Support NeoGAF

[Vane_MagicCity]

So, like, you want to require judges to gives fathers custody in X% of cases, or something?

How do other Title programs work?

 

[maharg]

I want people to really stop and think about what it means when feminists CLAIM to care about fathers getting custody more often. It means "not really a priority".

You should definitely bring this up to the next meeting of the Grand Council of Feminist Poobahs' Priorities Committee.

 

[Deified Data]

This thread's still going?

So has anyone drafted a definitive list of Gaffers who are either feminists or misogynists? Because barring a few people genuinely confused about semantics there's really nothing in-between.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

This thread's still going?

So has anyone drafted a definitive list of Gaffers who are either feminists or misogynists? Because barring a few people genuinely confused about semantics there's really nothing in-between.

You honestly believe that people who don't toe the line with the feminist movement are misogynists?

 

[params7]

This thread's still going?

So has anyone drafted a definitive list of Gaffers who are either feminists or misogynists? Because barring a few people genuinely confused about semantics there's really nothing in-between.

lol @ this.

 

[poppabk]

Patriarchy is a boogy man, lol. This thread. It's like history doesn't exist or reality. I guess women haven't been trying to secure their rights against a system set up to restrict or ignore them as people.

Sorry for being flippant I wasn't trying to suggest that a male dominated society doesn't exist nor that it hasn't had a negative impact on women nor that it continues to do so. But when you posit patriarchy as responsible for boys succeeding in school and for boys failing in school, it starts to beg the question - what issue can you not posit patriarchy as the cause. If we truly moved to a female dominated society, it seems that patriarchy would be posited as the reason for matriachy.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

This thread's still going?

So has anyone drafted a definitive list of Gaffers who are either feminists or misogynists? Because barring a few people genuinely confused about semantics there's really nothing in-between.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

 

[Rayis]

I think anyone would agree with you that feminism is more inclusive than MRAs are right now. I do as well.

However I think the issue stems from people claiming feminism fights for men's rights to the degree that men do not need any other movement other than feminism. This, I'm not so sure I agree with, as has been questiond in this topic with questions like "why have no feminist groups lobbied against the unfair child custody system?"

It's a good discussion to have, I think. People have claimed that feminism is an equal blanket for both genders but in reality it doesn't seem to be the case. You seem to agree with me on this topic, from the beginning part of your post.

Also: Side note: I've just read through the past 6~ pages that i missed while sleeping, and though there's been some headbutting it's been a very encouraging discussion with little personal insults (outside of a few drive-by posts like #722 above) It's been nice to see a topic involving feminism not blow up into a yelling contest on here.

Agreed, men rights are just important as women rights, they both exist in tandem in the fight for equality.


also, in the discussion about child custody, the sensible thing to do is to give custody to the more capable and responsible parent regardless of gender instead of giving the custody to mothers for the sake of being mothers or fathers for the sake of being fathers.

 

[Deified Data]

You honestly believe that people who don't toe the line with the feminist movement are misogynists?

Yes. I really do.

There's no line to tow. If you're not a feminist or a well-meaning individual confused about the true meaning and role of feminism, you're a misogynist. What exacting standards do you think feminists are being held to?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

No absolutes here. I'm totally giving leeway to the misinformed.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Yes. I really do.

There's no line to tow. If you're not a feminist or a well-meaning individual confused about the true meaning and role of feminism, you're a misogynist. What exacting standards do you think feminists are being held to?

That's pretty extreme. Even those extreme MRA's don't say you have to toe the line to not be a hater.

 

[rocketknight]

Agreed, men rights are just important as women rights, they both exist in tandem in the fight for equality.


also, in the discussion about child custody, the sensible thing to do is to give custody to the more capable and responsible parent regardless of gender instead of giving the custody to mothers for the sake of being mothers or fathers for the sake of being fathers.

The law is already written that way, so clearly the solution is to address the culture that causes the unfairness. Welcome to feminism

 

[AnathemicOne]

Yes. I really do.

There's no line to tow. If you're not a feminist or a well-meaning individual confused about the true meaning and role of feminism, you're a misogynist. What exacting standards do you think feminists are being held to?

Radical viewpoint is radical

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Yes. I really do.

There's no line to tow. If you're not a feminist or a well-meaning individual confused about the true meaning and role of feminism, you're a misogynist. What exacting standards do you think feminists are being held to?

Probably ones a little more exacting than "I don't actively hate women as a gender"

 

[Deified Data]

That's pretty extreme. Even those extreme MRA's don't say you have to toe the line to not be a hater.

I've found it to be a fairly comfortable position to maintain - no point in muddying the waters.

There's really no excuse (save ignorance) for not being a feminist in a civilized society.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I've found it to be a fairly comfortable position to maintain - no point in muddying the waters.

There's really no excuse (save ignorance) for not being a feminist in a civilized society.

Ok, atleast your honest. Carry on.

 

[APF]

You're pretending that no such thing as a conservative feminist exists and are calling people who call you out on such assumptions ignorant.

I did not say that, and again you're showing your ignorant leaping--I literally just told you what you got wrong and you completely ignored it.

Perhaps you just know that it prevents you from being able to call people concern trolls if they try to distance themselves from certain feminists you've white knighted for whatever reason.

Oh jesus christ dude, you're a work of art.

 

[darkpower]

Oh plenty.

You advocate male prison rape.

Why the fuck should anyone take your criticisms of feminism seriously?

You don't understand what the advocation and propagation of rape culture has anything to do with equal rights between the sexes? Not even a little clue?

Again, go read the thread you got that from, then realize how not worked up I am over me saying that or that you even pointed that out.

Then, go look at what I said earlier in this thread about the Catholic Church and how it took FOREVER for them to get to doing anything about that case.

I'm a bit bewildered that you would try to take something that out of context that I said to actually prove whatever point you're making (or engage in some utter trolling), but I'm not in any way angry.

Two vastly different circumstances here. Guy abused and killed a one year old girl because he could and took sick pleasure from it. Guy gets what's coming to him. Doesn't necessarily has to be prison rape. It can be whatever you make of it, but bottom line is, he doesn't deserve any kind of sympathy because of what he did.

Catholic church is an entirely different story. What did those boys do to deserve that kind of treatment? Nothing other than to put their trust in people that they should have been able to, and the fiends took advantage of that trust to get their jollies.

Thing is, you're the one saying I meant prison rape as the only sort of punishment that could actually happen. Prison rape never left my keyboard, but if you want to interpret that as rape, then go right ahead. I'm not going to apologize for that, and I don't think it's fair to try to take something that out of context. Just don't go about saying that I made an absolute there and try to invoke something without reading into where you got that from.

 

[Dude Abides]

Just as an idea, you know those Title programs to give minorities a leg up in situations like this? Doesn't matter though, it's on the back burner and that's where it will stay. That's the point.

I want people to really stop and think about what it means when feminists CLAIM to care about fathers getting custody more often. It means "not really a priority".

"Title programs"? What are you talking about?

 

[Deified Data]

Probably ones a little more exacting than "I don't actively hate women as a gender"

I tend not to see much difference between opposing a group's civil rights and hating them - it's just not a separation that I've found useful.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I tend not to see much difference between opposing a group's civil rights and hating them - it's just not a separation that I've found useful.

Oh boy, what are these civil rights feminists of today strive for? What issue has yet to be drafted into some feel good legislation?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

"Title programs"? What are you talking about?

http://www.state.nj.us/education/titles/

Programs designed to help disadvantaged people get a leg up. For example, Title IX helps women get into college.

 

[AnathemicOne]

I tend not to see much difference between opposing a group's civil rights and hating them - it's just not a separation that I've found useful.

Ummm, sorry to say but whether you find it useful or not it is reality. The world is not black and white, oppose != hate.

 

[rocketknight]

Again, go read the thread you got that from, then realize how not worked up I am over me saying that or that you even pointed that out.

Then, go look at what I said earlier in this thread about the Catholic Church and how it took FOREVER for them to get to doing anything about that case.

I'm a bit bewildered that you would try to take something that out of context that I said to actually prove whatever point you're making (or engage in some utter trolling), but I'm not in any way angry.

Two vastly different circumstances here. Guy abused and killed a one year old girl because he could and took sick pleasure from it. Guy gets what's coming to him. Doesn't necessarily has to be prison rape. It can be whatever you make of it, but bottom line is, he doesn't deserve any kind of sympathy because of what he did.

Catholic church is an entirely different story. What did those boys do to deserve that kind of treatment? Nothing other than to put their trust in people that they should have been able to, and the fiends took advantage of that trust to get their jollies.

Thing is, you're the one saying I meant prison rape as the only sort of punishment that could actually happen. Prison rape never left my keyboard, but if you want to interpret that as rape, then go right ahead. I'm not going to apologize for that, and I don't think it's fair to try to take something that out of context. Just don't go about saying that I made an absolute there and try to invoke something without reading into where you got that from.

He's going to pretend he wasn't talking about prison rape.

Easiest call ever.

 

[MDSVeritas]

I tend not to see much difference between opposing a group's civil rights and hating them - it's just not a separation that I've found useful.

The issue I think many have would be that they don't oppose (at least intentionally) women's equal rights. Several people who have posted here seem like they simply want the other demographic accounted for, and have found the fringe groups and more extreme members of the feminist movement have put less care towards full equality. It's a concern I would very much raise with the MRM as well. You, as several others have, suggest that the point you suggest as feminism is not that brought forth by possible extreme thinkers, but instead a "True" feminism, but in the same way that a MRA may say certain voices don't represent "True" Men's rights, it's difficult to tell what is the "true" form of things when varying people with varying opinions often put themselves under a certain banner.

 

[IHaveCandy]

"Are all feminists really interested in favoring the mother in all custody disputes, in all circumstances" is an absurd question to you? Perhaps that's part of your problem.

It's an absurd question because a single feminist being against a mother getting custody in a single circumstance makes the answer no. It's a pointless question to ask.

 

[Devolution]

Again, go read the thread you got that from, then realize how not worked up I am over me saying that or that you even pointed that out.

Then, go look at what I said earlier in this thread about the Catholic Church and how it took FOREVER for them to get to doing anything about that case.

I'm a bit bewildered that you would try to take something that out of context that I said to actually prove whatever point you're making (or engage in some utter trolling), but I'm not in any way angry.

Two vastly different circumstances here. Guy abused and killed a one year old girl because he could and took sick pleasure from it. Guy gets what's coming to him. Doesn't necessarily has to be prison rape. It can be whatever you make of it, but bottom line is, he doesn't deserve any kind of sympathy because of what he did.

Catholic church is an entirely different story. What did those boys do to deserve that kind of treatment? Nothing other than to put their trust in people that they should have been able to, and the fiends took advantage of that trust to get their jollies.

Thing is, you're the one saying I meant prison rape as the only sort of punishment that could actually happen. Prison rape never left my keyboard, but if you want to interpret that as rape, then go right ahead. I'm not going to apologize for that, and I don't think it's fair to try to take something that out of context. Just don't go about saying that I made an absolute there and try to invoke something without reading into where you got that from.

Keep digging. I've already written you off as a hypocrite.

 

[APF]

It's an absurd question because a single feminist being against a mother getting custody in a single circumstance makes the answer no.

That was part of the point of asking it.

 

[darkpower]

I did not say that,

You said that I was just repeating things I heard...when I mentioned that there were such things as conservative feminism. And then when I provided a link to that long list...you dismiss it and just repeat what you said. What else are we supposed to think you meant?

and again you're showing your ignorant leaping--I literally just told you what you got wrong and you completely ignored it.

You actually didn't? You're just saying how much I don't know.

So what IS your point? Assuming I missed it somewhere (and by you're judgment, I obviously did....assuming you said it to begin with), what is you're actual objection?

 

[Dude Abides]

http://www.state.nj.us/education/titles/

Programs designed to help disadvantaged people get a leg up. For example, Title IX helps women get into college.

Oh. You were using odd nomenclature. In law "Title" just means a particular section of a particular body of law. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is presumably what you are referring to. In fact it does not "help women get into college" by giving them "a leg up." It prohibits educational institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating against women.

 

[IHaveCandy]

You keep bringing this up, but in this case the equivalent of the SPCA (as a more rational actor in animal rights) either doesn't exist (please find it and share if it does) or you have to basically consider it to be intersectional feminism.

Even if it doesn't exist, that doesn't mean a bad organization should drown the conversation about real issues. Disregard them and work on the real problem of make issues.

 

[Deified Data]

The issue I think many have would be that they don't oppose (at least intentionally) women's equal rights. Several people who have posted here seem like they simply want the other demographic accounted for, and have found the fringe groups and more extreme members of the feminist movement have put less care towards full equality. It's a concern I would very much raise with the MRM as well. You, as several others have, suggest that the point you suggest as feminism is not that brought forth by possible extreme thinkers, but instead a "True" feminism, but in the same way that a MRA may say certain voices don't represent "True" Men's rights, it's difficult to tell what is the "true" form of things when varying people with varying opinions often put themselves under a certain banner.

It's worth stating that I put more stock in intentions than semantics. In my view, a "true" feminist is a MRA and a "true" MRA is feminist. One does not have to attend rallies and rage against the machine to have genuine sympathy for a universally worthy cause. It's the easiest thing in the world to have empathy for your fellow man.

Semantics taint this entire discussion.

 

[APF]

You actually didn't? You're just saying how much I don't know.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=54157647#post54157647

 

[darkpower]

Keep digging. I've already written you off as a hypocrite.

Oooo...kay.

So, let me just give you a slap on the wrist when you decide to kill an infant because you can. Because the context of things really doesn't matter at all, I guess.

Not like I even typed the term "prison rape" before you went there. Quit putting words into my mouth.

 

[IHaveCandy]

That was part of the point of asking it.

But feminists can have no intention of increasing male custody while recognizing that not every circumstance should award custody to the mother. It would have been better to ask a question in non-absolute terms since the challenged question was not in absolute terms.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Oh. You were using odd nomenclature. In law "Title" just means a particular section of a particular body of law. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is presumably what you are referring to. In fact it does not "help women get into college" by giving them "a leg up." It prohibits educational institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating against women.

Something similar that prevents judges from discriminating against fathers may be possible.

 

[APF]

But feminists can have no intention of increasing male custody

Or not. Or maybe that's not the right way to frame the question in the first place.

 

[rocketknight]

Oooo...kay.

So, let me just give you a slap on the wrist when you decide to kill an infant because you can. Because the context of things really doesn't matter at all, I guess.

The fact that there is a context where some people consider rape to be okay is The Problem. Feminism addresses it.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Keep digging. I've already written you off as a hypocrite.

That doesn't sound very fair. I don't really like "Sorry, I already banged my gavel. Court is adjourned." posts like that.

 

[radios shipping overview]

It's an absurd question because a single feminist being against a mother getting custody in a single circumstance makes the answer no. It's a pointless question to ask.

So why ask what feminists, as a whole, think about which parent should be favored in custody disputes?

I'd no sooner ask what the MRM, as a whole, thinks about whether rape victims are "asking for it." I'd get a lot of differing and conflicting answers, not a single answer for the whole movement.

The point is that neither party is going to get anywhere by painting the other with a broad brush. Focus on the issues.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

So why ask what feminists, as a whole, think about which parent should be favored in custody disputes?

Well maybe because feminists have been doing just that. Telling us that feminists do care about fathers getting custody more. So my question was basically, "Ok, really?".

 

[IHaveCandy]

Or not. Or maybe that's not the right way to frame the question in the first place.

He is skeptical that feminists in general do not have a motive to make custody battles more fair for men. He may be right or wrong about that movement. I'm not familiar with how different types of feminists feel about that. But what doesn't really answer his question is to ask him if there is a single feminist out there who would permit a single circumstance where a man is awarded custody. Ofcourse here is. That has nothing to do with his question though. This should be very obvious.

 

[Devolution]

That doesn't sound very fair. I don't really like "Sorry, I already banged my gavel. Court is adjourned." posts like that.

He wants to deny what he clearly posted all the while criticizing feminism for their lack of (or diminishing) of male issues. He thinks the treatment of male prisoners is just fine and even champions harsh treatment if it serves his vengeful purposes. I'm not going to waste my time with someone like that.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Q- "Is the NAACP really concerned about the education of non-minorities?"

A- "Is there a single NAACP member that would accept a single white student into a college over a minority in any acceptable circumstance?"

 

[Dude Abides]

Something similar that prevents judges from discriminating against fathers may be possible.

There is. The Fourteenth Amendment. The problem is that custody disputes are complex and it's difficult to tell if a judge's determination that primary maternal custody is based purely on objective measures or whether it is influenced, subtly or otherwise, by stereotypes that women are better parents than men. Just as it is difficult to tell whether an employer's decision to promote or hire a man over a woman is influenced by those same stereotypes - that men should be in the workforce and women should be taking care of children.

 

[IHaveCandy]

There is. The Fourteenth Amendment. The problem is that custody disputes are complex and it's difficult to tell if a judge's determination that primary maternal custody is based purely on objective measures or whether it is influenced, subtly or otherwise, by stereotypes that women are better parents than men. Just as it is difficult to tell whether an employer's decision to promote or hire a man over a woman is influenced by those same stereotypes - that men should be in the workforce and women should be taking care of children.

Well I think that's why people point to how men are often convicted more often and at harsher punishments for the same crimes as women. I think it is clear that subjectivity goes into that to some degree.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I don't understand the arguments that dismiss feminism because they aren't actively promoting and championing cherry-picked, arbitrary MRA causes.

If a movement's value and inclusiveness is defined by how much they do other causes' work, what good is the MRM?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

There is. The Fourteenth Amendment. The problem is that custody disputes are complex and it's difficult to tell if a judge's determination that primary maternal custody is based purely on objective measures or whether it is influenced, subtly or otherwise, by stereotypes that women are better parents than men. Just as it is difficult to tell whether an employer's decision to promote or hire a man over a woman is influenced by those same stereotypes - that men should be in the workforce and women should be taking care of children.

Every situation where this type of program exists faces those problems, aren't quotas used to solve that?

I am not saying it's the perfect solution but programs like Affirmative Action work on the principle that you have to force things until the public becomes accustomed to them.

 

[maharg]

Even if it doesn't exist, that doesn't mean a bad organization should drown the conversation about real issues. Disregard them and work on the real problem of make issues.

Well, this particular bad organization has a habit of drowning out these issues all on its own. The one in my city is fond of plastering their advertisements over anything even remotely woman-focused. Last year at a theatre festival they covered the posters of a burlesque show with their ads and then got angry when they were removed.

At any rate, that's exactly what intersectional feminism (which is basically the current wave of it) is all about doing.

 

[darkpower]

The fact that there is a context where some people consider rape to be okay is The Problem. Feminism addresses it.

Okay, at least this post is going somewhere as to WHY you think this is a problem.

First off, let's get this out of the way that I didn't actually mention prison rape. It doesn't mean I have to condone it or whatever, or that it could be interpreted that way, but the matter is that I didn't necessarily reference it in that post.

But really, do I have to make this case, since it should be so obvious? I have a hard time understanding why we don't bring in what I was talking about when I said that. It's like it's completely ignored that I was talking about someone who I think didn't deserve the given rights. What else would you like for me to say I'd want done to a guy who does the things he did? You give up your rights the second you do that kind of shit. I couldn't imagine me, in my sickest dreams, doing that sort of thing to my nephew when he was that age. You're dealing with another sensitive topic at this point (capital punishment) that has little to do with feminism.

And plus, imagine if you did what that guy did, and you get put in jail with someone that knows you decided to pick on someone who couldn't fight back against you. They're not going to take kindly to that and they are not going to be kind to you by any stretch of the imagination. Does that necessarily mean they'll rape the piss out of you? Nope, but that doesn't mean they're going to let you off the hook, nor SHOULD they. They're going to show you what it's like when the person CAN fight back.

But that doesn't mean that I'm condoning anything at all. You're saying that regardless of what you do and where you end up, you have unalienable rights. I'm saying that when you commit a crime, and especially a crime as deplorable as what was described in that thread, you show that you're not really wanting to be a member of the society, and will be treated as such. And you're going to see people bring in the "eye for an eye" mentality and condone things for idiots like that guy who wouldn't condone it for much else, if any else!

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I don't understand the arguments that dismiss feminism because they aren't actively promoting and championing cherry-picked, arbitrary MRA causes.

If a movement's value and inclusiveness is defined by how much they do other causes' work, what good is the MRM?

Let me explain.

No one is dismissing feminism as a whole. It's just the feminist make claims that it is about full gender equality and that just isn't the case.

We all accept that feminism is about equality for women.