want honest debate, stop putting words in my mouth and ideas in my head and just have a discussion. You don’t even know if I’m a feminist or not - I haven’t told you either way.

I agree completely.

Does that surprise you? Maybe you should stop talking so much and start listening and you’d be more up for “honest debate.”

In order, then:

The ‘cheap stunt’ was in taking his acknowledged hyperbole and demanding an equally hyperbolic standard of proof, rather than contributing anything of value to that particular topic. It demonstrates a disinterest in truth or factual discourse, in favour of ‘beating the opposition’ with trivial trip hazards.

Ah, the tu coque. Although of course, interpreting your position is not a ‘cheap stunt’ at all. What is cheap and also another stunt is to simply return the charge - and with luck, nobody will be bothered to find out which of the now ‘squabbling’ posters is right, eh?

I neither spoke for you, nor told you what you think (though you’ll note that two steps back that was you putting words in my mouth, with a fairly typical strawman). What a silly little squabble you’d rather have, it seems, than to address actual issues of inequality where they do not support your ideology.

No, you didn’t (and I did). What you did post was about as meaningful a contribution as your fallacies noted above (and about as meaningful as this post I’m responding to, which is again just fuel for a diversionary squabble by someone who probably doesn’t want a real discussion or possibly can’t manage one).

Yes, the article (and the lived experience of many, many people) does support that assertion.

You demonstrate your ideology (though as just noted, I may have mistake genuine ignorance for wilful deceit - if the former is true, I offer you both my sympathy and my apology).

I made up ‘mantivist’, but ‘mra’ is fairly widespread. Are you sure you’ve not encountered it before? It is possible that you’re not a feminist, I suppose (see my remarks above re genuine vs wilful), and yes, I don’t know because you haven’t said. You haven’t said because that gives you another point on which to build a diversionary squabble…which as another cheap stunt is as good as saying, aint it

Well, for someone who disdains sides, you’ve a predilection for binary conflict and your tactics serve only side - which is fighting for equality by increasing inequality. So yeah, I am listening - to your subtext.

Now about you do some more talking and give us some of those “oh so easy” examples of prominent feminists advocating and acting for equal parenting. It’s not the first time you’ve been asked to back up your claim.

[Jack_of_Words]

@camille

The standard isn’t about what’s “fair”. It’s about the best interests of the child.

“You have no rights!” said the family court judge, as I sought to retain contact with my child even though I had left her abusive mother. “It’s about what’s best for the child!. [Mother], what is best for the child?”

Bah, patriarchs!

[Kimstu]

@LinusK

So… your point is: children don’t need fathers?

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.

[Sunny_Daze]

@LinusK

Time for the Women Against Feminismlink of the day.

I’ve been thinking about it, and Camille is right: a lot of these women are young and pretty.

And what does this have to do with anything?

[LinusK]

So to try to bring this full circle: why does “Women Against Feminism” exist?

Let’s try out a hypothetical: suppose hurting men winds up not just hurting men, but hurting women, too? (And children, for that matter.)

Consider a sad, but relatively common scenario: a woman decides to file for divorce. She gets the house, the kids, half of everything he’s earned (retirement, savings, whatever) and he gets to see his kids every-other-weekend, while paying child support and possibly alimony.

For some men, this is a pretty terribly situation, particularly for those who’ve invested heavily in their marriage and their children. For example, this study says:

[Divorced men] were nearly 9.7 times more likely to kill themselves than comparable divorced women (RR = 9.68, 95% CI = 4.87 to 19.22). Put another way, for every divorced woman that committed suicide, over nine divorced men killed themselves.

It continues:

…societal institutions tend to ignore or minimise male problems as evident in suicide statistics. For instance, in many jurisdictions in the US there seems to be an implicit assumption that the bond between a woman and her children is stronger than that between a man and his children.5 As a consequence, in a divorce settlement, custody of children is more likely to be given to the wife. In the end, the father loses not only his marriage, but his children. The result may be anger at the court system especially in situations wherein the husband feels betrayed because it was the wife that initiated the divorce, or because the courts virtually gave away everything that was previously owned by the ex-husband or the now defunct household to the former wife.

But let’s forget about those men. Let’s consider, instead, men who haven’t married.

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:

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.

But what if, after 50 years of shaming men, men are growing increasingly non-responsive to that particular tactic? What if, in a world where nobody gives two shits about men - or even boys, for that matter - the only logical option is for men is to look out for themselves? In that case, men might figure that marriage is really a terrible deal for them, and something to be avoided at all costs.

If women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men are the gatekeepers of commitment, then the price of sex is at an all-time low, while the cost (to men) of commitment have never been higher. In a hook-up culture, where men (and women) can get sex with an app on their iPhones, there’s no need to get married to have sex. And, at least according to the people of /r/deadbedrooms (and a hundred other sources), marriage doesn’t necessarily mean sex.

Now let’s go back to Women Against Feminism. Perhaps they aren’t merely “ignorant,” as feminists would claim - and have claimed, in this thread - but perceptive. Perhaps they realize that - if they want to get married - they’d do well to convince men they aren’t like those other women: they are “safe”. They’re marriage material.

Perhaps bashing men, and disregarding them, eventually hurts not just men, but women too.

It’s just a theory, of course. Feel free to disregard it, if you like.

[iiandyiiii]

@LinusK

So to try to bring this full circle: why does “Women Against Feminism” exist?

Let’s try out a hypothetical: suppose hurting men winds up not just hurting men, but hurting women, too? (And children, for that matter.)

Consider a sad, but relatively common scenario: a woman decides to file for divorce. She gets the house, the kids, half of everything he’s earned (retirement, savings, whatever) and he gets to see his kids every-other-weekend, while paying child support and possibly alimony.

For some men, this is a pretty terribly situation, particularly for those who’ve invested heavily in their marriage and their children. For example, this study says:

It continues:

But let’s forget about those men. Let’s consider, instead, men who haven’t married.

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:

The logic here is simple: if men aren’t doing what women want, they must be shamed into doing it.

But what if, after 50 years of shaming men, men are growing increasingly non-responsive to that particular tactic? What if, in a world where nobody gives two shits about men - or even boys, for that matter - the only logical option is for men is to look out for themselves? In that case, men might figure that marriage is really a terrible deal for them, and something to be avoided at all costs.

If women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men are the gatekeepers of commitment, then the price of sex is at an all-time low, while the cost (to men) of commitment have never been higher. In a hook-up culture, where men (and women) can get sex with an app on their iPhones, there’s no need to get married to have sex. And, at least according to the people of /r/deadbedrooms (and a hundred other sources), marriage doesn’t necessarily mean sex.

Now let’s go back to Women Against Feminism. Perhaps they aren’t merely “ignorant,” as feminists would claim - and have claimed, in this thread - but perceptive. Perhaps they realize that - if they want to get married - they’d do well to convince men they aren’t like those other women: they are “safe”. They’re marriage material.

Perhaps bashing men, and disregarding them, eventually hurts not just men, but women too.

It’s just a theory, of course. Feel free to disregard it, if you like.

It’s not your theory I disagree with, it’s the assumptions that it requires. If I agreed with all of these assumptions then your theory would be fine. I don’t think feminism hurts men in general, and if any feminists or feminist proposals hurt men (aside from abusers and the like) then I oppose them.

[lance_strongarm]

@LinusK

Now let’s go back to Women Against Feminism. Perhaps they aren’t merely “ignorant,” as feminists would claim - and have claimed, in this thread - but perceptive. Perhaps they realize that - if they want to get married - they’d do well to convince men they aren’t like those other women: they are “safe”. They’re marriage material.

Perhaps bashing men, and disregarding them, eventually hurts not just men, but women too.

The fundamental problem is still there - the idea that feminism = bashing men.

Perhaps the right name is “Women Against a False, Perverted Version of Feminism Rather than Real Feminism.”

[Rune]

@LinusK

So to try to bring this full circle: why does “Women Against Feminism” exist?

Let’s try out a hypothetical: suppose hurting men winds up not just hurting men, but hurting women, too? (And children, for that matter.)

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 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.

[lance_strongarm]

@Rune

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.

That’s interesting logic. Because efforts to fix a problem haven’t worked yet, they are making things worse? Sometimes progress simply requires more effort to get to the goal. It doesn’t mean the goal is the problem. Look at civil rights for blacks - that took a looooong time.

[Jack_of_Words]

@lance_strongarm

Or maybe I’ll just post a few links that show that leading feminist groups think just the opposite of your ridiculous claims. But that’s too easy.

Too easy, huh. That’s why you keep posting without making good on that, despite repeated requests that you back up your claim. It’s too easy. How about you post them in, say, Farsi or semaphore and I’ll translate them, is that enough of a challenge? Maybe you could post them while wrestling an alligator (or a feminist…), if you simply can’t stoop to doing something so easy as just supporting your own statement.

[lance_strongarm]

@Jack_of_Words

Too easy, huh. That’s why you keep posting without making good on that, despite repeated requests that you back up your claim. It’s too easy.

I didn’t make a claim - that’s the point.

How about you post them in, say, Farsi or semaphore and I’ll translate them, is that enough of a challenge? Maybe you could post them while wrestling an alligator (or a feminist…), if you simply can’t stoop to doing something so easy as just supporting your own statement.

What statement?

I questioned someone else’s claim. That doesn’t obligate me to disprove it. My point was that it would only take one counterclaim to disprove such a blanket statement, which is why the original poster can’t possibly support his claim with posting links from EVERY SINGLE FEMINIST GROUP.

Sorry I confused you.

But whatever, since you insist:

http://abolish-alimony.blogspot.com/2009/07/national-organization-of-women-supports.html

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

How does a court determine who should have possession and access to a child in every single god-damned case in Texas in which there is no mutual agreement?

And does the law presume anything at all with respect to the father’s rights?

If only they had written the answers right in the thing there, where lawyers, who know about how to read statutes and understand what’s in them, because they are god-damned lawyers, can find them.

Sec. 153.002. BEST INTEREST OF CHILD. The best interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.
Sec. 153.003. NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX OR MARITAL STATUS. The court shall consider the qualifications of the parties without regard to their marital status or to the sex of the party or the child in determining:
(1) which party to appoint as sole managing conservator;
(2) whether to appoint a party as joint managing conservator; and
(3) the terms and conditions of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.

[Human_Action]

@Rune

Here’s a fun article: It’s time to do away with the concept of ‘manhood’ altogether 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.

It’s not a very well-written article, but the basic idea is reforming the concept of manhood to remove all the negative baggage it’s coupled with - violence and exclusion. In short, being a man doesn’t mean hurting other people to prove how manly you are.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

[QuickSilver]

@lance_strongarm

But whatever, since you insist:

Abolish "Lifetime" Alimony: National Organization of Women Supports Alimony Reform

Shame really that the site you linked to above doesn’t contain pretty young women holding up hand written signs stating their agreement with stated principals. OP would likely find it far more compelling if it did.

[lance_strongarm]

@Rune

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.

Good thing it’s not.

[lance_strongarm]

@QuickSilver

Shame really that the site you linked to above doesn’t contain pretty young women holding up hand written signs stating their agreement with stated principals. OP would likely find it far more compelling if it did.

I looked everywhere, but alas.

[LinusK]

@iiandyiiii

It’s not your theory I disagree with, it’s the assumptions that it requires. If I agreed with all of these assumptions then your theory would be fine. I don’t think feminism hurts men in general, and if any feminists or feminist proposals hurt men (aside from abusers and the like) then I oppose them.

Which assumptions?

That 85% of child support goes to women?

That 97% of alimony goes to women?

That women initiate divorce 70% of the time?

That every-other-weekend is the standard in most, if not all US states?

That feminists constantly bash men?

Or something else?

[lance_strongarm]

@LinusK

That 85% of child support goes to women?

That 97% of alimony goes to women?

That women initiate divorce 70% of the time?

That every-other-weekend is the standard in most, if not all US states?

The existence of those problems doesn’t prove feminists are responsible for them.

That feminists constantly bash men?

Sigh.

SOME feminists may bash men. Some don’t. And sometimes a “bashing” is just legitimate criticism, which you may have trouble discerning.

[LinusK]

@lance_strongarm

The fundamental problem is still there - the idea that feminism = bashing men.

Perhaps the right name is “Women Against a False, Perverted Version of Feminism Rather than Real Feminism.”

It would be hard to find feminists bashing men. You might have to look as far as… this thread, for example.

[lance_strongarm]

@LinusK

It would be hard to find feminists bashing men. You might have to look as far as… this thread, for example.

You understand the difference between “feminists sometimes bash men” and “the definition of feminism is man-bashing,” right?