User Tag List

First 2171111119120121122123131 Last

Results 1,201 to 1,210 of 1614

  1. #1201
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Someone who actually believes that a "patriarchy" is oppressing them can't really be argued with. Their beliefs are so far out from reality its like trying to argue with a christian fundamentalist about religion.Pretty much any counter argument or point you are trying to make is just more proof of a patriarchy when in reality it is just proof of a totalitarian ideology.

  2. #1202
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    In quantity, yes. But I doubt most feminists - even moderate ones - are as open to hearing statistical claims from sources that have "MGTOW" or "Voice For Men" in their name. Even I wasn't initially, my journey here started from fact checking various claims by both sides, it's merely that the result of fact checking one side turned out to be very different from the result of fact checking the other. For these kind of discussions, you need to find neutral sources as much as possible (Sure, some of the really crazy ones might still decide that the american beuro of statistics is another evil conspiring finger of the patriarchy, but that level of crazy isn't composed of people who are going to change their mind anyway, your best bet when arguing with those kind of extremists is to expose them for what they are).
    The posts I've made weren't all from sources that had "MGTOW" or "voice for men" in their name actually I posted some from Karen Straughan but quite a few were from other non activist unbiased sources. Once of which was from evolutionary psychologist Robert Sapolski who makes the argument about gender roles being a biological construction rather than a socially constructed phenomenon aka "the patriarchy". He also goes on to prove that we actually live in a female privileged society and females are quite protected in our society not victimized. Other sources I've mentioned also included non activists debunking the gender wage gap. We live in a culture full of so much propaganda that it actually perpetuates this idea of "rape culture" many of the statistics collected on rape and the gender wage gap are misinterpreted and misrepresented. For example the 1-5 statistics for rape actually came from a survey that asked women questions like "were you ever drunk when you had sex" and if the person responded to "yes" it automatically concluded that they were raped.
    Likes SpankyMcFly liked this post

  3. #1203
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    We live in a culture full of so much propaganda that it actually perpetuates this idea of "rape culture" many of the statistics collected on rape and the gender wage gap are misinterpreted and misrepresented. For example the 1-5 statistics for rape actually came from a survey that asked women questions like "were you ever drunk when you had sex" and if the person responded to "yes" it automatically concluded that they were raped.
    I don't know man, when an entire gender gets a pass at forced sex because "To be made to penetrate" isn't considered rape, that's kind of rapey.

    I did find some feminists trying to put some consideration and bring this into the dialogue, even addressing the numbers (1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence), and they are somewhat high profile's within the flock (Lara Stemple & Hanna Rosin), but so far it seems the feminist section of the memosphere remains mostly undisturbed. Still, I am curious to see how what's left of the feminist movement would tackle this if it got around to it, given the hurdles the current narrative would have to face. "Teach boys not to rape" been the obvious 1st pillar to fall, but even deeper underlining assumptions are going to become problematic. Try to pluralize "Yes means yes" to both genders & remove the "sex is something he does to her" assumption, if two people who had sex without giving each other an explicit yes, who raped who? If two teens get wasted and wake up after sex, who raped who?

    I guess assuming they will try to tackle this in their narrative on any significant scale on their own accord is giving the movement the benefit of the doubt to a somewhat undeserving degree. More likely, it will only become of a significant scale when it's reactionary. Would the very same organizations that have demonstrated a past of working for women's interest at the expense of gender equality also try to fight legal changes that might include "made to penetrate" under rape? It wouldn't be hard to re-frame it in a manner that makes it seem justifiable, less of a stretch then we've seen with shared parenting, anything from "how it distracts from real rape" to dismissing it as reactionary MRA's, or doing the exact same thing they did here and declaring "A growing body of evidence that it doesn't induce the same traumatic effects" with no citation to be found. As we've already seen here - they don't need to be particularly clever about this for it to work. This is all speculation for now, since there's so little so far, and mostly represents the base case of rather innocent assumptions, in what is largely a telling silence. At the other end, one might wonder how many of them would rather not think of it because having never thought of it as rape or considered they might have had any reason to avoid it in the past, they aren't so sure they aren't rapists. What's more interesting is what would happen if they don't manage to block it. Would protecting women from been accused unfairly of rape become part of the agenda? It's not that far fetched.

    With 85% of Americans claiming to believe in gender equality while only 18% claim to be feminist, the first figure increasing and the later figure decreasing, how far are they going to be able to try to tell themselves that the 67% "Just don't know what feminism really is" before they start questioning it or at the very least wonder if this kind of reaction is biting their own asses? Add to that climate the above, and endorsing an ideal of gender equality on a paradigm built with underlining assumptions of gender moral superiority is going to be an increasing headache for anyone but the most devoted and fanatic to maintain, dwindling the numbers further.

  4. #1204
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    I don't know man, when an entire gender gets a pass at forced sex because "To be made to penetrate" isn't considered rape, that's kind of rapey.

    I did find some feminists trying to put some consideration and bring this into the dialogue, even addressing the numbers (1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence), and they are somewhat high profile's within the flock (Lara Stemple & Hanna Rosin), but so far it seems the feminist section of the memosphere remains mostly undisturbed. Still, I am curious to see how what's left of the feminist movement would tackle this if it got around to it, given the hurdles the current narrative would have to face. "Teach boys not to rape" been the obvious 1st pillar to fall, but even deeper underlining assumptions are going to become problematic. Try to pluralize "Yes means yes" to both genders & remove the "sex is something he does to her" assumption, if two people who had sex without giving each other an explicit yes, who raped who? If two teens get wasted and wake up after sex, who raped who?

    I guess assuming they will try to tackle this in their narrative on any significant scale on their own accord is giving the movement the benefit of the doubt to a somewhat undeserving degree. More likely, it will only become of a significant scale when it's reactionary. Would the very same organizations that have demonstrated a past of working for women's interest at the expense of gender equality also try to fight legal changes that might include "made to penetrate" under rape? It wouldn't be hard to re-frame it in a manner that makes it seem justifiable, less of a stretch then we've seen with shared parenting, anything from "how it distracts from real rape" to dismissing it as reactionary MRA's, or doing the exact same thing they did here and declaring "A growing body of evidence that it doesn't induce the same traumatic effects" with no citation to be found. As we've already seen here - they don't need to be particularly clever about this for it to work. This is all speculation for now, since there's so little so far, and mostly represents the base case of rather innocent assumptions, in what is largely a telling silence. At the other end, one might wonder how many of them would rather not think of it because having never thought of it as rape or considered they might have had any reason to avoid it in the past, they aren't so sure they aren't rapists. What's more interesting is what would happen if they don't manage to block it. Would protecting women from been accused unfairly of rape become part of the agenda? It's not that far fetched.

    With 85% of Americans claiming to believe in gender equality while only 18% claim to be feminist, the first figure increasing and the later figure decreasing, how far are they going to be able to try to tell themselves that the 67% "Just don't know what feminism really is" before they start questioning it or at the very least wonder if this kind of reaction is biting their own asses? Add to that climate the above, and endorsing an ideal of gender equality on a paradigm built with underlining assumptions of gender moral superiority is going to be an increasing headache for anyone but the most devoted and fanatic to maintain, dwindling the numbers further.
    No one is getting a pass at forced sex I don't know what you are talking about, women are made biologically to be penetrated duhh but when a women says no and the man keeps going that is rape not all this pseudo bullshit that's been going around which only destroys male and female dynamic and turns off men and women from each other even more. Yes means yes is so incredibly stupid considering most of our body language is communicative and not our words, I can switch the logic and say well what if she said yes verbally but her body language wasn't showing it and a man forces himself did he now rape her? it makes things too complicated and if women took more responsibility and spoke up we wouldn't have this "yes means yes" problem. Assuming the people are having sex are adults i'm quite certain that if you feel something is uncomfortable you have the responsibility to speak up for yourself. All this propaganda is just reinforcing a victimized and toxic society people are so ashamed or afraid of sex a lot of these feminists actually believe rape is even worse than murder. Another funny thing i've noticed is that the incidences of rape have actually been going down quite dramatically over last 10 years, yet we are seeing more complaints about rape more than any other time in history, irony much? It just proves my point about gynocentrism and feminism going hand and hand with one another.

  5. #1205
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    16,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    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.
    I agree with this. Others have already pointed out the overlap between gender bias and racial bias. It also overlaps with issues of poverty, education, employment, and as you mention, children's issues. The last connection is especially close given the historical tendency for women to be primary caregivers for children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    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)?
    Using the "primary caregiver default", a father who was the primary caregiver before divorce would be the default caregiver afterwards. For a couple who shared that duty equally, the default would be to continue to do so. This is much better than the default always being the mother, as it used to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    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.
    Both spouses should have equal opportunity to initiate and be granted a divorce. By extension, both should be able to use this option to terminate an abusive relationship. You seem to be suggesting here that the husband is on the receiving end of abuse by his wife. If this is the case, it gives him good grounds for primary if not exclusive custody. This is the exact opposite of losing his children. Same for a wife abused by her husband. In other words, it is the abuser, not the abuse victim, who stands to lose the relationship with children, and that is his/her own fault. The wife, then, wll be "given the highest amount of influence over the children" only if (1) she has been their primary caregiver, and (2) the husband cannot make a case for why changing the primary caregiver would be better for the children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    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?
    You still haven't answered my earlier question about whether and when a change of primary caregiver is in the best interests of children, absent any abuse. It would bother me more if a huge feminist organization tried to reverse the dynamics in traditional families overnight through divorce settlements. As much as I disagree with the female caregiver/male breadwinner expectation, that is how many families are still organized, and we (the families and society as a whole) have to play the hand we are dealt. To the extent that the primary caregiver default reinforces this model, it is at best a stopgap measure to lessen the already disruptive impact of a divorce on children.

    If you want to consider the psychological element, understand that divorce is a great stressor for families, especially children. The youngest children often don't understand what is going on, and even older children can feel a sense of guilt. Their daily routine often changes. There may be periods when they don't see much of one parent, and when the parents are together, there may be fighting and hostility. After the divorce is finalized, they may have to move. Shared physical custody arrangements often mean they spend alternating weeks with each parent. The constant shuttling back and forth can be draining on all involved. If children, especially young children, are used to spending the day with one parent, allowing this routine to continue with as little disruption as possible lessens the stress of the overall experience.

    Such an arrangement has its own natural termination, when children are old enough for full-day school. At this point, the stay-at-home parent can return to the workforce, though might have trouble finding a decent job, depending on the amount of time at home, past experience, and relevant skills. This is why I mentioned building into a divorce settlement a plan for the stay-at-home parent, usually the mother, to become financially independent by returning to the workforce. There are alread programs out there for "displaced homemakers", probably other resources, too. No need to reinvent the wheel here. I would like organizations like NOW to promote the whole package, but I don't play all-or-nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    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?
    Just what title do you mean? If housecleaning is in order, it is due to how people or groups are acting, or failing to act, not what they call themselves. When women were campaigning for the right to vote, it was called the "women's suffrage movement", leading to lots of jocular statements from unsympathetic men along the lines of "sure - let the women suffer!". To this day, however, we still use that term for those early feminists. More importantly, they succeeded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    I did find some feminists trying to put some consideration and bring this into the dialogue, even addressing the numbers (1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence), and they are somewhat high profile's within the flock (Lara Stemple & Hanna Rosin), but so far it seems the feminist section of the memosphere remains mostly undisturbed. Still, I am curious to see how what's left of the feminist movement would tackle this if it got around to it, given the hurdles the current narrative would have to face. "Teach boys not to rape" been the obvious 1st pillar to fall, but even deeper underlining assumptions are going to become problematic. Try to pluralize "Yes means yes" to both genders & remove the "sex is something he does to her" assumption, if two people who had sex without giving each other an explicit yes, who raped who? If two teens get wasted and wake up after sex, who raped who?
    Don't get me started on the topic of rape. My thoughts on this have drawn some ire in the past. This is a topic, like abortion, where ideology is a serious impediment to efficacy. Sure, ideally society will teach boys not to rape, just like we will teach girls not to turn tricks, and teach everyone not to steal, vandalize, murder, evade taxes, or park by fire hydrants. Human nature being what it is, however, we will always have some amount of crime. Suggesting people take reasonable precautions is generally considered, well, reasonable - unless the crime is rape. Then it is called victim blaming. The elementary schools in my area have started doing lockdown drills to practice what to do in the event of a school shooter. Shouldn't we just teach people not to shoot up schools? Surely the very idea of a lockdown drill suggests that the school staff and students could do something to avoid being killed. Isn't that victim blaming, too?

    The problem is that we confuse blame, which has moral implications, with simple amoral causality. Suggesting that someone who might be a victim of crime - whether theft, rape, or anything else - can take reasonable precautions to reduce that risk isn't putting the moral responsibility on them, it is simply pointing out cause and effect relationships that they can use to their advantage.

    We know that most rapes aren't committed by strangers sneaking up on women in dark alleys. They are committed by someone the victim knows, and often trusts. Even (especially?) here, rape is probably not sudden. It comes after the rapist has imposed himself in lesser ways on the victim, all fueled by the double standard that says he gets to take what he wants. Women have been raised to be polite and accommodating, not to make waves, to smooth things over. What if, instead, they spoke up politely but firmly the first time that line was crossed? The problem is that I bet many women don't know where that line is, because they haven't established their own personal boundaries.
    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...

  6. #1206
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    I don't know what you are talking about
    "To be made to penetrate" = someone taking your penis and putting it in themselves regardless of your wishes.

    Right now it's only considered rape if someone uses force or coercion to penetrate you, but not if they use force or coercion to get you to penetrate them, despite the fact either one of those is still forced sex (The rest of my post was speculating on the various ways fixing that could change the feminist dialogue on rape, assuming it will adapt at all, which so far it seems to refuse too).

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The problem is that we confuse blame, which has moral implications, with simple amoral causality. Suggesting that someone who might be a victim of crime - whether theft, rape, or anything else - can take reasonable precautions to reduce that risk isn't putting the moral responsibility on them, it is simply pointing out cause and effect relationships that they can use to their advantage.
    I agree. Though it goes beyond that - I really do think you might enjoy McElroy's thoughts on these matters (Not necessarily agree with everything she has to say, but at least find it thought provoking).


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Using the "primary caregiver default", a father who was the primary caregiver before divorce would be the default caregiver afterwards. For a couple who shared that duty equally, the default would be to continue to do so.
    And how would you propose the court would be informed about this? Because right now...
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    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)?
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    This is much better than the default always being the mother, as it used to be.
    No, look all they've done is used 'primary caregiver' as a variable so that they can separate the reality of what this is into two dividable sections and thus only one of those sections need to be said in their own statement. Instead of saying "It should be the mother by default", they are saying "It should be the X by default" when "X = mother", they are simply using 'primary caregiver' as the X. That's not a difference in policy, it's barely a poorman's rhetorical stunt.

    The only exceptions to this would be a man who despite working less hours or non in order to be the primary caregiver, despite having to do so while already paying child support because of the court's assumed primary caregiver and despite having had to use whatever was left for him out of their shared estate reestablish themselves (Most likely been the one to move out of the house), despite all of that... Can afford to sue her for shared custody. It's about as useful as saying "It's always the mother unless the caregiving father has very wealthy and generous parents willing to support him in his desire to continue been the primary caregiver".

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    You seem to be suggesting here that the husband is on the receiving end of abuse by his wife.
    Abuse usually involves using violence or psychological warfare to obtain power over another, the state doesn't consider it abuse when it is the one providing someone with power over another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The constant shuttling back and forth can be draining on all involved. If children, especially young children, are used to spending the day with one parent, allowing this routine to continue with as little disruption as possible lessens the stress of the overall experience.
    Which is probably why the positive effects of shared physical custody are lessened at earlier age.. But are still there. Basically the equal time spent with both parents improves most measurements of mental health regardless, enough to compensates over any negative side effect the "shuffling" might cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    You still haven't answered my earlier question about whether and when a change of primary caregiver is in the best interests of children
    This is a more complicated issue, and isn't quite addressed by the current research because it isn't clear if any of the sample used to have a primary caregiver/breadwinner dynamic prior to the divorce. I would wager that yes, unless one of them is particularly incompetent as a parent (In which case child services should be called), the children will probably see the same benefits from an equal exposure to both parents even if what they had prior was not. But admittedly, this is my own interpretation, and others might disagree.

    Still, and this is an important note that I think is what @uumlau was trying to get at earlier, there is a problematic nature in the assumption that bread-winning is an activity that is somehow inherently excluded from the rest of the care-giving basket: Feeding housing and clothing your children is no less caring for them then changing their diapers. A lot of the times the breadwinner, be it male or female, will choose to work the longer hours as a form of sacrifice for the other party, sometimes out of some sense of duty (Because tradition), but more often then not, especially with the younger generations, it is because they feel they have no choice, given that their partner doesn't do it and the rent and bills and groceries need to get paid somehow. The current system is inclined to force them into continuing making the same sacrifice for the other partner even when they are no longer with the other partner. I believe this is a major reason for a growing disdain towards marriage and why so many men resent it as an institution and consider it a bad deal they would rather have nothing to do with (Although - as I noted in the UK study earlier - cohabitation doesn't really hold up as a particularly better alternative, since the father still has to "buy" the mother's cooperation, and she has no responsibility to honor the exchange).

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Just what title do you mean? If housecleaning is in order, it is due to how people or groups are acting, or failing to act, not what they call themselves.
    It is the shared title that makes people into a group, in this case, the feminist movement (I do think it's important to draw a line between "feminism' and "the feminist movement" - the first is a deceleration of intent, the later is the group of actual people that can be attributed with actual actions and consequences, the ideology vaguely providing the movement with a guideline on how to justify moving the goalposts).

  7. #1207
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    16,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    And how would you propose the court would be informed about this? Because right now...
    The same way the court establishes anything else about the relationship, in order to facilitate a settlement. If the courts do not take the time to assess the facts of the situation thoroughly, this is indeed a problem, but one separate from which yardstick they apply in making their decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    No, look all they've done is used 'primary caregiver' as a variable so that they can separate the reality of what this is into two dividable sections and thus only one of those sections need to be said in their own statement. Instead of saying "It should be the mother by default", they are saying "It should be the X by default" when "X = mother", they are simply using 'primary caregiver' as the X. That's not a difference in policy, it's barely a poorman's rhetorical stunt.

    The only exceptions to this would be a man who despite working less hours or non in order to be the primary caregiver, despite having to do so while already paying child support because of the court's assumed primary caregiver and despite having had to use whatever was left for him out of their shared estate reestablish themselves (Most likely been the one to move out of the house), despite all of that... Can afford to sue her for shared custody. It's about as useful as saying "It's always the mother unless the caregiving father has very wealthy and generous parents willing to support him in his desire to continue been the primary caregiver".
    No, they are saying "X = primary caregiver". The primary caregiver might, and probably does, happen to be the mother in the majority of cases, just as young black men might be the majority of people arrested for a particular crime in an urban area. That doesn't mean the law says "arrest blacks who commit this crime". Again, if the courts are not bothering to ascertain who really has been the primary caretaker, this is simply failure to apply the law fairly, not a criticism of the law itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Abuse usually involves using violence or psychological warfare to obtain power over another, the state doesn't consider it abuse when it is the one providing someone with power over another.
    And once more: if the courts fail to apply the law fairly, the answer isn't to change the law. They will then simply apply the revised law unfairly. The solution is to scrutinize the decisions of courts, and perhaps make changes in who is on the bench.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Which is probably why the positive effects of shared physical custody are lessened at earlier age.. But are still there. Basically the equal time spent with both parents improves most measurements of mental health regardless, enough to compensates over any negative side effect the "shuffling" might cause.
    By this measure, we should forbid traditional families altogether, since that results in children spending a disproportionate amount of time with their mother. Remember, this applies principally to children younger than school-age, since the entire routine changes once they start full-time school.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Still, and this is an important note that I think is what @uumlau was trying to get at earlier, there is a problematic nature in the assumption that bread-winning is an activity that is somehow inherently excluded from the rest of the care-giving basket: Feeding housing and clothing your children is no less caring for them then changing their diapers. A lot of the times the breadwinner, be it male or female, will choose to work the longer hours as a form of sacrifice for the other party, sometimes out of some sense of duty (Because tradition), but more often then not, especially with the younger generations, it is because they feel they have no choice, given that their partner doesn't do it and the rent and bills and groceries need to get paid somehow. The current system is inclined to force them into continuing making the same sacrifice for the other partner even when they are no longer with the other partner. I believe this is a major reason for a growing disdain towards marriage and why so many men resent it as an institution and consider it a bad deal they would rather have nothing to do with
    The breadwinner parent certainly contributes equal value to the family, but that is not apparent to a very young child, who knows only that Daddy (or Mommy) isn't around very much. The answer is not to pry young children from stay-at-home moms and put them in daycare, or have their fathers quit well-paying jobs to stay home with them. The answer is to minimize disruption for the children, while mapping out a strategy for the mother to enter the workforce with reasonable job prospects. This should lessen the resentment of those sacrificing fathers, and provide a better long-term balance for the children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    It is the shared title that makes people into a group, in this case, the feminist movement (I do think it's important to draw a line between "feminism' and "the feminist movement" - the first is a deceleration of intent, the later is the group of actual people that can be attributed with actual actions and consequences, the ideology vaguely providing the movement with a guideline on how to justify moving the goalposts).
    No, it is the shared overarching goal that makes a movement. The name follows based on that. But no movement is monolithic: not feminists, not abolitionists, not "pro-lifers", or anything else. What this means is that you have to specify which part of the movement you are drawing a line between.
    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...

  8. #1208
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Alright, There seems to be a central point of disagreement here I am not understanding:

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    By this measure, we should forbid traditional families altogether, since that results in children spending a disproportionate amount of time with their mother. Remember, this applies principally to children younger than school-age, since the entire routine changes once they start full-time school.
    You yourself said, the only situation that is ok is if both people agree to it, and that neither is entitled to it:
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    What they don't get is to expect a woman to take care of their family and house while they go off and earn money. Sure, they can want that, and many are lucky enough to find women who truly want it as well. They have no entitlement to it, though. It is simple individual preference, and must be matched up with the right partner just like any other preferences.
    You've even agreed that the exact same sentiment should be true to women:
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    They don't - in fact their perspective is almost the exact opposite, that's what the schizm is about. They'd practically be able to say the exact same thing you just did from the men's perspective: "Women aren't entitled to use men as wage slaves while they get to stay at home and see the kids after school."
    I agree with this as well. I think that barring disability, every adult should be able to support him/herself and any family they might have. Put two adults together in that family, and you have built in redundancy, flexibility, and two to share the burden. I was just including both the MGTOW and the non-traditional MRA folks as representing different but equally valid lifestyles, whereas those who feel entitled to a traditional division of labor do not.
    Now, what I thought we agreed on, is that if two people decide to live in a traditional family structure, they should at the very least both consent to it, because neither is entitled for the other to serve them in a traditional role. I did not assume there were particularly common exception clauses for this, I took that to mean not only within the marriage and at any point during the marriage, but also after divorce - simply, that is something people should agree to fulfill.

    But now you are saying that while it's not ok for people to make it a relationship requirement before the divorce, its ok for people to make it a legal requirement after it? While they might not be entitled to force the other parent takes a traditional role before divorce, the.. Divorce somehow makes them entitled to it after? Why?

    And before you make an artificial distinction between "Entitled to make them take the role" & "Entitled to make them maintain the role", please consider, What if one of them not wanting a traditional family structure was the very cause of the divorce? "My wife wouldn't go and look for work so I had to put in extra hours to have enough money for diapers and groceries, we fought about it and ended up divorcing, and now she's legally entitled for me putting in the extra hours" (That's not a hypothetical btw, it's something I've heard so many times it's mind numbing).

    And before "for the kids" please read the research, given that it does provide a good indicator that it harms the kids more then any perceived benefit, and while it might not mean we should make it illegal for parents to take traditional roles, it does at the very least mean we shouldn't require them to take traditional roles (Or the counter-clockwise reversal of traditional roles) "For the benefit of the kids" when the evidence shows it does the exact opposite.

    So...

    Why is that ok? Why if is it not ok to force people into a role within marriage (Under the threat of ending the relationship, which I think we both agree that people have a right to do), it suddenly becomes ok after divorce (Under the threat of sending the other person to jail, which.... People have a right too?!)?

  9. #1209
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    No, it is the shared overarching goal that makes a movement. The name follows based on that. But no movement is monolithic: not feminists, not abolitionists, not "pro-lifers", or anything else. What this means is that you have to specify which part of the movement you are drawing a line between.
    Really? Because given that you've agreed with me previously that shared physical custody should be the legal default, I am having a very hard time believing that you'd be defending the decision of any organization to fight against a law that would do just that if it wasn't for the fact it was a feminist organization.

  10. #1210
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    16,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    You yourself said, the only situation that is ok is if both people agree to it, and that neither is entitled to it:

    You've even agreed that the exact same sentiment should be true to women:

    Now, what I thought we agreed on, is that if two people decide to live in a traditional family structure, they should at the very least both consent to it, because neither is entitled for the other to serve them in a traditional role. I did not assume there were particularly common exception clauses for this, I took that to mean not only within the marriage and at any point during the marriage, but also after divorce - simply, that is something people should agree to fulfill.

    But now you are saying that while it's not ok for people to make it a relationship requirement before the divorce, its ok for people to make it a legal requirement after it? While they might not be entitled to force the other parent takes a traditional role before divorce, the.. Divorce somehow makes them entitled to it after? Why?
    You seem to be considering the situation - whether before a divorce or after - as a steady-state. I see it as more dynamic, especially after a divorce. A divorce is a big change for a family, especially children who might not see it coming, and are fairly powerless throughout. You argued, correctly, that it is healthier for children to spend relatively equal amounts of time with both parents. I contend further that it is healthier for children to see both parents engaged in and contributing to the world outside the home some way. However much I see this pointing to a world in which both parents have occupations capable of supporting the family, regardless of who chooses to spend how much time at home, I do not see it as the job of government, including the courts, to force it on families. A couple who chooses a traditional division of labor should remain free to do so.

    This is where the idea of a divorce and its aftermath as a significant perturbation to what might have been a steady-state comes in. If a couple agreed to one specific division of labor, whatever it was, they should likewise agree on any change to that. I find it neither realistic, nor necessary, nor beneficial for one spouse to force the other to make an immediate change to that, even in the context of a divorce. The key word here is immediate. The reality of the parents living separately will require that a stay-at-home spouse receive not only child support but alimony from the employed spouse, or be able to get a job able to support him/herself and at least half of the children's needs. In most cases, the second will not be able to happen immediately. Barring some other agreement of the parents, or any evidence of abuse/neglect, the court should require the status quo continue for the forseeable future, until such time as the stay-at-home spouse can indeed become economically self-sufficient. Depending on how long it takes this spouse to find a job, or acquire the skills/education necessary for a decent job, small children might have reached school age, changing their routine in a way that would have happened anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    And before you make an artificial distinction between "Entitled to make them take the role" & "Entitled to make them maintain the role", please consider, What if one of them not wanting a traditional family structure was the very cause of the divorce? "My wife wouldn't go and look for work so I had to put in extra hours to have enough money for diapers and groceries, we fought about it and ended up divorcing, and now she's legally entitled for me putting in the extra hours" (That's not a hypothetical btw, it's something I've heard so many times it's mind numbing).
    How long did the dissatisfied spouse allow this situation to continue? If he/she considers it important enough to divorce over, that decision should have been made before it became an established routine. The longer he/she tolerates it, the longer he/she becomes complicit in perpetuating it. The least he/she can do after an eventual divorce is to go along with it for another couple of years to make the transition smoother for children and spouse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Why is that ok? Why if is it not ok to force people into a role within marriage (Under the threat of ending the relationship, which I think we both agree that people have a right to do), it suddenly becomes ok after divorce (Under the threat of sending the other person to jail, which.... People have a right too?!)?
    It is best not to do anything precipitous. Yes, families sometimes have to take precipitous actions out of unavoidable necessity (e.g. job loss or serious illness), and it takes a great and concerted effort for the whole family to pull together and make it work. The law doesn't weigh in on such family decisions, because it ordinarly doesn't have a role in such aspects of family life. It does get involved in the event of a divorce. A divorce is a very serious and stressful event, but usually plays out over enough time that, with some important exceptions, precipitous action is not necessary. Moreover, given the animosity usually present, one cannot count on the parents pulling togther to make things work the way they might have faced a crisis while still married.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Really? Because given that you've agreed with me previously that shared physical custody should be the legal default, I am having a very hard time believing that you'd be defending the decision of any organization to fight against a law that would do just that if it wasn't for the fact it was a feminist organization.
    I think shared physical custody should be the legal default, and something we should work toward, but I don't think we are ready for it yet. You might also view it as the ideal default, and the benefit of maintaining the status quo for very young children as one of the factors that can override the default. Many divorces involve children of school age, for whom this might not be as important since they already spend much of the day away from either parent, and have a much broader circle of adult and peer contacts.
    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...

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • :hi:
  • :bye:
  • :)
  • :hug:
  • :happy2:
  • :smile:
  • :wubbie:
  • :D
  • :wink:
  • ;)
  • :newwink:
  • :(
  • :cry:
  • :mad:
  • :dry:
  • :doh:
  • :huh:
  • :shock:
  • :shrug:
  • :blush:

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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO