Feminism is Good.

[Lorenzaccio]

Floressas

Lorenzaccio

I love your avatar omg

Thanks.

[Lorenzaccio]

Soselo

Lorenzaccio

Soselo

Lorenzaccio

Soselo

Focus on the positive!
Who wouldn't be thankful that they're not being harmed?

You're missing the point.

These aren't things that you are supposed to be thankful for; they are your birth rights. You can happy that you have birth rights, but you don't have to be thankful for them.

You can't thank someone for not hurting you because it makes it look like they are going out of their way to not hurt you. It makes it look like it would have been easier for them to hurt you then to leave you alone. It's nonsensical.

You can be happy for these things, but you can't be thankful or grateful because that implies that the people went out of their way to not rape you. Like I said, it's nonsensical.

Rights aren't real because the rights anybody has, they're made up. Someone more powerful than you can choose to respect your 'rights' or not. In reality you either have no rights or you have unlimited rights. Realistically, freedom has to end somewhere to protect the common good because freedom is highly susceptible to being abused. All people aren't yet capable of handling freedom without violating the freedoms of others. (The Stanford Prison Experiment) The bonus of being free is that nobody can stop your freedom to violate other's freedoms.

Should all people be free to restrict each others freedoms for freedom's sake?

That's all very subjective and I fail to see what any of it has to do with what I said.

I spoke of birthrights and I agree that certain people can perceive them in different ways but it doesn't change the fact that every living being has the defensive birth right to protect their body from violence such as rapes or poisons.

Where do these rights come from? Every living being does not have a birthright to protect themselves from violence just because other people say so. What an irrational sense of entitlement.

By definition these birth rights come from birth. The legitimacy of their rights does not depend on the discourse of humans. Ergo, the fact that I say that these living beings have the right to live, doesn't influence on the origin of their rights.

According to our culture, only humans have the capacity to distinguish natural laws from artificial laws. Further, some would say that only humans have the capacity to create laws and the notion of rights.

This is our culture making objective remarks out of their subjective and often twisted views of the natural world. Despite the subjective and false truths of civilization, there are laws in the natural world that every living being accepts and lives by. Every living being apart civilized humans of course; this has been made apparent by the different consequences of our actions and the different non-consequences of the omission of other living beings.

[lambs and lions]

tales of melody

I apologize for not being up on the legal side of things, but I was under the impression a man is allowed to request DNA evidence of parentage if he's being asked to pay child support? And incorrectly naming the wrong father constitutes paternity fraud? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you've got the right idea, and it's cool to see that you're aware and concerned with sexism against men, but you seem sort of... listlessly dismissive of sexism against women. It's still an issue, no? Why be an MRA and not concerned with women's rights, too? Don't worry about the "feminists that actually have power" (though that's a pretty sad statement in itself...), and don't feel obliged to call yourself a feminist if the word is what's bothering you, but I'd like to hope you have more of an interest in fixing up the disparities for both genders.

Paternity tests vary from country to country. Some countries like France do not allow them because they are worried it will upset the peace rolleyes . In the united states you can get a paternity test done but the results can not be used in court. Only court ordered tests can be used and even those may be disregarded. You only have a small time window to ask for the test to be done, so if you are paying child support on an infant and after a few years you notice the child looks nothing like you it may be too late to file for a paternity test. Moreover, there is an acknowledgment of parentage form which is standard paper work for a divorce. If you have signed it, acknowledging you are the parent, even if the DNA test says you are not you are still obligated to pay child support. There are very few legal repercussions for a mother who falsely names a person the father of her child, the worst you can do is sue for the child support you have payed by most of the time you are not awarded it.

Both MRAs and feminists claim to be concerned about both genders' rights but focus mostly on their gender. The difference between the movements is that feminism is an ideology while MRA is a movement. Feminism is based on the idea that the patriarchy, which make men out to be the source of all female oppression. MRA on the other hand realizes that society as a whole is to blame for outdated standards that lead to injustice and problems for men. And you should be concerned about the feminists in power because they are the ones who are getting unjust laws to be written.

[They Came to Kill GSK]

Lambs and Lions

MRA on the other hand realizes that society as a whole is to blame for outdated standards that lead to injustice and problems for men. And you should be concerned about the feminists in power because they are the ones who are getting unjust laws to be written.

Strange assessment considering the constant call I hear from such groups to actually go back to previous societal norms and gender roles for men and women. It's comes off as a rather conservative movement.

[lambs and lions]

swordmaiden_monica

Lambs and Lions

MRA on the other hand realizes that society as a whole is to blame for outdated standards that lead to injustice and problems for men. And you should be concerned about the feminists in power because they are the ones who are getting unjust laws to be written.

Strange assessment considering the constant call I hear from such groups to actually go back to previous societal norms and gender roles for men and women. It's comes off as a rather conservative movement.

I think it depends on where you are hearing about your men's rights. For the most part the MRA is a small movement, still starting out, and as such not all of its goals are the same. Some MRA members only become MRA because of false rape allegations or problems with family court, and as such focus almost solely on that. Other MRA groups are more concerned with men as a whole, on why they are committing suicide, why they aren't going to college, why they end up homeless etc. I think when you hear MRA talk about traditional gender roles it is not that they want to go back to the old days, but rather they want masculinity to be accepted and not seen as something toxic.

But different MRA have different goals and ideas, much like different feminist groups have different ideas. We have radfem groups who still want to lower the male population to 10%. But you wouldn't say every feminist is a radfem.

[Floressas]

tales of melody

Floressas

Well, I don't think that anyone should be forced into parenthood, not men and not women. Like I said, men can be forced into it, a woman may as well lie about who the father is and thus force the man in question.
What makes it oppression in this case, imo, is that it is actually OK with the law to do this, laws still favour women in this cases.
There shouldn't be so much prohibition to abortion either imo.

The difference between gender roles is that society is always rooting for women to break them, whereas men are just being left behind by law and by society itself.
However, now that you mention depression, in terms of mental health, we women are much worse. I remember that when I had a problem with insomnia, more than a therapist just dismissed it as ~woman hormones~ or as being normal because I was a woman. Men receive this sort of attention much more easily, if they seek it, because it's also ~wrong~ for them to seek it to begin with.
Gender roles in general are stupid.

Yeah, I should've linked it; here's a link to what that lady had to say about it. It's a pretty interesting read


Well, again, think of the feminists that actually have the power. Those are the same ladies that introduced the Duluth model, technically erasing male victims by female abusers. The same ones who are trying to free a lesbian rapist in the US right now. The same ladies that killed their fellow feminist's dog for trying to help men.
MRAs oppose feminism because many feminists oppose men. Many of them celebrate misandry, many of them believe in supremacy rather than equality, some of them even say it openly. Feminism was something good, it's just been corrupted imo. It's no longer about equality.

I apologize for not being up on the legal side of things, but I was under the impression a man is allowed to request DNA evidence of parentage if he's being asked to pay child support? And incorrectly naming the wrong father constitutes paternity fraud? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure if I'd agree with you regarding differences in gender roles, because they're both pretty bad. Sometimes men are lauded as sensitive or progressive for choosing to be the stay-at-home parent, sometimes they get derided. Women in politics are sometimes celebrated, but they're also liable to be ridiculed for being 'butch' or too ambitious. Perhaps I'm biased, but it seems there's more social policing of women's behaviour than that of men. If a woman behaves in a way that's overtly flirtatious or sexual, she might get called: sexy, powerful, slutty, 'asking for it'. If she's too reserved, it's: virginal, shy, frigid, prudish. You either get told off for being a skank or you get told off for not playing the game, and worse is that a lot of the time it's women saying this kind of crap, but that doesn't make it an acceptable attitude.

I think you've got the right idea, and it's cool to see that you're aware and concerned with sexism against men, but you seem sort of... listlessly dismissive of sexism against women. It's still an issue, no? Why be an MRA and not concerned with women's rights, too? Don't worry about the "feminists that actually have power" (though that's a pretty sad statement in itself...), and don't feel obliged to call yourself a feminist if the word is what's bothering you, but I'd like to hope you have more of an interest in fixing up the disparities for both genders.

Re the article, I'm... still not convinced. It was an okay read, and I'm pleased she feels that way about being a woman, but it was hardly scientific. One woman's testimony =/= evidence, need to maintain healthy skepticism, etc etc.

As far as I know, a woman is not made by law to provide for DNA proof, and thus paternity fraud cannot be proved either. (At least here in Mexico it's that way, but I've heard it's pretty similar in the US & Europe) And in case the child is his and he wants nothing to do with it, he HAS to pay for the kid. Ultimately, it's the woman's choice 100%. You could just tell a guy to support the kid with money because law requires it & get the man to never see the child or have any relationship with it aside from paying everything.

Saying one has it worse does not mean dismissing the other. I know that women have as many problems with related to sexism and gender roles, but IMO men have it much worse. We, women, are definitely not victims. We are in a society that favours us in law & socially, it's an entirely gynocentric society, starting up by how are problems are taken seriously. Precisely that's what society does, dismiss men's problems because women have problems too.
Sure, you are judged for x or y, but again, the only result in this cases are hurt feelings. You being called fat, slut, butch, too femme, virginal, b***h, etc. is still pretty much harmless, it's up to oneself to ignore those or not. People will judge you for pretty much anything, regardless of gender.
Being ignored by the law when you are abused or raped is another thing, that does happen to both genders, but on this terms, men are much more ignored. Law favouring women in terms of custody when divorces show up is also because of gender roles. etc. And again, me saying that men have it worse is not dismissing women's problems, I know we have lots of them but I don't think they are as important precisely because they are based more on individuals rather than law. (Laws promoted by feminists btw)

I am not an MRA, lol. I support equality, that's why I can't just ~forget~ about those feminists in power that are trying to take up ~female supremacy~. You can't just forget about a movement which individuals in power are deliberately ******** up something for one gender.

[Onolia]

Floressas

tales of melody

Floressas

Well, I don't think that anyone should be forced into parenthood, not men and not women. Like I said, men can be forced into it, a woman may as well lie about who the father is and thus force the man in question.
What makes it oppression in this case, imo, is that it is actually OK with the law to do this, laws still favour women in this cases.
There shouldn't be so much prohibition to abortion either imo.

The difference between gender roles is that society is always rooting for women to break them, whereas men are just being left behind by law and by society itself.
However, now that you mention depression, in terms of mental health, we women are much worse. I remember that when I had a problem with insomnia, more than a therapist just dismissed it as ~woman hormones~ or as being normal because I was a woman. Men receive this sort of attention much more easily, if they seek it, because it's also ~wrong~ for them to seek it to begin with.
Gender roles in general are stupid.

Yeah, I should've linked it; here's a link to what that lady had to say about it. It's a pretty interesting read


Well, again, think of the feminists that actually have the power. Those are the same ladies that introduced the Duluth model, technically erasing male victims by female abusers. The same ones who are trying to free a lesbian rapist in the US right now. The same ladies that killed their fellow feminist's dog for trying to help men.
MRAs oppose feminism because many feminists oppose men. Many of them celebrate misandry, many of them believe in supremacy rather than equality, some of them even say it openly. Feminism was something good, it's just been corrupted imo. It's no longer about equality.

I apologize for not being up on the legal side of things, but I was under the impression a man is allowed to request DNA evidence of parentage if he's being asked to pay child support? And incorrectly naming the wrong father constitutes paternity fraud? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure if I'd agree with you regarding differences in gender roles, because they're both pretty bad. Sometimes men are lauded as sensitive or progressive for choosing to be the stay-at-home parent, sometimes they get derided. Women in politics are sometimes celebrated, but they're also liable to be ridiculed for being 'butch' or too ambitious. Perhaps I'm biased, but it seems there's more social policing of women's behaviour than that of men. If a woman behaves in a way that's overtly flirtatious or sexual, she might get called: sexy, powerful, slutty, 'asking for it'. If she's too reserved, it's: virginal, shy, frigid, prudish. You either get told off for being a skank or you get told off for not playing the game, and worse is that a lot of the time it's women saying this kind of crap, but that doesn't make it an acceptable attitude.

I think you've got the right idea, and it's cool to see that you're aware and concerned with sexism against men, but you seem sort of... listlessly dismissive of sexism against women. It's still an issue, no? Why be an MRA and not concerned with women's rights, too? Don't worry about the "feminists that actually have power" (though that's a pretty sad statement in itself...), and don't feel obliged to call yourself a feminist if the word is what's bothering you, but I'd like to hope you have more of an interest in fixing up the disparities for both genders.

Re the article, I'm... still not convinced. It was an okay read, and I'm pleased she feels that way about being a woman, but it was hardly scientific. One woman's testimony =/= evidence, need to maintain healthy skepticism, etc etc.

As far as I know, a woman is not made by law to provide for DNA proof, and thus paternity fraud cannot be proved either. (At least here in Mexico it's that way, but I've heard it's pretty similar in the US & Europe) And in case the child is his and he wants nothing to do with it, he HAS to pay for the kid. Ultimately, it's the woman's choice 100%. You could just tell a guy to support the kid with money because law requires it & get the man to never see the child or have any relationship with it aside from paying everything.

Saying one has it worse does not mean dismissing the other. I know that women have as many problems with related to sexism and gender roles, but IMO men have it much worse. We, women, are definitely not victims. We are in a society that favours us in law & socially, it's an entirely gynocentric society, starting up by how are problems are taken seriously. Precisely that's what society does, dismiss men's problems because women have problems too.
Sure, you are judged for x or y, but again, the only result in this cases are hurt feelings. You being called fat, slut, butch, too femme, virginal, b***h, etc. is still pretty much harmless, it's up to oneself to ignore those or not. People will judge you for pretty much anything, regardless of gender.
Being ignored by the law when you are abused or raped is another thing, that does happen to both genders, but on this terms, men are much more ignored. Law favouring women in terms of custody when divorces show up is also because of gender roles. etc. And again, me saying that men have it worse is not dismissing women's problems, I know we have lots of them but I don't think they are as important precisely because they are based more on individuals rather than law. (Laws promoted by feminists btw)

I am not an MRA, lol. I support equality, that's why I can't just ~forget~ about those feminists in power that are trying to take up ~female supremacy~. You can't just forget about a movement which individuals in power are deliberately ******** up something for one gender.

You do realise that is was a feminist who first championed the fiscal abortion? And there are feminists who support fiscal abortions for men? I don't understand why gender double standards are automatically assumed to be the fault of feminism i.e. men have to open doors for women so its automatically the fault of feminism, or society perceives women are natural caregivers and that's feminism fault. Seriously? These gender roles and associated behaviours have been around for centuries, right back to the primordial pagan fertility Goddesses of early civilization. This s**t isn't anything new, and you are delusional if you think that feminism is to blame, particular modern feminism which is all about challenging traditional gender roles to liberate both sexes.

[Floressas]

Onolia

Do you think that opening doors for women is really an issue? REALLY? That speaks a lot about feminism, thinking that stupid s**t like that is a real problem.
Duluth Model which introduces the idea that only men can be perpetrators of abuse was introduced by feminists, and promotes the idea that women= weak and in need of help, men= strong and savage.
The idea that women are better caregivers and thus win most custody cases was introduced by feminists. This is relatively modern idea that started up in 1839, which is technically Tender Year Doctrine's ancestor. Promotes gender roles again, that men cannot be good at parenting, probably related with how men are ~cold~ & ~strong~ whereas women are ~dedicated~ & ~good~ (specially mothers.) Still gender roles dictate that the man must pay for his children & the woman of course.
During WWI & WWII feminists played a huge role in the Order of the White Feather which technically consisted on shaming men to get them to go to war. Promotes the idea of disposable men, men are better fighting, men are stronger, women are more valuable. ~Gender roles~
Feminists insist on defending women rapists (of both men & women) because again, Duluth Model says that women ~cannot rape~.
Various feminists (Such as the feminist idol, Simone de Beauvoir) intend to erase the idea that underage women are not prepared for sex, and thus promote ***** against girls because ~girls mature faster~ and ~sexual liberation~. Not to mention that she even thought that outlawing women staying home as mothers, which is something lots of feminists today promote as well.
And in regards of sexual liberation, makes me think of Femen, that brands models as prostitutes yet hates on Muslim women for being ~submissive~. And I won't even get into how most feminists think of BDSM, again shaming women either for being too bold in sexual terms or too submissive.
The idea that feminist have with ~teach men not to rape~ again promotes what Duluth Model does; only men can rape. All men are rapists that must be taught, like dogs, not to do it. Promotes the idea that men are sex-crazed savages that cannot control their urges, oooo , another stereotype related to gender roles!!
And again, feminists are so obsessed with the idea that men cannot be victims & only perpetrators that I'll bring out the feminists that killed a fellow feminist's dog for wanting to open up a shelter for men.

Don't come calling me delusional when you clearly have no idea of what you are saying and start talking about trivialities such as opening doors & shows of ~chivalry~. (Which I did not even mention to begin with.)
Now tell me, how is (specially modern) feminism not to blame for the things that THEY introduced enforcing ridiculous gender roles?

[Onolia]

Floressas

Onolia

Do you think that opening doors for women is really an issue? REALLY? That speaks a lot about feminism, thinking that stupid s**t like that is a real problem.

Yeah, you just completely bypassed the context in which the example was framed. Opening doors for women is a behaviour that fits into a wider set of behaviours labelled as chivalry. Men are expected to treat women nicely. This is actually something that MRM conceptualises as a problem, as well as some feminists too (mainly radical feminists hellbent on destroying all gender constructed roles). But in the context of this post, I was using it as an example to illustrate the double standards found in BOTH genders.

Floressas

Duluth Model which introduces the idea that only men can be perpetrators of abuse was introduced by feminists, and promotes the idea that women= weak and in need of help, men= strong and savage.

The Duluth Model is designed to deal with women who are being battered by men. It is not designed to deal with men who are being battered by women, or with same-sex partner relationships. The reason for this, which is explained on its website in the FAQ, is that female on male violence is not caused by the same social mechanisms as male on female violence. So the model would essentially be defunct in dealing with these cases. The model does not deny women can be perpetrators or that men can be victims, it simply acknowledges that male victims of domestic violence experience domestic violence differently so would need a strategy to suit their needs. With gender you cannot assume everyone experiences everything in the same way which would allow for one universal model. For example in Wales all social policy relating to domestic violence is gendered and lumped in with other specific female violence, so instead of one monolithic model there is one set of policy for Violence Against Women.

Floressas

The idea that women are better caregivers and thus win most custody cases was introduced by feminists. This is relatively modern idea that started up in 1839, which is technically Tender Year Doctrine's ancestor. Promotes gender roles again, that men cannot be good at parenting, probably related with how men are ~cold~ & ~strong~ whereas women are ~dedicated~ & ~good~ (specially mothers.) Still gender roles dictate that the man must pay for his children & the woman of course.

Your understanding is all over the place. Firstly the 1839 act and 1873 act were based on the activism of one feminist called Caroline Norton. Secondly the Tender Years Doctrine is a principle which can be found in court cases preceding the aforementioned parliamentary acts outside the UK i.e. Commonwealth vs Addicks 1813 US.
Caroline Norton was a divorcee who campaigned for the rights of divorced women and mothers. Her work moulded the 1839 act which saw that women could appeal for custody for her children up to the age of seven, or appeal for access to her older children. The revised 1873 act was constructed by parliament using her writings.
You have to understand that back in the 19th century women who were divorced were seen as socially deviant and not fit to raise her children. Look at novels of that century like Anna Karenina, Vanity Fair, He Knew He Was Right, where the female character has divorced her spouse. The children are taking by the fathers, not because he is viewed as the natural care giver, but because his children is considered to be his property. The whole thing is very complex, and its hard to understand because you are viewing nineteenth century culture and legalities with a 21st century lens. Everything had a different social meaning back then which is hard for us to comprehend.
If you actually read scholarly articles regarding the change from the view that a child is a man's property so should be with him, too the view that a child should be with its mother, you'll see the shift coincides with the division of labour which occurred during and after industrialization. So the sphere of women's work became domesticated while the sphere of male work became outside the house aka at work, in the factory ect.

Floressas

During WWI & WWII feminists played a huge role in the Order of the White Feather which technically consisted on shaming men to get them to go to war. Promotes the idea of disposable men, men are better fighting, men are stronger, women are more valuable. ~Gender roles~

The White Feather Movement was supported by a few feminists of that time, the Pankhursts being the most prominent members, however the crux of the movement involved women handing out white feathers to men not wearing uniforms. You have to understand that the White Feather Movement reflected a kind of national attitude of that period. It's like saying OMG people in 1910 didn't like homosexual- well that's because homosexuality was consider a taboo, just like not fighting for your country.
Your interpretation of gender roles is silly, women did not fight because they were consider more valuable, women did not fight because they were considered incapable of fighting. Techinally women could still go to war as a nurse or medic but they couldn't fight.

Floressas

Feminists insist on defending women rapists (of both men & women) because again, Duluth Model says that women ~cannot rape~.

The Duluth Model isn't about rape? What are you talking about? The Duluth Model offers a framework of strategies for dealing with domestic violence victims and perpetrators. In fact its one ******** model, there are literally hundreds of models out there which are implemented by governments, NGOs, charities ect for dealing with domestic violence. Eitherway the Duluth Model has nothing to do with rape, so I don't understand how you inferred such drivel. Essentially the Duluth Model is a rehab program, it offers no actual theory as it self is subject to change being something which is constructed from external evidence based research.

Floressas

Various feminists (Such as the feminist idol, Simone de Beauvoir) intend to erase the idea that underage women are not prepared for sex, and thus promote ***** against girls because ~girls mature faster~ and ~sexual liberation~. Not to mention that she even thought that outlawing women staying home as mothers, which is something lots of feminists today promote as well.

Girls mature faster? Um can any one say Freud? Simone de Beavoir wrote her famous book The Second Sex in 1949. During this time psychoanalysis was pretty popular and one of the features of psychoanalysis was the dangers of sexual repression as it caused neuroses. So no, Simone de Beauvoir was not a *****. Like many academics of her time she was echoing ideological paradigm of the time which was Freud's theory of psychosexual development.
Simone de Beauvoir also wrote in her book how there was a need to destroy the nuclear family to emancipate both genders. She proposed that child rearing be undertaken by a universal child care system which would allow adults to do what they want and not be tied down by child rearing duties. Needless to say both de Beauvoir and Freud are considered to be outdated perspectives, particularly Freud.

Floressas

And in regards of sexual liberation, makes me think of Femen, that brands models as prostitutes yet hates on Muslim women for being submissive. And I won't even get into how most feminists think of BDSM, again shaming women either for being too bold in sexual terms or too submissive.

Ever heard of sex-positive feminism?

Floressas

The idea that feminist have with ~teach men not to rape~ again promotes what Duluth Model does; only men can rape. All men are rapists that must be taught, like dogs, not to do it. Promotes the idea that men are sex-crazed savages that cannot control their urges, oooo , another stereotype related to gender roles!!
And again, feminists are so obsessed with the idea that men cannot be victims & only perpetrators that I'll bring out the feminists that killed a fellow feminist's dog for wanting to open up a shelter for men.

You really do believe that a domestic violence intervention program is like the feminist bible. It's so misconstrued I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Floressas

Don't come calling me delusional when you clearly have no idea of what you are saying and start talking about trivialities such as opening doors & shows of ~chivalry~. (Which I did not even mention to begin with.)
Now tell me, how is (specially modern) feminism not to blame for the things that THEY introduced enforcing ridiculous gender roles?

You are part of what I like to call the tin foil hat brigade. You obviously do not know anything about feminism, other then what you have gleamed from whichever MRM nonsensical site you have been reading. I doubt you have read Simone de Beauvoir, or keep yourself up to date with current feminist discourses. You just regurgitate the conspiracy theories you have heard on the inter-webs without actually looking into them.
Most feminism recognises male issues such as hyper masculinity in the media, custody problems, male victimisation, male rape. Unlike MRM we do not perceive male problems as a threat to our own agendas. In fact feminist meta-analysis of data regarding domestic violence i.e. the map of gaps, recognises that male victims lack services and support. No one is denying it because of the bleeding Duluth Model. Feminists support services for men however as someone who specialises in social policy, I can tell you that the government often shuts these service down. It's because these services are often not used enough to be deemed as cost effective by the government. Councils rather shut down a service and redirect the funds to another service. And yes they do tend to redirect funds to female shelters, but this is because most female shelters, particularly in Wales have massive waiting lists. It's a double edge sword, and I wish the government would find a better solution, but this is the neoliberal age we live in.

[lambs and lions]

Floressas

Onolia

Do you think that opening doors for women is really an issue? REALLY? That speaks a lot about feminism, thinking that stupid s**t like that is a real problem.
Duluth Model which introduces the idea that only men can be perpetrators of abuse was introduced by feminists, and promotes the idea that women= weak and in need of help, men= strong and savage.
The idea that women are better caregivers and thus win most custody cases was introduced by feminists. This is relatively modern idea that started up in 1839, which is technically Tender Year Doctrine's ancestor. Promotes gender roles again, that men cannot be good at parenting, probably related with how men are ~cold~ & ~strong~ whereas women are ~dedicated~ & ~good~ (specially mothers.) Still gender roles dictate that the man must pay for his children & the woman of course.
During WWI & WWII feminists played a huge role in the Order of the White Feather which technically consisted on shaming men to get them to go to war. Promotes the idea of disposable men, men are better fighting, men are stronger, women are more valuable. ~Gender roles~
Feminists insist on defending women rapists (of both men & women) because again, Duluth Model says that women ~cannot rape~.
Various feminists (Such as the feminist idol, Simone de Beauvoir) intend to erase the idea that underage women are not prepared for sex, and thus promote ***** against girls because ~girls mature faster~ and ~sexual liberation~. Not to mention that she even thought that outlawing women staying home as mothers, which is something lots of feminists today promote as well.
And in regards of sexual liberation, makes me think of Femen, that brands models as prostitutes yet hates on Muslim women for being ~submissive~. And I won't even get into how most feminists think of BDSM, again shaming women either for being too bold in sexual terms or too submissive.
The idea that feminist have with ~teach men not to rape~ again promotes what Duluth Model does; only men can rape. All men are rapists that must be taught, like dogs, not to do it. Promotes the idea that men are sex-crazed savages that cannot control their urges, oooo , another stereotype related to gender roles!!
And again, feminists are so obsessed with the idea that men cannot be victims & only perpetrators that I'll bring out the feminists that killed a fellow feminist's dog for wanting to open up a shelter for men.

Don't come calling me delusional when you clearly have no idea of what you are saying and start talking about trivialities such as opening doors & shows of ~chivalry~. (Which I did not even mention to begin with.)
Now tell me, how is (specially modern) feminism not to blame for the things that THEY introduced enforcing ridiculous gender roles?

I want to add to this. In the 80's advocates for battered women (read feminists) pushed for laws for mandatory arrest laws. Before this police would go to homes and if no one was a bloody pulp they would tell them to stop and leave. So mandatory arrest laws seemed like a good thing. But under the mandatory arrest law it was the person who started the violence that was arrests. This lead to a 37% increase in male arrest and a 446% increase in female arrest (not a typo that reads four hundred and forty six). This huge increase in female arrests shifted the paradigm that men are the aggressors and women are the victims. So feminists pushed to have the law changed again, this time were the predominant aggressor is arrested. Police are supposed to assess who is the stronger of the two by age, height and weight. For the most part men are taller and weigh more than women, they are also usually older in the relationship. This lead to a dramatic decrease in female arrests. After the arrest rate returned to "normal" feminists started up again that men were the violent abusers and they used criminal evidence to back up their claims.

[Onolia]

Lambs and Lions

Floressas

Onolia

Do you think that opening doors for women is really an issue? REALLY? That speaks a lot about feminism, thinking that stupid s**t like that is a real problem.
Duluth Model which introduces the idea that only men can be perpetrators of abuse was introduced by feminists, and promotes the idea that women= weak and in need of help, men= strong and savage.
The idea that women are better caregivers and thus win most custody cases was introduced by feminists. This is relatively modern idea that started up in 1839, which is technically Tender Year Doctrine's ancestor. Promotes gender roles again, that men cannot be good at parenting, probably related with how men are ~cold~ & ~strong~ whereas women are ~dedicated~ & ~good~ (specially mothers.) Still gender roles dictate that the man must pay for his children & the woman of course.
During WWI & WWII feminists played a huge role in the Order of the White Feather which technically consisted on shaming men to get them to go to war. Promotes the idea of disposable men, men are better fighting, men are stronger, women are more valuable. ~Gender roles~
Feminists insist on defending women rapists (of both men & women) because again, Duluth Model says that women ~cannot rape~.
Various feminists (Such as the feminist idol, Simone de Beauvoir) intend to erase the idea that underage women are not prepared for sex, and thus promote ***** against girls because ~girls mature faster~ and ~sexual liberation~. Not to mention that she even thought that outlawing women staying home as mothers, which is something lots of feminists today promote as well.
And in regards of sexual liberation, makes me think of Femen, that brands models as prostitutes yet hates on Muslim women for being ~submissive~. And I won't even get into how most feminists think of BDSM, again shaming women either for being too bold in sexual terms or too submissive.
The idea that feminist have with ~teach men not to rape~ again promotes what Duluth Model does; only men can rape. All men are rapists that must be taught, like dogs, not to do it. Promotes the idea that men are sex-crazed savages that cannot control their urges, oooo , another stereotype related to gender roles!!
And again, feminists are so obsessed with the idea that men cannot be victims & only perpetrators that I'll bring out the feminists that killed a fellow feminist's dog for wanting to open up a shelter for men.

Don't come calling me delusional when you clearly have no idea of what you are saying and start talking about trivialities such as opening doors & shows of ~chivalry~. (Which I did not even mention to begin with.)
Now tell me, how is (specially modern) feminism not to blame for the things that THEY introduced enforcing ridiculous gender roles?

I want to add to this. In the 80's advocates for battered women (read feminists) pushed for laws for mandatory arrest laws. Before this police would go to homes and if no one was a bloody pulp they would tell them to stop and leave. So mandatory arrest laws seemed like a good thing. But under the mandatory arrest law it was the person who started the violence that was arrests. This lead to a 37% increase in male arrest and a 446% increase in female arrest (not a typo that reads four hundred and forty six). This huge increase in female arrests shifted the paradigm that men are the aggressors and women are the victims. So feminists pushed to have the law changed again, this time were the predominant aggressor is arrested. Police are supposed to assess who is the stronger of the two by age, height and weight. For the most part men are taller and weigh more than women, they are also usually older in the relationship. This lead to a dramatic decrease in female arrests. After the arrest rate returned to "normal" feminists started up again that men were the violent abusers and they used criminal evidence to back up their claims.

Careful with your statistics. Men usually make up larger ratio in domestic violence statistics then women. The statistic you are using is not designed to be comparative against men, but rather comparitative over a length of time. So for example before the law was passed only 4 women could have been arrested, but after the law was passed nine women were arrested creating an impressive statistic.
When you actually examine your study *, you'll find that even though female arrests went up 446%, the overall arrests rates for men were still eight times higher than arrests rates for women. For example, the amount of women arrested per per 100,000 adults in California from 1987 a through 2000 was a whopping 49.55. Men in comparison worked out at as 379.4. In fact men in all ethnic groups had scores between 230-1100 while the female range was only 38-60.
And you wanted to infer that women were more aggressive because of this.This is why you should always check your stats boo dramallama

[Floressas]

Onolia

Wow so it's a problem that people are actually being taught to be nice to other people? Yeah ok. I'll make sure to call out on the next mysoginistic a*****e that dares open a door for me. (And I've only seen feminists complain about that btw, I am pretty sure that counts as common courtesy and not an act of dominance, lol.)

Duluth model is still gynocentric and still doesn't change how male victims from abuse are being erased all the time. What you said doesn't change anything, actually makes it worse. Abuse against men is different? Ok, cool, great way to advocate for equality.
And don't even bring Wales into this, that they don't even have jails for women in there.

So changing the ~property~ of the children from the father and give them to the mother is better?? Why? Why is the mother better? Again, your argument doesn't really change anything in the long run. That doctrine still enforces that women are better caregivers for whatever reason. Still enforcing gender roles.

Sure, women were considered unfit for fighting, but they were obviously not as disposable as men. Men were dying to protect them. How is that not considered valuable at all? You are dying for something and you say that is not really valuable? Yeah ok.

A model, that again, ignores violence against men. Women are the only victims blabla, it's because of models like that that rape against males from women is so ignored.

So a girl that matures faster is allowed to sex because Freud says so? Yeah alright.
I am not even talking about what Beauvoir wrote or that she was a *****, I said she encouraged girls to have sex with adult men. She believed it should be so by law.
And I don't see how Freud is related to this anyways. I brought Beauvoir up because many feminists today follow her beliefs and she is regarded as a feminist icon.

About sex-positive feminism, it's precisely what I brought up. Another hypocrite movement. Shames women for being into sex (With men), and shames women for not being into sex. Shames women into BDSM. Shames Muslim women for being ~submissive~ to men. Some feminist even say that women are brainwashed to enjoy sex with men and that it's ALWAYS RAPE. (And bringing this up, funny how feminists always contradict each other.)

The only laughable /cryable thing in here is your insistence to defend a movement that is obviously so full of s**t and that is not doing any good nowadays, at least not in terms of equality.

Yeah, sure, feminism is aaaaaaall about equality.
How are they changing the aforementioned Tender Years Doctrine? How are they helping men's shelters? How are they making sure women get the same jail time as men for the same crimes? (IF they end up in jail) How are they making sure that rape against men is taken seriously?
Because all I see feminists bitching about is baww baww abortion baaw baww they called me fat baww baww slut shaming and when you bring men's issues in hand, they just go like PATRIARCHY BACKFIRING, IT'S THEIR OWN FAULT.
Suuuuure, equality.

[Onolia]

Floressas

Wow so it's a problem that people are actually being taught to be nice to other people? Yeah ok. I'll make sure to call out on the next mysoginistic a*****e that dares open a door for me.

Lady I can refer you to both MRM and feminist arguments against chivalry. There are feminists who frame it as misogynistic, while there are men who frame it as a form of misandry. The point I was making was that it evidence of double standard aka one gender is expected to do it while the other isn't.

Floressas

Duluth model is still gynocentric and still doesn't change how male victims from abuse are being erased all the time. What you said doesn't change anything, actually makes it worse. Abuse against men is different? Ok, cool, great way to advocate for equality.
And don't even bring Wales into this, that they don't even have jails for women in there.

Wales forms part of the UK Einstein. If a woman get convicted in a Welsh court she is sent to an English prison. Likewise a man can get convicted in English court and be sent to a Welsh prison.
The Duluth Model is a program for male on female violence and guess what, they actually have a female equivalent program called Crossroads. The Duluth Model website has kindly released a PDF which you can read at you leisure entitled 'countering confusion about the Duluth Model' *. Here is an example:

Quote:

The Duluth Curriculum Doesn’t Account for Women’s Violence
As earlier stated, there is a growing movement of practitioners who maintain that women are as violent as men or that women share responsibility for the violence. These practitioners often insist that domestic violence is a relationship problem and that marriage counseling should be an option for couples.
The Duluth curriculum is designed for male perpetrators. In Duluth, a separate court-deferral program called Crossroads was designed for women who use illegal violence against the men who batter them (Asmus 2004).

Quote:

So changing the ~property~ of the children from the father and give them to the mother is better?? Why? Why is the mother better? Again, your argument doesn't really change anything in the long run. That doctrine still enforces that women are better caregivers for whatever reason. Still enforcing gender roles.

I never said it was better. I was simply commenting on how the actual belief came about in order to correct your assertion that it was made up by feminism in 1839- which was nonsense. No one is saying that it is good, I'm just saying that it didn't come about because of feminism but rather a complex series of events brought on by industrialisation that saw the increasing division of labour. You would need to read sociological text books to get an understanding of the enormous social changes that happened and why roles changed.

Quote:

Sure, women were considered unfit for fighting, but they were obviously not as disposable as men. Men were dying to protect them. How is that not considered valuable at all? You are dying for something and you say that is not really valuable? Yeah ok.

You are grasping at straws here. Women were considered unfit to fight period. I could infer from that they were consider more redundant then men, or more useless then men, or more incompetent then men. Saying that they were considered to be more valuable then men is just as subjective as any of my statements which counters that.

Quote:

A model, that again, ignores violence against men. Women are the only victims blabla, it's because of models like that that rape against males from women is so ignored.

The Duluth Model is not a theoretical model, its model of framework for a rehab program. It's like your telling me that NASA hates men cos they don't talk about male rape in their space program. You need to get a grip on reality here.

Quote:

So a girl that matures faster is allowed to sex because Freud says so? Yeah alright.

I personally don't agree with Freud, I'm just reiterating what the popular belief was of the time to put some historical context into the stuff you are pulling out of context. Freud has some very strange ideas about our development i.e. the Odepius complex.

Quote:

I am not even talking about what Beauvoir wrote or that she was a *****, I said she encouraged girls to have sex with adult men. She believed it should be so by law.

Proof?

Quote:

And I don't see how Freud is related to this anyways. I brought Beauvoir up because many feminists today follow her beliefs and she is regarded as a feminist icon.

If you read her work you would see she clearly makes references to Freud and his theory of psycho-sexual development. Simone de Beauvoir is one of these classic figures like Marx or Durkheime, however like I said she is outdated. I'm a feminist and I don't follow her teachings like a cult leader. There are much more contemporary feminists that I can follow within my own academic field.

Quote:

About sex-positive feminism, it's precisely what I brought up. Another hypocrite movement. Shames women for being into sex (With men), and shames women for not being into sex. Shames women into BDSM. Shames Muslim women for being ~submissive~ to men. Some feminist even say that women are brainwashed to enjoy sex with men and that it's ALWAYS RAPE. (And bringing this up, funny how feminists always contradict each other.)

That is not sex-positive feminism. Sex- positive feminism is sex positive. It embraces all forms of sexuality and sexual expression. Sex-positive feminism was born in retaliation to feminists who labelled pornography, BDSM ect as negative back in the 70s. Feminists who are sex-positive view sex as a good thing, and that's that- there is genuinely no connotations of shame as sexual freedom is consider an important part of liberation.

Quote:

The only laughable /cryable thing in here is your insistence to defend a movement that is obviously so full of s**t and that is not doing any good nowadays, at least not in terms of equality.

Hun, you don't have an argument. This is just a process of you making a premise based on conjecture and me correcting it. You intimidate me intellectually the same way a sardine intimidates a shark.

Quote:

Yeah, sure, feminism is aaaaaaall about equality.
How are they changing the aforementioned Tender Years Doctrine? How are they helping men's shelters? How are they making sure women get the same jail time as men for the same crimes? (IF they end up in jail) How are they making sure that rape against men is taken seriously?
Because all I see feminists bitching about is baww baww abortion baaw baww they called me fat baww baww slut shaming and when you bring men's issues in hand, they just go like PATRIARCHY BACKFIRING, IT'S THEIR OWN FAULT.
Suuuuure, equality.

Male issues are male issues. Feminism or any female researcher acting under the guise of feminism cannot seek to define or conceptualise male problems. It is consider ethically wrong by our governing boards i.e. BPA, APA, BSC or university ethics board. It's complicated to explain but it is justified.

There are masculinists out there, my sister is a feminist researcher and she works in the same department as a masculinist who specialises in transgendered issues. However there aren't many. Men are just not interested in gender issues, which is ironic considering how you believe that men are more oppressed then women. Critics of MRM argue that the lack of interest in MRM demonstrates the plausibility of the MRM as a movement. Equally most feminist charities support feminist research, yet MRM rather just make s**t up and post it on the interwebs then get some kind of fund going for research into male issues.

Like I said before feminists sometimes put together reports about domestic violence services like Map of Gaps, which identifies areas where males do not have services. They will make recommendation to the government but then it is up to the government to implement it.

Feminism is massively diverse, the stuff you are commenting on is 1970s old news. Feminism is highly academic, so for example my sister is health psychologist and recently she helped out in a study where feminists were looking at the psychological effects of women who had their breasts removed due to cancer. The aim of the research was to help reduce the rates of depression amongst women who had their breasts removed. That piece of research had no legal connotations, which is true of many pieces of feminist research. Feminism does not always aim to improve women's lives based on legislative change. Some feminists like my sister are interested in improving the lives of women by purely exploring their personal experiences of womanhood.

Most contemporary feminists would argue women have equal rights. However feminism recognises that women are still more likely to earn less then men, more likely to fall into poverty ect, despite having legal equality. This suggests that women need to look beyond legislation and examine construction of gender roles in both men and women, primarily by examining media. There is a lot of research on this subject which I won't bore you with, but the general consensus is that there needs to be a greater diversity of gender roles in the media and early socialisation material i.e. fairy tales. This is based on Moscovici theories of social roles. So lets take your example of feminists bawwing about fat talk. Below is a TriDelta video which explains why fat talk is so damaging to women.



This is the kinda of work feminists do. It's positive and progressive, unlike the MRM that sit under their bridge and spew hate and bile on the web about us. The irony is that feminism won't undermine male issues, but MRM will sure as hell undermine female issues. And what's really ******** diabolical is the number of people who believe it. This guy sums it up really well.

[lambs and lions]

Onolia

Careful with your statistics. Men usually make up larger ratio in domestic violence statistics then women. The statistic you are using is not designed to be comparative against men, but rather comparitative over a length of time. So for example before the law was passed only 4 women could have been arrested, but after the law was passed nine women were arrested creating an impressive statistic.
When you actually examine your study *, you'll find that even though female arrests went up 446%, the overall arrests rates for men were still eight times higher than arrests rates for women. For example, the amount of women arrested per per 100,000 adults in California from 1987 a through 2000 was a whopping 49.55. Men in comparison worked out at as 379.4. In fact men in all ethnic groups had scores between 230-1100 while the female range was only 38-60.
And you wanted to infer that women were more aggressive because of this.This is why you should always check your stats boo dramallama

I think you miss the point.
1) Feminists push for laws so people are always arrested when the cops are called for domestic violence.
2) These laws increase the number of women getting arrested.
3) Feminists push for misandrous laws were men are seen as the primary aggressor and women are less likely to be arrested.
4) Feminists use criminal data to 'prove' men are more violent even though studies show domestic violence is reciprocal.

You are right that percentages really don't mean anything. Criminal data should not be used to prove which group is more violent because men are much less likely to call the police when they are being assaulted by a woman. In no way I was inferring that women more aggressive, men and women commit acts of intimate partner violence at equal rates. What I am pointing out is that feminists pushed for a law where a man can be beaten bloody but if the woman says the man hit her the man is arrested because he is seen as the primary aggressor.