A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Charon]

Austria. But I think its also true for germany. There is a legal difference between biological, social and legal father.
Just beeing the biological father grants no nothing at all its just important to know who has to pay the upkeep.
Friends of mine had to do this. Did not marry and he had to adopt their daughter right after birth. Thats a reason why a lot of couples marry here before the child is born. Too much paperwork if you do not.

[eldargal]

Love how random MRAs pop up, get obliterated by facts, then disappear again.

If the male wants it and the female doesn't the female can get an abortion without the father present or his concent. Unless they manage to get a court hearing which is unlikely given the time scales invovled but could happen (maybe it did, I can't remember). But even if it is the case and the female is made to keep it, it isn't exactly fair that she has to put her body through the pregnancy or labour if she doesn't wish it.

It's also important to remember here that childbirth is still an extremely risky event in a woman's life. Mortality is low, (rising in the US due to changing medical policies and less access to abortions, because the US is hellbent on abandoning any semblance of being civilised) but there are still many, many long and short term health impacts that can result from childbirth. Not to mention huge lifestyle changes and impact on the woman's life for the period of gestation, even assuming she could reliably offload the kid onto the father permanently which is seldom the case.

Oh and it is true that men commit suicide more than women, but women actually attempt suicide more. They just tend to use less instantaneous methods which often leads to them being rushed to hospital and revived and generally surviving. Men tend to use a gun or something that guarantees success.

[Denzark]

We look at 2 different things - suicide attempts, and suicidal gestures - I don't know if the NHS and/or mental healthcare professionals do the same but it would surprise me if on a contentious subject different bodies of government vary widely.

An attempt is a genuine all out go to do yourself in. A gesture is a cry for help. The difference between slashing your wrists across (easily fixable) and lengthways (not). Or slashing your throat.

I wonder if women are making suicidal gestures more, or genuine attempts? Cos if you really mean it you will usually succeed.

I note from figures I published way back when, that incidences of PTSD are more highly recorded in women then men in the UK forces. So it would probably follow that women are either less mentally robust or more prone to stress (that would induce a suicidal gesture/attempt), than men, leading to those figures.

[TBM]

"Suicide Gestures" do not remotely compare to actual suicide. The former is a cry for attention (needed attention, I'm not saying they're just emos) vs an actual final desire to end it all. Comparing them in an insult to suicide victims.

Courts can't be expected to award what they're not asked to. It turns out that fathers who ask for custody (and don't give up) are very likely to get either sole or joint custody:

The rate at which mothers’ requests for sole custody were honored is 65% higher than the comparable rate for fathers’ requests. That study is highly misleading.

[url]http://breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php[/url]

And this is of course despite the fact that mothers are 3x more likely to abuse their children than fathers.

[url]https://mkg4583.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/mothers-abuse-children-3-times-more-than-dads-federal-hhs-statistics/[/url]

Yet because of feminist misinformation, most people believe fathers are more abusive. It takes a special kind of diseased cretin to put the interests of female abusers above children. Y'know, feminists.

Through most of Anglo-American legal history, there was little custody litigation because there was nothing to fight over. Dad always got the kids.

He paid for them. so as well he should. There was no social state to take money from him and give it to the woman.

Under English and early American common law, children were regarded as paternal property.

Instead of maternal property default as they are now. A man has zero say in whether she kills the kid before it's born so why should he be made to pay for her lifestyle choice? Especially if initial contraception fails? She refused the morning after pill and she is now able to hold him fianancially hostage whether he likes it or not. He must pay or face jail. And feminists, apparently the only gender rights group men are allowed to go to without protest and accusations of misogyny etc, unsurprisingly doesn't give a rat's ***. (about every men's issue besides saying men should be allowed to be more feminine. I wonder why. )

How do you justify the large settlements some women receive after a divorce in which they have contributed minimally at home, financially, or, in some instances, not at all?

However, statistics on custody awards can be deceiving, since most custody orders are uncontested or negotiated by the parties. A 1992 study of California cases showed that fathers were awarded primary or joint custody in about half of contested custody matters.

So if fathers are getting joint or primary in half of the cases it's contested in that study. It therefore follows that the rest consists of primary custody awarded to mothers. Which is still gender biased and consistent with my rebuttal of the Massachusetts study. So how does this support your argument?

Some lawyers believe the gender gap in custody awards reflects a preference for the status quo, rather than bias against fathers.

Oh and by the way, that so few fathers contested custody in the massechusetts supreme court, doesn't factor the psychological impact of them losing at lower courts.

“Family law is a case-by-case, judge-by-judge affair,” says Joel Bigatel, a family lawyer in Narberth, Pa. “If there’s a bias in awarding custody, it’s in favor of primary caretakers. If dad is the working parent, and mom is the stay-at-home, she generally has a leg up.”

Specific proposals for determining who is the “primary caregiver” often reveal their authors’ ulterior sexist motives. For in telling how to add up the time to compute which parent is the primary caregiver, they often exclude activities which “give care” to a child–that is, which promote the child’s wellbeing–and which fathers tend to engage in much more frequently. For example, guidelines for computing caregiving time commonly include that spent shopping for the child–as if shopping counts as “child care” whereas making the money required to do the shopping does not. And they standardly include housecleaning, but not repairs and maintenance on the house, yard and car which benefit the child similarly.

even if the explication of “primary caregiver” should be limited to direct, hands-on nurturing, the criterion is still sexist. “How could that be?”, one may ask. “Not only does the presumption not explicitly mention either sex, but childcaring activities are something which either gender can perform. If fathers have performed them less often, that has been their own choice, not someone else’s biased treatment of them.” Here again the hypocrisy behind the criterion shows through. For just recall how strongly Canadian feminists objected to fathers getting an equal opportunity for childcare leave paid for by the government. It’s a cozy racket: first prevent men from spending as much time with the children, then punish them for not having spent as much time with the children. The message “You made your choice, and you may not change it with changing circumstances” is to be given only to men. (Recall that the mother is to put the kids in daycare, rather than let them be with their own father, during the time when she is at her new job. The message “You made your choice, and you may not change it with changing circumstances” is to be given only to men. (Recall that the mother is to put the kids in daycare, rather than let them be with their own father, during the time when she is at her new job. Also note that in many marriages, the primary caregiver is the daycare!)

Yet a further point can be made about the fraudulence of the “primary caregiver” doctrine. In almost no marriages does the father spend no time at all with the children; in most, surveys have indicated, his direct interaction-time with them is fairly close to that of the mother–and certainly up to that 30% time-level mentioned earlier. (Hence those lists of “childcare” activities that are loaded against male-typical ones.) But the proponents of the doctrine don’t believe in partial credit; to them it’s all or nothing. If you didn’t make it up to that 50% level, you lose custody. This is what logicians speak of as black-and-white thinking. It is the defining characteristic of extremism: not seeing the world in all its shades of gray, just the two extremes.

In a traditional marriage, the mother’s staying at home with the children left the father free to pursue financial gain; hence she has indirectly contributed to that gain as well, and by all rights, it also belongs to her. By the very same token, however, the father’s going off to work has left the mother free to care directly for the children; hence he likewise has an equal moral right to the fruits of her labors. The two contributions to the children do not have to be the same in kind in order to be equal in value for the children. (If I were inclined toward irony, I’d call this the “parental pay equity” principle.)

Now we can state more clearly than ever the crass hypocrisy of the feminist establishment in this matter. In divorce and separation, they don’t want the mother to wind up with the fruits of her direct labors and the father to wind up with the fruits of his direct labors. They want the mother to get them both: the children, and the money earned for them by the father. As noted earlier, they want her to “have it all”. But as has now been revealed, “having it all” means having it both ways.

Can be but it never happens.

You get expelled and it goes on his record. You lose the fees you've already paid. A guy lost 30 grand in scholarships. How many universities are going to want you after after you've been expelled for alleged sexual assault? The board are a)Full of Feminists , b) Are educators, not professional investigators and psychoanalysts, able to weed out a false claim. It is impossible to defend against an accusation using yes means yes. How do you prove that the consent was throughout? You can't. Only by filming it and that's illegal to distribute, to film without consent, and VERY unlikely to gain consent to begin with. Almost no chance.

Seriously, guys already over there need to dress plainly, keep their heads down - literally - and not even speak to a female student unless absolutely necessary. Do not risk antagonizing them. Do not attract their attention.

False rape accusation stats:

FBI reports from 1996 consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%.

OF COURSE false accusations would be rarer in the real world. Where you have to actually prove your case, and are subject to detailed, demeaning but necessary, examination both physical and mental, and if it goes forward, will have the experience essentially mocked by a prosecutor and currently uses the no means no standard (which I'm not even protesting). THAT' IS INCOMPARABLE to what goes on in a college campus. Where educators, not lawmen, speak to both parties, come to a decision and inevitably expel the accused. He after all, cannot defend against the yes means yes standard. She is not subject to anything worse than a conversation by a campus employee who is deliberately trying to be as sensitive as possible. Why wouldn't she get a guy expelled she doesn't like or who annoys her or who doesn't call back after sleeping with her or who passed her up for another? I admit we've yet to see this policy truly play out, but on paper, it's apparent that men's entire careers are at the mercy of the altruism of a bunch of teenage girls. Guys need study long distance/online courses. if they can.

A low incidence of false allegations is not a valid argument for doing away with due process and reasonable standards of proof.

Also the fact you use the term "gynocentric" (especially about EG who is the best trans ally I know) indicates a narrow, transphobic, view of gender.

She is gynocentric as she regards the Mens Rights issues as non issues. I'll rephrase, by her own words, she regards the deaths of babies who have been subject t genital mutilation gone wrong, losing the one life they'll ever have [url]http://www.circumcision.org/mortality.htm[/url], as a "non issue" when I guarantee, GUARANTEE that if any part of a baby girl's vagina were being mutilated today, even a little, feminists like her would lose their mind.

That is gynocentrism.

Also, glad you brought up transsexuals. The feminist position is that gender roles are socially determined, and are changeable with social conditioning. The trans-feminist position differs in that it asserts that gender is largely fixed, and that they cannot be socialized into behaving as the undesired gender without dire mental consequences. A feminine trans person cannot be socialized into acting masculine without psychological backlash. At least the second wave feminists like Germaine Greer were consistent in their ideology and she remains today a staunch transphobic. I am very supportive of trans rights, nor do I believe they can be socialized out of it. But again, a feminist should believe that if they are to propose almost total gender fluidity. You can't say girly things are not inherently for girls when a trans girl still yearns for them after having every effort made to socialize them into masculine things.

[CoffeeGrunt]

It takes a special kind of diseased cretin to put the interests of female abusers above children. Y'know, feminists.

Crikey, it's almost like you've got an incredibly biased view that you are so certain is correct that you will make the evidence fit your arguments and ignore those of your opposition. Intriguing...

You know, the only studies that are legitimate are the ones that agree with you, the opposition are all "diseased cretins," and the fact that Feminism doesn't work to make men's lives better because hey-ho, let's ignore all the parts where it does and pretend those aren't happening. Interesting things like claiming a women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term but accusing that of "trapping" the male if they do want it. So you're okay with the man given the word to kill the baby, but the woman who has to deal with carrying it for nine months is "trapping" unless the male agrees?

Besides, you shining, intellectual knights have that covered, I'm sure. We'll handle the issues women are having, you go on ahead and nitpick the last details on the male manifesto, which seem to solely cover suicide, increased homelessness and child custody...though the latter is in contention and the former has aspects being worked on by Feminists. But hey, not allowed to acknowledge that, because everyone knows things that help one gender cannot help another, right?

Now we can state more clearly than ever the crass hypocrisy of the feminist establishment in this matter. In divorce and separation, they don’t want the mother to wind up with the fruits of her direct labors and the father to wind up with the fruits of his direct labors. They want the mother to get them both: the children, and the money earned for them by the father. As noted earlier, they want her to “have it all”. But as has now been revealed, “having it all” means having it both ways.

I know you'll ignore this, but one must ask what "feminist establishment" you speak of. Is this some ineffable Illuminati?

You get expelled and it goes on his record. You lose the fees you've already paid. This guy lost 30 grand in scholarships. How many universities are going to want you after after you've been expelled for alleged sexual assault? The board are a)Full of Feminists , b) Are educators, not professional investigators and psychoanalysts, able to weed out a false claim. It is impossible to defend against an accusation using yes means yes. How do you prove that the consent was throughout? You can't. Only by filming it and that's illegal to distribute, to film without consent, and VERY unlikely to gain consent to begin with. Almost no chance.

That must be why colleges and universities have zero instances of rape or fratboy culture, because Feminists would have flayed and crucified offenders of both of those first. I mean, with feminists having such a grip over the education system, you'd think they'd have tried to, y'know, actually push some inequality. Instead, the Department of Justice finds [URL="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf"]the opposite is happening[/URL].

But feel free to ignore that one.

Also looking into studies for how many accused rapists actually get expelled is difficult, but in fairness as many as one-third of those accused might get expelled. Though that was a Huffington Post article, and I trust that site as far as I could throw their servers. Concrete data is difficult, so I'd like a citation please, TBM, so I may verify your claims.

Again, it's almost like you're biased to think your opposition is an omnipotent entity holding all the cards, when that is very much not the case.

She is gynocentric as she regards the Mens Rights issues as non issues. I'll rephrase, by her own words, she regards the deaths of babies who have been subject t genital mutilation gone wrong, losing the one life they'll ever have [url]http://www.circumcision.org/mortality.htm[/url], is a "non issue" when I guarantee, GUARANTEE that if any part of a baby girl's vagina were being mutilated today, even a little, feminists like her would lose their mind.

Funnily enough, you're correct. Female Genital Mutilation is a big problem, and Feminists are often fighting against it.

Why the lack of success? For the same reason circumcision is still alive and kicking - religious freedom, especially outside of the West.

Also, glad you brought up transsexuals. The feminist position is that gender roles are socially determined, and are changeable with social conditioning. The trans-feminist position differs in that it asserts that gender is largely fixed, and that they cannot be socialized into behaving as the undesired gender. A feminine trans person cannot be socialized into acting masculine without psychological backlash. At least the second wave feminists like Germaine Greer were consistent in their ideology and she remains today a staunch transphobic. I am very supportive of trans rights, nor do I believe they can be socialized out of it. But again, a feminist should believe that if they are to propose almost total gender fluidity. You can't say girly things are not inherently for girls when a trans person still yearns for them after having every effort made to socialize them into masculine things.

Here you misunderstand the purpose of Feminism, or at least, a large part of it. The aim isn't to start burning bras and scream that, "I can do a man's job too!"

The aim is to stop the very simple idea of femininity < masculinity. This is most evident in the persecution of effeminate guys, yes, but it's also an interesting trend socially for women. Women only get places in a career for acting in a stereotypically male manner. A girl who genuinely enjoys cute or 'girly' things as many do will not. How many CEOs in the world are female? A small proportion. How many of them would own a Hello Kitty book? None, because that expression of femininity earns the stereotype of an air-headed, girly girl, and thus would never be promoted to an executive position.

That's what Feminism's about more than most things, making it about Femininity = Masculinity, with neither being stronger. However, MRAs like yourself own a perception bias that women are already on the same level as men due to a few, small points where they are, and ignore the rest of the data so you can say that Femininity is already equal to masculinity, and now they're just being greedy.

Ergo, your viewpoint is so unfounded in reality that it really won't do much to stop the social progress it hopes to.

[Horncastle]

Funnily enough, you're correct. Female Genital Mutilation is a big problem, and Feminists are often fighting against it.

Why the lack of success? For the same reason circumcision is still alive and kicking - religious freedom, especially outside of the West.

I'm glad someone else brought this up.

[Charon]

To be fair there are a few point worth noting:

which seem to solely cover suicide, increased homelessness and child custody...though the latter is in contention and the former has aspects being worked on by Feminists.

Im honestly not too sure how suicidal rates are "worked on". This is just rooted in the BELIVE that patrarchy is to blame for more pressure on mens shoulders and the fear to fail and bear shame. As a matter of fact, we don't know if this is really the sole cause to blame. Depression is a huge factor for suicide rates amongst men and has not to be related to any outside sources. Also Testosterone is known to increase the risk for depression.
So as long as you don't try to chemically alter a possible factor for suicide rates, I consider this statement a little bit bold.

Funnily enough, you're correct. Female Genital Mutilation is a big problem, and Feminists are often fighting against it.

He was talking about MALE genital mutilation.

Women only get places in a career for acting in a stereotypically male manner.

You should try to read Robert Hare on this. Antisocial Personality Disorder is in fact a trait that helps you a lot pursuing your career (as long as it is a mild form of course).
A trait that is present in about 1 in a 100 men above 18y (1 in 300 for women). The ratio among people in commanding positions is a lot higher. This is not a "stereotypical male manner" ist a stereotypical mild form of antisocial personality that a lot of companies seek when they have open leadership positions.

[Wolfshade]

We look at 2 different things - suicide attempts, and suicidal gestures - I don't know if the NHS and/or mental healthcare professionals do the same but it would surprise me if on a contentious subject different bodies of government vary widely.

An attempt is a genuine all out go to do yourself in. A gesture is a cry for help. The difference between slashing your wrists across (easily fixable) and lengthways (not). Or slashing your throat.

I wonder if women are making suicidal gestures more, or genuine attempts? Cos if you really mean it you will usually succeed.

I note from figures I published way back when, that incidences of PTSD are more highly recorded in women then men in the UK forces. So it would probably follow that women are either less mentally robust or more prone to stress (that would induce a suicidal gesture/attempt), than men, leading to those figures.

It is also important to differentiate between attempted suicide and cutting and other self harm behaviour, which is most often not suicide attempts, nor cry for attentions (since it is more often a private ritual and only gets seen when something goes wrong). [Though the studies on this tend to be widely different, with hospitalisation based studies haveing very different findings to self reported studies]

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm honestly not too sure how suicidal rates are "worked on". This is just rooted in the BELIVE that patrarchy is to blame for more pressure on mens shoulders and the fear to fail and bear shame. As a matter of fact, we don't know if this is really the sole cause to blame. Depression is a huge factor for suicide rates amongst men and has not to be related to any outside sources. Also Testosterone is known to increase the risk for depression.
So as long as you don't try to chemically alter a possible factor for suicide rates, I consider this statement a little bit bold.

On the one hand, you have a fair point. On the other, chemically altering is our solution to most psychological problems. If an imbalance of anything is causing someone mental pain, then rebalancing it should be looked into and the effects weighted against the results.

It may just be testosterone, it may be that perceived social obligations aren't even a factor. However, Scholar has a [URL="https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=male+gender+role+conflict+depression+and +help+seeking&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart& sa=X&ei=k8HGVMr_E8zwUL6UgtAC&ved=0CB4QgQMwAA"]host of papers[/URL] that seem to suggest otherwise. Gender roles may not directly cause mental issues, but they cause us to clam up and pretend they're not real, or 'man up' and fight them, which rarely works. This would be fine if our society was mature enough to understand that mental issues aren't the sole pursuit of the mad and the murderous, but it compounds on top of that.

I may have worded it too boldly. No I don't believe it will solve the issue, but it may help, and if nothing else, it won't make it worse.

You should try to read Robert Hare on this. Antisocial Personality Disorder is in fact a trait that helps you a lot pursuing your career (as long as it is a mild form of course).
A trait that is present in about 1 in a 100 men above 18y (1 in 300 for women). The ratio among people in commanding positions is a lot higher. This is not a "stereotypical male manner" ist a stereotypical mild form of antisocial personality that a lot of companies seek when they have open leadership positions.

Indeed, there's a common correlation between very mildly sociopathic tendencies and success. You have to screw people over to get a leg-up in life. However, it's not a prerequisite to every successful person. There are some genuinely 'nice' people, and while people treat 'nice' guys as a bit weak to hack it in the cutthroat world of executive...ing, for women it's a little more so.

The annoying thing for me, personally, is that it's so intrinsic I still catch myself doing it.

He was talking about MALE genital mutilation.

I guarantee, GUARANTEE that if any part of a baby girl's vagina were being mutilated today, even a little, feminists like her would lose their mind.

He also called us out for not discussing FGM...when we have. Again, it's a primarily-religious issue, and we know how tough it can be to stop those.

[Wolfshade]

He also called us out for not discussing FGM...when we have. Again, it's a primarily-religious issue, and we know how tough it can be to stop those.

No, it is primarily a cultural issue.