Support NeoGAF

[Vane_MagicCity]

You do not define feminism Vane, it's not within your power.

I don't need to, it's in the dictionary.

My reply was tongue in cheek but I also wanted to illustrate the fight for inequality in family court is one with a long history. You could say that the case the Supreme Court is hearing right this moment is one of equality in family court systems.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/adoptive-couple-v-baby-girl/

This isn't something that is as black and white as you've been implying. I have presented my argument for why I believe custody of children is negatively affect by patriarchal views of gender, but you've not addressed this issue... I'd like to hear what you think about my opinion.

Your example is supposed to be evidence of feminist groups fighting for the gender inequalities of the family courts?

I haven't even seen your opinion. I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Can you direct me to it?

 

[marrec]

Vane, here is an example of a genuine question:

Do you believe that most feminists are just misanderists in disguise?

Do you think that there is a place for feminism in modern society?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Because you clearly aren't interested in an answer.

Right, whatever.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Vane, here is an example of a genuine question:

Do you believe that most feminists are just misanderists in disguise?

Do you think that there is a place for feminism in modern society?

I'll answer your questions, this time.

1) No

2) Yes

Now one for you.

Do you think that a group who fights DIRECTLY for only one side can be considered an equality group?

 

[Dead Man]

Men's Rights (similar to feminism) exercised responsibly seems pretty harmless to me. Having the capacity to proactively approach certain issues with good intentions. Hopeful for positive results.

That being said, there seemingly will always be bigots and individuals with flawed logic on both sides. Using the platform to advance their own sic ideals.

Perhaps the main focus should be to eliminate the exclusivity of promoting just one gender. Coming together collectively to advance social issues for everyone. Maybe that's just wishful thinking, but surely there's some organizations / groups participating in such a manner?

This is why I have argued in the past for those who consider feminism to be fight for all genders to rename their position, and leave traditional feminism and MRM to duke it out on the sidelines.

That suggestion tends to get laughed at though

 

[bjb]

That suggestion tends to get laughed at though

Why?

 

[marrec]

I haven't even seen your opinion.

I've gone through my replies in this thread and bolded the opinion in question.

The problem is there is no evidence the feminist groups are wages battles for the benefit of men because that's not what's being claimed. Feminist groups wage battles for equality and an emergent property of those battles is to the benefit of both men and women.

The argument I'm presenting is that the fight against patriarchy is to the benefit of men BECAUSE the legitimate problems that MRMs and MRAs advocate against are a property of our patriarchal society.

However, it is my understanding that MRMs and MRAs were formed as a direct counter to Feminism. Is this the case?

I consider myself a feminist and love to fight for the equality of men in family courts by advocating that men take on the responsibility of primary caregiver.

I'm distressed every time I go to a grocery store with my son and someone comes up and says 'You must be a fantastic father.' with zero prompting just because I'm out in public, alone, with my son.

I want presumptions of gender roles to be changed so that when my SO graduates from college, gets a job, and I quit to be a stay at home father, I'm not an aberration. I don't want my peers to question me when I tell them I want to be home with my son.

How are they different?

In 1839 default custody was given to men, even after this law was passed. A woman had to petition for custody and would only get it if it was granted. There was no presumption of custody but for that of the man until a petition was put forth by the woman. Even with a petition (which, by the way, was financially prohibitive for most divorced women at the time) she was not presumed custody because in the end it was up to the authority to decide who received custody.

Today the laws are written much differently. Custody is not presumed by the men anymore, or by the women but instead the court is to take only the child's best interests at heart. That has led to a preponderance of women gaining custody over men because it's assumed that women are better caregivers because of traditional gender roles, not because a feminist in 1839 helped pass a law that allowed women to have a voice in court concerning custody.

Ms. Norton was a great figure in feminism and societal reform, no one is questioning that.

The presumption of custody was not established by the law however, it simply allowed women to petition for custody up to the age of seven. The presumption was established by the courts of the time. None of the original language of the bill included a presumption of custody but instead INSISTED that the general welfare of the child be taken into account first and foremost.

She simply fought for the right to petition child custody, not for presumption. The system we have today is based not on feminist ideals, but archetypal gender roles that happen to allow a women to petition for the custody of their children.

Please, do research on it and read about Caroline Norton and the mechanics of divorce at the time. The Tender Years Doctrine is, once again, not a product of feminism. The Custody of Infants Act passed in 1839 is, but only allowed women to petition for custody of children and only then until the age of 7. The presumption of custody was brought about by Judges (majority men, hmmm).

Invoking the Tender Years Doctrine in this case without the historical context behind it is disingenuous at best. The Custody of Infants Act was in response to gross misconduct of a patriarchal society, not a presumption that men raise children but instead a presumption that women were allowed absolutely nothing in the case of divorce including any access to children.

It was still presumed that women were primary caregivers, they just weren't allowed custody of children. When the men DID get custody (as they would, every time, before the Custody of Infants Act) they would hire other women to care for the children therefore reinforcing the idea that men were not primary caregivers. The major difference between now and the early 1800s is that women have a right to petition for custody of children, and since men have been reinforcing the idea of their non-caregiver status for hundreds of years, it's not surprising that women gain custody more often.

That's a product of our old gender views, not feminism.

Men aren't considered caregivers in the traditional family set up. They are meant to go forth and make money by working while women are meant to stay home with children. Of course, given these archetypes, women would traditionally win custody battles because it's assumed that they are more suited to take on the role as a sole custodian of a child's welfare. If, as men, we could start to change the viewpoint of men as primary caregivers in traditional relationships then I guarantee the custodial laws would follow suit.

I'll answer your questions, this time.

1) No

2) Yes

Your hostility is not reinforcing these ideas.

Now one for you.

Do you think that a group who fights DIRECTLY for only one side can be considered an equality group?

No.

 

[Jburton]

This is the silliest thing I have read so far. They are.

Not to the same extent as one of the most researched and well promoted / educated cancers.

According to the statistics in the UK prostate cancer will be the most common cancer by 2030, it is a worsening situation with no real funding going towards better treatments or potential cures, never mind awareness campaigns.

We don't even have a reliable test to discern between benign and malignant prostate tumours.

 

[Vagabundo]

This is why I have argued in the past for those who consider feminism to be fight for all genders to rename their position, and leave traditional feminism and MRM to duke it out on the sidelines.

That suggestion tends to get laughed at though

Fe-Manism.

Done.

 

[marrec]

Fe-Manism.

Done.

Iron Manism?!

Comic Book misogynist.

 

[Dead Man]

Why?

Feminists tend say either 'We are already doing everthythig that needs to be done' or 'We will not change our name just to pander to some men'.

MRM (what is the world for a group of men that belong to the MRM?) tend to say the same but in reverse.

Fe-Manism.

Done.

 

[snap0212]

I honestly have no idea what to say, except that there is a reason no one in gen Y wants to be branded a "feminazi". I've known many girls who recoil from the word feminism because of the connotations that they are loud and complain about nothing, and are butch lesbians and man haters who are intent on finding something that oppresses them in everything.

One could say that your experience is different from mine, maybe? Seriously, I've never ever seen anything other than feminism = good cause in mainstream media.

 

[NovemberMike]

Perhaps the main focus should be to eliminate the exclusivity of promoting just one gender. Coming together collectively to advance social issues for everyone. Maybe that's just wishful thinking, but surely there's some organizations / groups participating in such a manner?

Nah. When you try to do everything, things just get muddled and you go nowhere. Feminism is good largely because it's able to sit down and say "we're trying to make things better for women" and not have to worry about a lot of other things.

 

[Vagabundo]

Feminists have a bad rap though. You get labelled a loony if you associate with them.

Are you for women's rights?

Sure, yeah, that's a good thing.

Are you a feminist?

Fuck off..!!

Nah. When you try to do everything, things just get muddled and you go nowhere. Feminism is good largely because it's able to sit down and say "we're trying to make things better for women" and not have to worry about a lot of other things.

They'd get further faster if they did though. Take paternity leave. Take that on feminists. Get me some and I'll gladly take care of the new baby.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

The argument I'm presenting is that the fight against patriarchy is to the benefit of men BECAUSE the legitimate problems that MRMs and MRAs advocate against are a property of our patriarchal society.

So, feminism is only helping men indirectly and men just need to stand in line and wait for the indirect results. No thanks.

Maybe feminists would be ok with that in reverse? No, didn't think so.

I consider myself a feminist and love to fight for the equality of men in family courts by advocating that men take on the responsibility of primary caregiver.

You take the attitude that the reason that men aren't given custody is because they don't want it. That just hasn't been my experience at all. In my experience men love their kids and usually aren't the ones who initiated the divorce in the first place. They also have no faith that they will be treated fairly in the family courts.

That has led to a preponderance of women gaining custody over men because it's assumed that women are better caregivers because of traditional gender roles,

Ok, what do you want me to say? You make it sound like the judges are forcing women to take the children against their will.

The presumption of custody was brought about by Judges (majority men, hmmm).

I don't understand this logic. It's ok because men fuck over other men?

Your hostility is not reinforcing these ideas.

My hostility. Ok, sorry about that, next time I won't answer your questions.

No.

Then we are agreed on this point. If feminism is indeed equality FOR WOMEN then it is not equality for both genders.

 

[Delusibeta]

Isn't the purpose of research to solve a problem we currently don't understand? The breast cancer problem is solved in the sense that all we need to deal with it is early detection. It would seem to me like it would be a huge waste of scientific resources to put money towards a problem that has a very high recovery rate if detected early.

Amusing how by changing one word, it's still an accurate statement.

 

[ThLunarian]

I consider myself a feminist and I am also an advocate of men's issues. Personally I do not feel like Vane is being hostile or unreasonable at all. I think he's right that people are reading a particular tone in the questions he's asking which just isn't there.

It's completely legitimate to ask for evidence of feminists fighting for men's interests if the feminists want to claim that they're doing so. In reading over the thread, I haven't seen any evidence presented, so what other conclusion could be reached than "There isn't any evidence."?

Really, nothing bad is being said about feminism here (or if it has, I missed those posts). I think everyone acknowledges that it's a positive movement overall. That doesn't automatically mean that it fights for men's interests with equal fervor to that put toward women's interests, though.

 

[APF]

Are people here really that upset that there aren't more lobbying groups for prostate exams?

 

[FoneBone]

Then we are agreed on this point. If feminism is indeed equality FOR WOMEN then it is not equality for both genders.

"Equality FOR WOMEN" means that men are more equal than women? Or something similarly inane and incoherent?

 

[bjb]

Nah. When you try to do everything, things just get muddled and you go nowhere. Feminism is good largely because it's able to sit down and say "we're trying to make things better for women" and not have to worry about a lot of other things.

And you've come to this conclusion / stance how exactly?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I consider myself a feminist and I am also an advocate of men's issues. Personally I do not feel like Vane is being hostile or unreasonable at all. I think he's right that people are reading a particular tone in the questions he's asking which just isn't there.

It's completely legitimate to ask for evidence of feminists fighting for men's interests if the feminists want to claim that they're doing so. In reading over the thread, I haven't seen any evidence presented, so what other conclusion could be reached than "There isn't any evidence."?

Really, nothing bad is being said about feminism here (or if it has, I missed those posts). I think everyone acknowledges that it's a positive movement overall. That doesn't automatically mean that it fights for men's interests with equal fervor to that put toward women's interests, though.

Thank You.

 

[Earthstrike]

I've noticed this as well. It seems to me like feminism is judged by its “best” members while MRA is judged by its very worst parts. I firmly believe that you will find plenty of bad people in both of these groups but when they appear in an MRA group they're considered the norm while they are considered to be misguided and/or not representative of the feminism movement when they appear there, if that makes sense.

This is actually horrendously wrong. In modern media there is a very critical focus on the worst members of feminism. Neogaf users, being smarter than the average populace constantly reference the normal members of feminism and will often make the distinction between RadFem and Fem. If you look at feminisn as the collection of writings of all people who self-identify as feminist there would be a very serious disparity from the most frequently expressed ideals, and what the average member of society characterizes a feminist as believing.

 

[Cipherr]

Are people here really that upset that there aren't more lobbying groups for prostate exams?

Well awareness could definitely be higher. I had to practically drag my dad to get an appointment for one. I'm not sure if colonoscopies and the like are just something that his generation had a stigma for or something, but he was nearly violently opposed to getting one done, and hes is about as far from a 'macho' guy as you can get.

But then again, I had to work to get my mother to get breast exams regularly too, and my family has a HISTORY of breast cancer

Really sad.

I consider myself a feminist and I am also an advocate of men's issues. Personally I do not feel like Vane is being hostile or unreasonable at all. I think he's right that people are reading a particular tone in the questions he's asking which just isn't there.

It's completely legitimate to ask for evidence of feminists fighting for men's interests if the feminists want to claim that they're doing so. In reading over the thread, I haven't seen any evidence presented, so what other conclusion could be reached than "There isn't any evidence."?

Really, nothing bad is being said about feminism here (or if it has, I missed those posts). I think everyone acknowledges that it's a positive movement overall. That doesn't automatically mean that it fights for men's interests with equal fervor to that put toward women's interests, though.

I agree, its not an unreasonable question at all. I would hope that there is much evidence of it by now, but to be honest, I haven't ever looked. I just assumed that there would be plenty considering how large the feminism movement is.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

"Equality FOR WOMEN" means that men are more equal than women? Or something similarly inane and incoherent?

It's been explained time and time again.

Feminism fights for equality for women. If men face inequalities, feminism won't directly fight it. If the efforts of feminism happen to help men indirectly, so be it but that is not their mission.

 

[APF]

And you've come to this conclusion / stance how exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

 

[Jburton]

Are people here really that upset that there aren't more lobbying groups for prostate exams?

Of course!

Why is that so weird or unbelievable?

It is a worsening issue that needs action.

 

[APF]

Well awareness could definitely be higher. I had to practically drag my dad to get an appointment for one. I'm not sure if colonoscopies and the like are just something that his generation had a stigma for or something, but he was nearly violently opposed to getting one done, and hes is about as far from a 'macho' guy as you can get.

But then again, I had to work to get my mother to get breast exams regularly too, and my family has a HISTORY of breast cancer

Really sad.

Yeah I think it's actually "manliness" or "meninism" or whatever that's the problem in this case, not feminist disapproval. There's an irony there really, if that's the #1 care of mens' "rights" groups outside of custody battles.

Of course!

Why is that so weird or unbelievable?

It is a worsening issue that needs action.

My point is, why is your anger directed towards feminists then? Seems like your problem is with men.

 

[marrec]

Thank You.

Vane you're being hostile and unreasonable by answering your own questions, like so...

Maybe feminists would be ok with that in reverse? No, didn't think so.

You sound like a child when you have a conversation like that.

 

[Earthstrike]

Amusing how by changing one word, it's still an accurate statement.

If it was the case that breast cancer had a widely available early detection method and that early detection led to a very high survival rate and that there was another disease that did not have these properties with an equivalent death rate I would be in favour of the funding for the other disease to be greater than that of breast cancer.

In the case of prostate cancer the method of early detection is underutilized by the male population because having a finger shoved up your ass is seen as gay. Funds should be combating this cultural notion that costs men their lives.

 

[Jburton]

Yeah I think it's actually "manliness" or "meninism" or whatever that's the problem in this case, not feminist disapproval. There's an irony there really, if that's the #1 care of mens' "rights" groups outside of custody battles.




My point is, why is your anger directed towards feminists then? Seems like your problem is with men.

Hello?

I never said anything in my posts about anger at feminists, my original post was to point out a real issue where there was inequality.

Other people brought feminists into my argument, is this not a thread about MRM?


My anger is at the inequality in funding in relation to prostate cancer, learn to read.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Vane you're being hostile and unreasonable by answering your own questions, like so...



You sound like a child when you have a conversation like that.

It was a direct comparison. If we told feminists that their movement isn't needed and that they should join the MRM because we may indirectly address their issues, how many would go for that? Nor should they.

Once again, I am not being hostile here.

 

[Jburton]

If it was the case that breast cancer had a widely available early detection method and that early detection led to a very high survival rate and that there was another disease that did not have these properties with an equivalent death rate I would be in favour of the funding for the other disease to be greater than that of breast cancer.

In the case of prostate cancer the method of early detection is underutilized by the male population because having a finger shoved up your ass is seen as gay. Funds should be combating this cultural notion that costs men their lives.

You are talking out your ass, there is not even a reliable way to ascertain if a tumour in / on the prostate is malignant or not, nor is their any movement on a cure.

Prostate cancer kills as many men as breast cancer kills women, there in lies the only equality in this issue.


Prostate cancer funding is around half at best, usually worse.

 

[Dead Man]

If it was the case that breast cancer had a widely available early detection method and that early detection led to a very high survival rate and that there was another disease that did not have these properties with an equivalent death rate I would be in favour of the funding for the other disease to be greater than that of breast cancer.

In the case of prostate cancer the method of early detection is underutilized by the male population because having a finger shoved up your ass is seen as gay. Funds should be combating this cultural notion that costs men their lives.

Try again sunshine. And then you argue that extra funds should be spent. :/

 

[kinggroin]

The problem isn't rights per se, but framing this situation as gender vs gender. Its completely asinine.

Education, social responsibility, fiscal responsibility and fueling ambition; those are all gender neutral categories that would serve EVERYONE well if worked on.

I think if we're going to see progress made as fast as possible, its important we make this distinction.

Edit: and holy wow has this thread evolved to the point of making me the "man yelling at clouds" poster. Carry on.

 

[marrec]

So, feminism is only helping men indirectly and men just need to stand in line and wait for the indirect results. No thanks.

Maybe feminists would be ok with that in reverse? No, didn't think so.

No. You're putting words in my mouth.

You take the attitude that the reason that men aren't given custody is because they don't want it. That just hasn't been my experience at all. In my experience men love their kids and usually aren't the ones who initiated the divorce in the first place. They also have no faith that they will be treated fairly in the family courts.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

Also, you say that men aren't usually one's who initiate divorce, I would love to see the statistics on this. It's very interesting.

Ok, what do you want me to say? You make it sound like the judges are forcing women to take the children against their will.

Putting words in my mouth again...

I don't understand this logic. It's ok because men fuck over other men?

And again...

So in response to my opinions about family court and custody, you've hoisted up 4 completely different strawmen to attack instead of my actual opinion.

That's astonishingly efficient.

 

[APF]

Hello?

I never said anything in my posts about anger at feminists, my original post was to point out a real issue where there was inequality.

Other people brought feminists into my argument, is this not a thread about MRM?


My anger is at the inequality in funding in relation to prostate cancer, learn to read.

So do something about it other than yelling at people on message boards. Your anger is way out of proportion to the comments you're replying to. Jesus, and people say feminists are hostile to men.

 

[Sanky Panky]

It's been explained time and time again.

Feminism fights for equality for women. If men face inequalities, feminism won't directly fight it. If the efforts of feminism happen to help men indirectly, so be it but that is not their mission.

It's like asking the oppressed to fight for the rights of the oppressor. Indeed that is not their mission, and it doesn't need to be. The fight for equality is the fight from the subjugated to be treated as equals. Why a single man would oppose this mission of feminists, no matter the face the movement, is very telling.

 

[Jburton]

So do something about it other than yelling at people on message boards. Your anger is way out of proportion to the comments you're replying to. Jesus, and people say feminists are hostile to men.

Pardon?

My replies are in response to posters stating that its not a big deal, a non issue (read Earthstrike) that it is almost cured etc.


Also it's a discussion board, I believe that's what we are doing here.


What do you know about what I do in regards to the issue? ....... Nothing.

 

[Dead Man]

So do something about it other than yelling at people on message boards. Your anger is way out of proportion to the comments you're replying to. Jesus, and people say feminists are hostile to men.

1. You're assuming he is not already doing something

2. He is responding to the claims made by other people.

Edit: Should have waited for Jburton to stick up for himself, sorry

I really need to stop arguing with Vane and start agreeing with Jburton.

The inequality in cancer funding is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Yes on both counts, but especially the first

 

[marrec]

I really need to stop arguing with Vane and start agreeing with Jburton.

The inequality in cancer funding is an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

No. You're putting words in my mouth.

Sorry, maybe you could clarify it for me?

Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

Sorry again. See above.

Also, you say that men aren't usually one's who initiate divorce, I would love to see the statistics on this. It's very interesting.

Be glad to.

Two-Thirds of the Time
It’s the wife who files for divorce in about two-thirds of divorce cases, at least among couples who have children. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the proportion has changed slightly over the years; for example, in 1975, approximately 72 percent of the divorces in the U.S. were filed by women, whereas by 1988, only about 65 percent were filed by women.

http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/faq/emotional/who-initiates-divorce-men-or-women.html

Alternatively you can just look at the search results and pick one you like:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wom...338,d.aWc&fp=d2b9d06163d5960&biw=1920&bih=978

Putting words in my mouth again...

Sorry, again. Please clarify if you wouldn't mind.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I really need to stop arguing with Vane and start agreeing with Jburton.

The inequality in cancer funding is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Are we arguing?

Well, if you want but I got those stats you wanted at the very least.

It's like asking the oppressed to fight for the rights of the oppressor. Indeed that is not their mission, and it doesn't need to be. The fight for equality is the fight from the subjugated to be treated as equals. Why a single man would oppose this mission of feminists, no matter the face the movement, is very telling.

Who is asking feminism to fight for mens rights? See, that is why we have a mens rights movement.

 

[Earthstrike]

You are talking out your ass, there is not even a reliable way to ascertain if a tumour in / on the prostate is malignant or not, nor is their any movement on a cure.

Prostate cancer kills as many men as breast cancer kills women, there in lies the only equality in this issue.


Prostate cancer funding is around half at best, usually worse.

I'll admit I was wrong regarding this whole cancer issue. I was under the impression that manual inspection by a doctor had some significant level of efficacy but upon some research it appears it does not.

 

[Kazerei]

Sorry, maybe you could clarify it for me?

You're going to have to point specifically to where marrec "take the attitude that the reason that men aren't given custody is because they don't want it" and "make it sound like the judges are forcing women to take the children against their will"

marrec's explanation of 1800's custody laws made sense, and it seems like you were deliberately misunderstanding how things work then and now.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

You're going to have to point specifically to where marrec "take the attitude that the reason that men aren't given custody is because they don't want it" and "make it sound like the judges are forcing women to take the children against their will"

marrec's explanation of 1800's custody laws made sense, and it seems like you were deliberately misunderstanding how things work then and now.

Sure.

by advocating that men take on the responsibility of primary caregiver.

This quote suggest that men are the reason the family courts are biased. That men just don't want the responsibility of parenthood.

That has led to a preponderance of women gaining custody over men because it's assumed that women are better caregivers because of traditional gender roles

Women gain custody because they want it and because of the biases in the court system. If women didn't want custody, they would simply have to tell that to the judge.

 

[Kazerei]

Sure.




This quote suggest that men are the reason the family courts are biased. That men just don't want the responsibility of parenthood.



Women gain custody because they want it and because of the biases in the court system. If women didn't want custody, they would simply have to tell that to the judge.

You're reading too way much into it. I don't feel marrec's statements suggest any of that.

Particularly that second quote. "it's assumed that women are better caregivers because of traditional gender roles" => "women gain custody because they want it"? I don't see that jump.

 

[Dead Man]

I'll admit I was wrong regarding this whole cancer issue. I was under the impression that manual inspection by a doctor had some significant level of efficacy but upon some research it appears it does not.

Can I applaud this without being patronising? I'll try. This needs to happen more often, people finding out they made an error of fact, admitting it, and moving on. Rather than what so many people do, doubling down on their error and falling into a world of crazy.

Hope that wasn't patronising.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Who is asking feminism to fight for mens rights? See, that is why we have a mens rights movement.

Then don't try to define what equality is from the point of view of a woman. The fight for equality for feminists, is the fight for women specifically to be treated as equals.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

You're reading too way much into it. I don't feel marrec's statements suggest any of that.

Particularly that second quote. "it's assumed that women are better caregivers because of traditional gender roles" => "women gain custody because they want it"? I don't see that jump.

Ok, fair enough.

 

[Kazerei]

I like it when people can be reasonable :>