|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:13 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:52 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:38 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:29 Dknight wrote:On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote:
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late. That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues. On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote:
You have no clue what you're talking about. Loving that projection. He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues. Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly. There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA. But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades. Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues. lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted. That evasion lol Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work." And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth.
Still changing people's brain. No form of education should be made mandatory. All subjects should either go there willingly or being coerced. It should be that as long as you aren't putting someone else in life threatening situations, taking someone's possession without permission, and paying your taxes in time; you should be allowed to do what the fuck you like.
|
United States43672 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institiunalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Firstly biased child custody laws are not state institutionalised, you made that up. The tender years doctrine, which is what you're referring to, has been discredited and thrown out throughout the western world. Sorry but no.
Secondly they're actually an excellent example of where men have legal equality under the "best interests of the child" doctrine used but where there is instead a social bias which, in spite of legal equality, unfairly discriminates against men.
You think that discrimination is bullshit? That's great! I do too. And fortunately there is a large group of people who if you say "legal equality isn't all it takes to fix social problems, we need to actively act to fight discrimination where we see it and teach people not to discriminate" will absolutely get it.
Great example, good job bringing it up, it's exactly why you need feminism, because despite legal equality men still get discriminated against.
|
United States43672 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:22 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:13 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:52 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:38 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:29 Dknight wrote:On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote:
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late. That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues. On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote:
You have no clue what you're talking about. Loving that projection. He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues. Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly. There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA. But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades. Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues. lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted. That evasion lol Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work." And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth. Still changing people's brain. No form of education should be made mandatory. All subjects should either go there willingly or being coerced. It should be that as long as you aren't putting someone else in life threatening situations, taking someone's possession without permission, and paying your taxes in time; you should be allowed to do what the fuck you like.
The posts you think you're replying to aren't in any way like the posts I'm writing.
|
On May 27 2014 03:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institiunalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Firstly biased child custody laws are not state institutionalised, you made that up. The tender years doctrine, which is what you're referring to, has been discredited and thrown out throughout the western world. Sorry but no. Secondly they're actually an excellent example of where men have legal equality under the "best interests of the child" doctrine used but where there is instead a social bias which, in spite of legal equality, unfairly discriminates against men. You think that discrimination is bullshit? That's great! I do too. And fortunately there is a large group of people who if you say "legal equality isn't all it takes to fix social problems, we need to actively act to fight discrimination where we see it and teach people not to discriminate" will absolutely get it. Great example, good job bringing it up, it's exactly why you need feminism, because despite legal equality men still get discriminated against.
If feminism was effective at dealing with issues like these, there wouldn't be a Men's Rights Movement in the first place.
|
On May 27 2014 03:06 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:56 farvacola wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. Almost all ideologies end up inconsistent at one pass or another. Humanism as a literary genre is wonderful, as a political movement it is simply far too lukewarm. Feminism, as a surviving political label, suggests that there are still enough problems to merit a gendered approach to equality. Clearly, you do not believe this is the case, and that is where the disagreement ought take place, not over a fantasy world in which folks yearn to identify with the most consistent ideology. Your problem is that you are falsely equivocating the two concepts of an ideology and a political movement. An ideology you subscribe to because you agree with it's ideas, a political movement is something that can only succeed the ideology not preceed it. Yes, if I subscribe to an ideology it better be consistent with my own world-views, I see no point in subscribing to an ideology if that ideology doesn't accurately reflect my own beliefs. I really despise this kind of new-age thinking where everyone needs to subscribe to an ideology, people can no longer have their own opinions and beliefs because we need to standardize everything, every thought is part of an ideology, people's beliefs and their worldviews must always necessarily be the result of some ideology, it's almost unthinkable that people just have their own opinions and beliefs and therefore don't feel the need to subscribe to any particular ideology. And all this does is it exposes the biggest problem of people like you and Kwark, you don't self-identify as feminists because you agree with the ideology as a whole(which Kwark even admitted to an extent) but because you are political animals with an agenda. So can we stop pretending that this is an intellectual debate and not just people with political agendas choosing whatever political movement they can best make use of to advance their own political agenda irrespective of wether or not they even agree with the ideology behind it?
Your approach to this topic tells me that you've not met many nuanced views on it, so for that I can but apologize for the society in which we live. Nothing in my previous post is meant to describe the conceptual nature of ideologies past how they function in and around politically charged topics. If we are to get down to the nitty gritty of how it is people take on ideologies and identify with them, I'd think we'd need a lot more space than a forum post would permit and far more patience than any party involved really has to offer.
Complex systems that turn on something as idiosyncratic as a human's personality and decision making process are going to be very difficult to describe. So much so, in fact, that the very act of using their constituent label becomes a political gesture; for example, every time someone uses words like "liberal", "conservative", or "progressive, they are effectively making a rhetorical vote as to what those words stand for. This is why political commercials and campaigning in general revolve around these nebulous terms; they give off the appearance of specificity when they are in fact very general. Feminism definitely falls into this category.
My personal political agenda, getting back to your spiel, is not as simple as you claim. When pressed, I would probably identify as a Feminist in most circles but I'd do so with a heavy bit of stipulation, in much the same way I do when asked to why I identify as a Democrat. I've decided that the movement aligns enough with my individual outlook to warrant identification, but how it is people go about making that calculus is hardly universal. Furthermore, practically everything done in the public space can be considered political, so the idea that we should just throw our hands up and say "well we are all just fighting for our agendas!" seems pretty redundant.
|
On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
I mean to spin this around to make it seem like the state is discriminating against women, even though women obviously have the choice to not take the children if they don't want them is asinine. This is the only case I'm aware of where one group of people (women) has more rights than another group of people (men) based on sex. The only case of state-institutionalized sexism I'm aware of.
|
On May 27 2014 03:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:22 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:13 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:52 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:38 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:29 Dknight wrote:On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote:
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late. That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues. On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:
[quote]
Loving that projection. He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues. Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly. There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA. But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades. Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues. lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted. That evasion lol Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work." And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth. Still changing people's brain. No form of education should be made mandatory. All subjects should either go there willingly or being coerced. It should be that as long as you aren't putting someone else in life threatening situations, taking someone's possession without permission, and paying your taxes in time; you should be allowed to do what the fuck you like. The posts you think you're replying to aren't in any way like the posts I'm writing.
Go ahead and write them.
|
United States43672 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:25 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:22 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institiunalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Firstly biased child custody laws are not state institutionalised, you made that up. The tender years doctrine, which is what you're referring to, has been discredited and thrown out throughout the western world. Sorry but no. Secondly they're actually an excellent example of where men have legal equality under the "best interests of the child" doctrine used but where there is instead a social bias which, in spite of legal equality, unfairly discriminates against men. You think that discrimination is bullshit? That's great! I do too. And fortunately there is a large group of people who if you say "legal equality isn't all it takes to fix social problems, we need to actively act to fight discrimination where we see it and teach people not to discriminate" will absolutely get it. Great example, good job bringing it up, it's exactly why you need feminism, because despite legal equality men still get discriminated against. If feminism was effective at dealing with issues like these, there wouldn't be a Men's Rights Movement in the first place.
If MRAs were interested in the actual problems facing men then we'd need a whole new movement to put all the misogynists in.
|
United States43672 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:25 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:24 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:22 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:13 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:52 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:38 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:29 Dknight wrote:
[quote]
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
[quote]
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues. Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly. There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA. But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades. Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues. lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted. That evasion lol Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work." And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth. Still changing people's brain. No form of education should be made mandatory. All subjects should either go there willingly or being coerced. It should be that as long as you aren't putting someone else in life threatening situations, taking someone's possession without permission, and paying your taxes in time; you should be allowed to do what the fuck you like. The posts you think you're replying to aren't in any way like the posts I'm writing. Go ahead and write them.
There's not really any point, you'll just accuse me of trying to force people into the gulag again. Reread the posts I wrote previously and then respond.
|
United States43672 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
And now you know!
|
On May 27 2014 03:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:25 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 03:24 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:22 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:13 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:52 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:38 Xiphos wrote:
[quote]
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades. Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues. lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted. That evasion lol Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work." And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth. Still changing people's brain. No form of education should be made mandatory. All subjects should either go there willingly or being coerced. It should be that as long as you aren't putting someone else in life threatening situations, taking someone's possession without permission, and paying your taxes in time; you should be allowed to do what the fuck you like. The posts you think you're replying to aren't in any way like the posts I'm writing. Go ahead and write them. There's not really any point, you'll just accuse me of trying to force people into the gulag again. Reread the posts I wrote previously and then respond.
Re-read them yourself
" Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour,"
people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour = more shaming
|
On May 27 2014 03:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man. Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards. Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.And now you know!
Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
|
United States43672 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man. I mean to spin this around to make it seem like the state is discriminating against women, even though women obviously have the choice to not take the children if they don't want them is asinine. This is the only case I'm aware of where one group of people (women) has more rights than another group of people (men) based on sex. The only case of state-institutionalized sexism I'm aware of.
Read any of my responses, the facts you're basing this argument on are in no way true. There is no legal favouritism of the mother over the father, rather it is a social prejudice.
|
United States43672 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:33 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:30 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man. Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards. Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.And now you know! Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out.
<1900 man is favoured
1900-1980ish woman is favoured
1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice
What you have written is
1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG)
2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG)
Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
|
Technically men weren't "favored" <1900.
Men had to go fight in the war, go out to farm, do all sort of dirty and risky jobs just to keep their wives and kids alive.
|
On May 27 2014 03:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:30 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it.
How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man. Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards. Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.And now you know! Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T. No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out. <1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG) Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Kwark is right
|
United States43672 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:39 Xiphos wrote:
Technically men weren't "favored" <1900.
Men had to go fight in the war, go out to farm, do all sort of dirty and risky jobs just to keep their wives and kids alive.
We're talking about the presumption of child custody and which side the law favoured. You need to read the whole post, not just skim through until you think someone is being mean to men and then leap to their defence.
|
On May 27 2014 03:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:30 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it.
How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man. Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards. Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.And now you know! Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T. No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out. <1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG) Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless?
|
On May 27 2014 03:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:39 Xiphos wrote:
Technically men weren't "favored" <1900.
Men had to go fight in the war, go out to farm, do all sort of dirty and risky jobs just to keep their wives and kids alive. We're talking about the presumption of child custody and which side the law favoured. You need to read the whole post, not just skim through until you think someone is being mean to men and then leap to their defence.
And I wasn't quoting anyone. That's the difference.
|
United States43672 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:41 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:34 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:30 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man. Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards. Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.And now you know! Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T. No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out. <1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG) Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong. Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless?
YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman".
This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
