User Tag List

First 2070110118119120121122130 Last

Results 1,191 to 1,200 of 1614

  1. #1191
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    This is just posturing. You beg the question over and over again, and prove Jarlaxle's points for him.
    And this leads to a the larger question that has bothered me throughout this thread: If I was arguing for the feminist movement, I'd have to ask the opposite side to not be clouded by that kind of showcase or use @Qre:us as a representative sample... But then I'd have to ask them to not use the executives of major organizations within the movement, or those in feminists protests in universities, or "tumblr feminists" or "reddit feminists", or the surprising cross section between the feminists who think wearing "I bath in male tears" while complaining about colorful NASA scientist t shirts with cartoon women is the irony they intend on, or the majority of feminists campaigning for so many of the current feminist issues within western countries... How large or potent can a slice be and still be called a strawman?

    It's a question worth considering of any side. Just like considering how traditionalists impact the actions (Or overwhelming inaction) of the MRA, or the role of misogyny in the backbone of MGTOW and how it might impact their future as a movement (If they even materialize as one). Even If in every one of those strands is the fringe extremists within a larger movement, even if they are small in numbers (Something I am not sure of, but might very well be the case), their overwhelming presence in the helm would at the very least suggest that ideological movements such as these cater to fringe-leadership.

  2. #1192
    Senior Member Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    And this leads to a the larger question that has bothered me throughout this thread: If I was arguing for the feminist movement, I'd have to ask the opposite side to not be clouded by that kind of showcase or use @Qre:us as a representative sample... But then I'd have to ask them to not use the executives of major organizations within the movement, or those in feminists protesting in universities, or "tumblr feminists" or "reddit feminists", or the surprising cross section between the feminists who think wearing "I bath in male tears" while complaining about colorful NASA scientist t shirts with cartoon women is the irony they intend on, or the majority of feminists campaigning for so many of the current feminist issues within western countries... How large or potent can a slice be and still be called a strawman?

    It's a question worth considering of any side. Just like considering how traditionalists impact the actions (Or overwhelming inaction) of the MRA, or the role of misogyny in the backbone of MGTOW and how it might impact their future as a movement (If they even materialize as one). Even If in every one of those strands is the fringe extremists within a larger movement, even if they are small in numbers (Something I am not sure of, but might very well be the case), their overwhelming presence in the helm would at the very least suggest that ideological movements such as these cater to fringe-leadership.
    It's very difficult to demonstrate what you are asking for, to demonstrate a majority. It's easier to find evidence of a more extreme element (of indeterminate size) than it is to provide tangible evidence of a majority, or a dominant position.

    The only thing I can think of what would be evidence of such a thing, would be to survey self-identified feminists on what they believe about a range of relevant topics, many of which have been covered in this thread. So far, my cursory efforts to find such a survey have returned nothing.

    This isn't really a surprise. Self-identified feminists tend to know many others, may study feminism in academic settings, may routinely read feminist literature, whether that be scholarly or a blog like Jezebel. As a result, they come to feel that they are familiar with feminism in general to not bother with a survey. People who don't identify as feminists rarely put much effort into getting to know what feminists actually think. So the lack of a survey is the expected outcome. Maybe there still is one, I can keep looking. It's already bad news, though, if there's only one.

    Until that survey is found, or made, I can't think of anything to say to you that will generate any kind of discursive progress.

    EDIT: Standby, I may have hit a vein.

    eDIT 2: So I seem to have found quite a lot of relevant material here with some particular search terms. They're all scholarly journal publications. It would take a while to read them and they aren't available for free (I'm using university perks here). I'm deciding what I'll do with all of this. But something funny and relevant from just one abstract.

    " Both groups believed that a typical feminist held stronger radical, socialist, and cultural feminist beliefs than they themselves did, although the discrepancies were greater for nonfeminists. Nonfeminists viewed a typical feminist as endorsing stronger cultural feminist views than did feminists. Our results indicate that feminist self-identity is related to endorsement of feminist ideologies, and that both feminists and nonfeminists think that a typical feminist is more extreme than they are. The results also suggest that cultural feminism is a contested ideology; it is not endorsed by feminists, but is ascribed to them by nonfeminists"

    How about that? Granted, it's just one paper.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right
    Likes Mane liked this post

  3. #1193
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It's very difficult to demonstrate what you are asking for, to demonstrate a majority. It's easier to find evidence of a more extreme element (of indeterminate size) than it is to provide tangible evidence of a majority, or a dominant position.

    The only thing I can think of what would be evidence of such a thing, would be to survey self-identified feminists on what they believe about a range of relevant topics, many of which have been covered in this thread. So far, my cursory efforts to find such a survey have returned nothing.

    This isn't really a surprise. Self-identified feminists tend to know many others, may study feminism in academic settings, may routinely read feminist literature, whether that be scholarly or a blog like Jezebel. As a result, they come to feel that they are familiar with feminism in general to not bother with a survey. People who don't identify as feminists rarely put much effort into getting to know what feminists actually think. So the lack of a survey is the expected outcome. Maybe there still is one, I can keep looking. It's already bad news, though, if there's only one.

    Until that survey is found, or made, I can't think of anything to say to you that will generate any kind of discursive progress.

    EDIT: Standby, I may have hit a vein.

    eDIT 2: So I seem to have found quite a lot of relevant material here with some particular search terms. They're all scholarly journal publications. It would take a while to read them and they aren't available for free (I'm using university perks here). I'm deciding what I'll do with all of this. But something funny and relevant from just one abstract.

    " Both groups believed that a typical feminist held stronger radical, socialist, and cultural feminist beliefs than they themselves did, although the discrepancies were greater for nonfeminists. Nonfeminists viewed a typical feminist as endorsing stronger cultural feminist views than did feminists. Our results indicate that feminist self-identity is related to endorsement of feminist ideologies, and that both feminists and nonfeminists think that a typical feminist is more extreme than they are. The results also suggest that cultural feminism is a contested ideology; it is not endorsed by feminists, but is ascribed to them by nonfeminists"

    How about that? Granted, it's just one paper.
    Interesting, I've been playing with the idea of making something similar (I'd probably do it for all tags which regard stances on gender issues though).

    If I was looking to find that out the difference between feminists stereotypes and most feminists, I'd probably start with exploratory research, collecting the basis for lists of what people believe in as feminists (collected from those that identified as such) and what people believe that feminists believe, then in a descriptive survey list those beliefs, whether they agree with those beliefs, whether they think most other feminists agree with those beliefs, to rate how radical they think each of those beliefs are, and what do they identify as themselves.

    The problem in this approach is that the beliefs written as expressed by those who believe in them or going to naturally get a lot more agreement and be considered less radical then the beliefs people wrote as attributed to others, even when in many ways they might be the same beliefs. The white-pride "it's not racist to love your own people" slogan pushes this up to eleven, but it serves to illustrate how most people define their views with a very positive angle and on their own terms, not in terms of the hidden assumptions and unfortunate implications their views might have to anyone else, sometimes going as far as stating the belief when phrased their way while denouncing the same belief when phrased to account for those, sometimes within the same sentence. One possible approach is to actually go around this by seen how much people agree with the various versions of the interpretation, but this assumes a one to one link, and at times the question of whether those hidden implications are part of the original intent or even valid interpretations at all can call for entire discussions per case, so to match those on my own is basically asking for researcher bias (Even worst - write the list of beliefs on my own).

    Short story shorter, I have yet to figure out a way around this. I am curious how the research paper you've found managed to solve this (Or went about it in a different manner?).

  4. #1194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    You presented some evidence yes. Yet your conclusion on the basis of the evidence is opinion. (The blue text, above.)
    No, it isn't. It's referencing a direct quote from the evidence. You know, the one I bolded. Neither is it an extrapolation, an interpretation, nor an opinion. Once again, for your reading comprehension:

    Source: is in favor of primary caregiver presumption. This means that the parent who assumed primary responsibility for the children during the marriage, either father or mother, should continue to be the custodial parent.

    Establishment of a presumption of joint custody is harmful to the children. NOW New York State urges the passage of primary caretaker legislation, a realistic solution for children. [/s]
    Me, paraphrasing:

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    What it means is that the presumption of the court should not default to joint custody, but primary custody granted to the PRIMARY CAREGIVER, WHETHER IT BE MALE OR FEMALE. It is putting the CHILD'S RIGHTS, above the WOMAN'S RIGHTS or the MAN'S RIGHTS.
    You actually don't know my opinion on this. I made no commentary on whether I agreed with NOW or not. What I challenged was @Jarlaxle cherry-picking a quote from the source, as an example of a women's organization that shut down men's groups/father's right group, to make a case for his bias that fathers are being victimized by women's organizations, such as NOW, when the group was very politically correct (savvy?), in staying on gender neutral territory with their recommendation of primary caregiver (and outlining that that could be either the father or the mother).

    I see a lot of posturing, but no substantial argument, here.
    You might need to turn away from the mirror to prevent that from occurring repeatedly.

    Or, begin by not making posts like this one.....

    I see a significant bias in terms of considering the "primary caregiver" the one who isn't taking care of the expenses. Which in turn means that your bias is in favor of the one who must be supported financially by the other.
    Which, in turn, means the bias you're showing is that you just made this about the rights and burden of the adults in the situation (parents/father versus mother). Good job completely taking the child's rights and interests out of the picture.

    If only money helped raise a well-rounded child into an adult.

    It's as if no one has heard of "child care". You know, that thing that working single mothers do. That working single fathers could do just as well.

    Equating "child care" with primary caregiving. Wow! Why would kids need parents at all, when they could be raised by daycare? It's the same thing!!! (apparently!)

    There are actually better arguments against the "primary caregiver" assumption, but the feeble attempts you made above, are not one of those.

    More opinion and assertion. You just assume "patriarchy" and work from there. You effectively admit your bias w/r to your prior assertions.
    Please, far be it for me, to feel left out of the Typology Men's Rights Club (anti-feminists in not-so-veiled disguise), and leaving all the asserting and opining to you guys.

    Also, I'm not the only one to "assume" that gender roles are closely tied to patriarchy. And, yes, it is the fall-out of gender roles in most straight marriages that sets up the primary caregiver bias, the way it plays out.

    Is that fair? Once again, like I said before, 'no'.


    In other words, in order to gain fairness, in your opinion, men should become more feminine. Of course, you don't regard this as absurd at all.
    What's absurd, but, telling is your interpretation of what I said. Which is funny, if not predictable.

    I never once called nurturer, to mean feminine. If anything, I'm challenging society's rigid gender roles that continue to equate nurturing as a feminine quality, only.

    So, really, that's your bias that is preventing you from accurately interpreting what I said. Here's what I said:
    Is it fair? No.
    What can be done? Equalizing the gender roles in straight marriages, perhaps, which can equalize the inevitable fallout in divorce proceedings. Encourage males by navigating their consumption of the masculine image to be one of empowerment at the idea of being a nurturer, not only just a he-man protector, rather than seeing it as a female's role, a 'weaker' role. When society hounds men with the idea that women are meant to be the nurturer, it denies them a critical role in their children's life. Alternatively, encourage women to have a career, outside of their home, if they want. Do not shun a woman as a 'bad mother' if she goes to work, leaving little kids behind. There's a start....
    Meaning, allow for space in the masculine narrative to include paternal nurturing as a empowered ideal. "Asking men to become more feminine", is your biased interpretation of what I said (your mind substituted nurturer to mean feminine - which is the very point I was making). Quite revealing, @uumlau, if not disappointing, that your thoughts are so archaic. I expected more from you. Shame on you! *shakes head, and wags finger at you in dramatic righteousness and patronization*

    Force me into whatever box you want. It only proves my point.

    Qre:us:
    Reminds me of a friend who had a young daughter (2 years) at home, and came out with us one night.
    Acquaintance of hers, "Where's [Little Girl's Name]?"
    Friend, "She's at home with her father."
    Acquaintance, "Ah, you got [husband's name] to be on babysitting duty tonight, I see."
    Friend, "He's her father. That's not called babysitting. That's called taking care of your own kid."

    Now, guess the likelihood of assumption by the general populace, of a mother staying at home watching her kid, while the husband has a night off with his buds, and people thinking that the mother has sacrificed on behalf of the father, by 'babysitting' her own damn kid for the night.

    It's as harmless, yet insidious, as that.
    These are not coherent, fact-based, evidence-based arguments.
    Give the man a cookie. It's an Let me google that for you

    This is just posturing. You beg the question over and over again, and prove Jarlaxle's points for him.

    To be clear, I'm not arguing for MGTOW or MRA (both of which I regard as absurd, but not for the reasons you would), nor am I arguing "anti-feminism". I'm arguing "the current legal situation isn't fair for men," and you, by your statements, essentially agree with me. You think it shouldn't be fair as long as men insist on being masculine.
    This is ridiculous. You guys are so narrowly focused on rebutting me, that you guys keep making up and forcing views on me that I do not hold. As if to find the mold/the stereotype of whatever "feminazi" you all have in mind, and forcing me to fit it. Pathetic.

    So, you essentially missed my point, with your biased lens misinterpreting what I said, reached an erroneous conclusion about my views, then, proceeded to argued against it. Tell me, is sword fighting with shadows as ridiculous as you make it seem?

    I'm actually kind of disappointed, Qre:us. I was expecting some substantive arguments from you, not this paper-mache pretend argument that can be knocked over by a clumsy fourth-grader.
    I find this exercise validating, in smoking out the termites on this site, with their anti-feminists agenda. They predictably all come out of the woodworks. If I didn't disappoint them, and their agenda, I'm doing something wrong.


  5. #1195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    As far as the court is concerned the mother is by default, without having to sue for custody (Unlike the father). Which is why this statement:

    Is as pointless as it is ridicules - "It is regardless if it's male or female" + "Oh btw it's by default female"... Are you really so easily challenged that the connection is beyond you? Are you going to argue that NOW wasn't aware of that at the time? I didn't expect much from you before, but this is a few levels lower.

    But not as low as claiming that feminists think modern women's status in society are like that of black slaves. So, I still got a way to fall to reach your level. (still can't get over that one, lol)

    Btw, your bolded, I explicitly made that "connection" in the post of mine that you quoted, but you seemed to have either overlooked it, or missed it. Here's the relevant line from my post where I explicitly state that:

    Do you want me to give you a statistic on which gender is typically the primary caregiver? Three guesses about this gender role.
    I also noted the unfairness of it in my previous post, which you seemed to ignore as well. Hmm.

    The issue to be debated is whether defaulting to the primary caregiver is what's in the best interest of the child. Arguing at it from the angle of "because it denies fathers their rights", which is what NOW challenged when they referred to the father's rights group, is diverting from the issue.

    Making it a father's rights versus mother's rights issue is not what should be weighted in determining the validity of the argument, 'defaulting to primary caregiver'. That was what I wanted to highlight.


    Actually, it's [A near sighted version of] women's rights at the the expense of children.
    Your example above is a good evidence of that approach (moving away from making it a men's issues, to a child well-being issue). Now, if "you" could stop muddling that with father's rights, it would prove more productive. "Give us joint custody, because fathers are losing out...." seems short-sighted. That was my contention. I made no commentary on whether I supported NOW's position or not.

    * "You" being the anti-feminists narrative online that use joint custody and the legal system as a prime example to show systematic discrimination against men, as if feminism is the CAUSE. Which makes this a male vs female issue. Rather than a child's rights issue, as it should be. Almost like using children to make a point about their own agenda.

    But thank you - by taking it without the slightest grain of salt or bothering to check, you've served to illustrate how the notion that "the facts are with them" spreads around without backup, and if you would have paid attention (Or were able to understand the context I was speaking in, since this seems to be a repetition), I was using it as an example for how - much like you have done previously - even high ranking members of feminist organizations hold to that belief without the slightest effort of fact checking. The fact they did so in the context of making destructive political decisions doesn't distract from that, it's kind of the point.

    You've already accused me of misrepresenting what you've said before admitting the very point of my representation of what you've said, failing to show that I misrepresented your words and yet using it as a basis for misrepresenting now... I don't suppose you'd flex your mind to include the above either. It's this kind of unfortunate thickness that perpetuates a very low opinion of most of your brood.
    Yeah, okay.


    And the fact that definition requires including NOW as a major finger of the patriarchy doesn't bother your mind the slightest... Amazing.

    At this point taking you seriously just isn't fair to feminism.
    You're breaking my heart.

  6. #1196
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I see a significant bias in terms of considering the "primary caregiver" the one who isn't taking care of the expenses. Which in turn means that your bias is in favor of the one who must be supported financially by the other.

    It's as if no one has heard of "child care". You know, that thing that working single mothers do. That working single fathers could do just as well.
    So, a couple marry and agree that the wife will stay home to take of children while the husband works to support them. They then divorce while the children are still young. Does it make more sense for the mother to continue to care for the children and the father to continue to support them financially; or for the father to quit work to care for them while the mother tries to find a job that, given her years out of the workforce, will probably not pay nearly as well as his; or for the father to put the children in daycare so the mother can go work at Walmart? I see merit to the "primary caregiver" preference, at least while children are very young.

    At the same time, it might be best in such situations if the divorce settlement included a plan for the wife to become financially independent, so she is equally able to contribute to the upkeep of the children, as well as to their daily care. Husbands should go along with this since it will limit how long they will need to pay alimony, and reduce their long-term child support costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    In other words, in order to gain fairness, in your opinion, men should become more feminine. Of course, you don't regard this as absurd at all.
    I'm surprised at you, holding people to traditional gender expectations like this. What is wrong with a man being feminine? Who decides what is feminine and masculine anyway? If a man exhibits too many feminine traits and not enough masculine ones, does that make him a woman, or just a poor excuse for a man? Or are you objecting only to the part about men needing to take on "feminine" attributes or behaviors to be given "equal" treatment in divorce proceedings?

    If men want an equal chance for custody, that presumes they actually want to take care of their kids. If you are going to define this activity as "feminine", then I guess that makes your statement correct. Same as women have to exhibit so-called "masculine" qualities like assertiveness and leadership to be treated fairly in the workplace. And yes, it's not fair to limit either sex in either setting.

    As for the discussion between Qre:us' friends: of course it isn't an argument. It is an anecdote. We can dismiss it as anecdotal evidence, but "real" evidence is essentially a compelling and consistent amount of anecdotes. I would like a dollar for every time I have heard something similar in everyday conversation. Each one of these incidents is as innocent and innocuous as a drop of water. The steady accumulation of them day after day in all sorts of settings, however, have carved a canyon between the two wings of humanity, and hint at the great ocean from which they come. I'm sure someone out there has studied the sorts of questions and comments aimed at men vs. women on topics like work and family. Perhaps when I have time I will look this up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    As far as the court is concerned the mother is by default, without having to sue for custody (Unlike the father). Which is why this statement:

    Is as pointless as it is ridicules - "It is regardless if it's male or female" + "Oh btw it's by default female"... Are you really so easily challenged that the connection is beyond you? Are you going to argue that NOW wasn't aware of that at the time? I didn't expect much from you before, but this is a few levels lower.
    It is all connected. If a man wants to be the primary caretaker for his kids so much, why didn't he work that out with his wife before they even thought of divorcing? Why doesn't he work it out with her now, and present their mutual agreement to the court for approval rather than asking the court to decide? Courts like when couples can come to an agreement on these things on their own. The bottom line is that the prevalence of female primary caregivers is an unfair status quo that society has to work with until things change more. The primary caregiver default is just that: a default. The other spouse is free to make a case to the court as to why something else should be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    And this leads to a the larger question that has bothered me throughout this thread: If I was arguing for the feminist movement, I'd have to ask the opposite side to not be clouded by that kind of showcase or use @Qre:us as a representative sample... But then I'd have to ask them to not use the executives of major organizations within the movement, or those in feminists protests in universities, or "tumblr feminists" or "reddit feminists", or the surprising cross section between the feminists who think wearing "I bath in male tears" while complaining about colorful NASA scientist t shirts with cartoon women is the irony they intend on, or the majority of feminists campaigning for so many of the current feminist issues within western countries... How large or potent can a slice be and still be called a strawman?
    It's all hype, from everone, on all sides. All one need do is judge groups, and individuals, by their actions. Whether they are leaders of organizations, political candidates, or someone in my neighborhood, I ask: what are they trying to accomplish? What are they trying to change, and why, and how? Those who are taking promising and concrete steps to effect the kind of changes I want to see get my support. The rest are diverting resources to lower priorities, or misguided efforts; or are just making noise.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Qre:us liked this post

  7. #1197
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Post

    So now you are taking an issue with the idea something can have multiple implications... After I've demonstrated the only way to rationalize the stance a feminist organization claimed too was for it's multiple implications...

    @Qre:us At this point you aren't just making the point for the "anti feminist agenda", you are making the point for the traditionalist "we can't treat women like adults" agenda, which I don't support and don't want to provide them with any further ammunition by encouraging your participation

  8. #1198
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    So now you are taking an issue with the idea something can have multiple implications... After I've demonstrated the only way to rationalize the stance a feminist organization claimed too was for it's multiple implications...
    I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Things can have lots of implications, but at the end of the day, you try to achieve X or you don't; then you suceed, or you don't; then you regroup and try a different tack, or you change goals, or . . .

    At the point of action, implications collapse fairly readily to something much more easy to assess.

    I suppose what I am saying is that I don't put much stock in theory and ideology. People can argue all sides all day long without accomplishing anything. I enjoy intellectual debate as much as the next person, and if people remain civil and have some knowledge to share, I will learn something from the experience. If I am judging the merits of movements, organizations, and individuals, however, actions speak louder than speeches and dissertations.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  9. #1199
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Things can have lots of implications, but at the end of the day, you try to achieve X or you don't; then you suceed, or you don't; then you regroup and try a different tack, or you change goals, or . . .
    I was addressing the previous post about how an issue can be both a gender issue and a child welfare issue in the same time and how addressing it as the first as a cover for the later is ridicules when the first doesn't hold up. I wrote that after writing a long response and realizing posting it would be completely pointless, which is why I didn't realize you've posted in the mean time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    It is all connected. If a man wants to be the primary caretaker for his kids so much, why didn't he work that out with his wife before they even thought of divorcing? Why doesn't he work it out with her now, and present their mutual agreement to the court for approval rather than asking the court to decide?
    If you are asking why they didn't make that agreement on paper, can't the exact same question be presented for cases where the primary caregiver is the mother (Rather then assume that by default)?
    If you are asking why he wasn't the primary caregiver before the divorce, then the answer is that you are making the exact same assumption the courts are, Even if he was the primary or an equal caregiver, he's going to need to sue her just to get shared physical custody. Is that practical (Of either genders) just after loosing half their estate and a substantial portion of their income under the threat of jail for the average Joe (or Joan)?

    and there's quite a bit of a missing psychological element there as well:
    You are asking him to stand against the person who has just been given the highest amount of influence over the children, an inherently abusive power dynamic, to ask why he doesn't stand against her and take her to court is the same reason people often don't do that with domestic violence. Earlier someone talked about how divorce was vital for them to escape an abusive relationships, and that everyone should have the right for divorce, and I completely agree. However, I think people should have an equal access to that right regardless of gender, and one gender having to choose between that and the very real prospect of loosing their relationship with their children as they know it is not an equal access. This isn't only vital to ensure the ability to escape abusive relationships after, it's vital for most relationships to not create an abusive power dynamic in the first place. One person having the ability to leave the relationship whenever they choose too while the the other one doesn't is an inherently abusive power dynamic. This doesn't require that a woman will have the abusive mentality to seek that power, but not doing so requires having the unfortunately rare mentality to stop and think about what you are doing and choosing not to use the power that is already given to you, which is rare for people of any gender.

    Frankly, I've always found the underlining justification beneath those kind of conclusions to be unsettling:
    "Let's create a society that will mistreat exploit or screw-over our sons/daughters when they grow up for the benefit of our sons/daughters"...

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The bottom line is that the prevalence of female primary caregivers is an unfair status quo that society has to work with until things change more. The primary caregiver default is just that: a default.
    That's something I still can't get my head wrapped around - Doesn't it bother you the slightest that a huge feminist organization is successfully working to reinforce primary caregiver-breadwinner dynamic for divorced couples within a reality that those are assumed by gender? Under the belief that feminism means equal rights and responsibilities and overcoming the restrictions and biases towards gender roles in society, doesn't that seem absolutely insane for a feminist organization to do, flying at the face of what feminism is supposed to stand for? Shouldn't that be a huge redflag from your perspective as a dictionary-definition feminist?

    I can understand not wanting to give up a title that represents for you something you believe in simply because of what others do in it's name, but... Horrible horrible pun not intended... Isn't some house cleaning in order?

  10. #1200
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    BTW, one of the reasons I support gay marriage beyond the obvious, is the same reason conservatives are often afraid of it: That it might in some way redefine marriage not just for gays but for everyone else in society... Which is exactly what needs to be done! My hopes are that by forcing society to deal with the issues of marriage and family in situations were gender bias can't be applied, society will be forced to question the decision it makes when it does apply it. I am not naive enough to think that alone will fix the problems, but I do think it can place more of the public spotlight on these sort of problems, and make it harder to deny they are there.

Similar Threads

  1. A new INFJ *waves!*
    By moonlit_reveries in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 01:14 AM
  2. Feminism
    By GZA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
  3. The Ocean Waves: a NF introduction
    By music_educe in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. *waving*
    By Sandy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
  5. Hello :D *waves*
    By Indranizia in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 04:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts