She's a bitch, she's a lover, she's a child, she's a mother, she's a sinner, she's a saint, but should they feel ashamed? MRAs debate gendered insults. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
607 ups - 248 downs = 359 votes
604 comments submitted at 15:26:37 on Jan 31, 2014 by Zeke12
Oh, please. The former director of the UCLA's Center for the Study of Women called Newton's Principa Mathematica a 'rape manual'. There are plenty of crazy-ass feminists out there, and if feminists really wanted to attract more people to their cause they might want to gain the self-awareness required to realize their movement's problems. It's not as if there are 'real feminists', who are all completely normal and well-adjusted, and 'evil straw feminists', who either (A) exist in the form of femen and tumblr trolls or (B) are figments of /b/tards' imaginations (still not clear on that part).
Yeah, one person who has pretty much been laughed off the face of the planet for their ideas.
TIL that "pretty much been laughed off the face of the planet for their ideas" means you're a 'distinguished professor' at UCLA.
Every movement has its radicals. There actually are 'real feminists' who are completely normal and well-adjusted, contrary to what you might think. Do y'know where the statistics for gender bias in sentencing come from? They were gathered by task forces assembled by the 'National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts' which was a program founded by, wait for it, the National Organization for Women and the National Association of Women Judges. Cuz I'm awesome, here's a source: http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0423a.html
We been around for awhile, and most of us do not bite. And we actually do care about the men in our lives, feminists don't all hate their fathers and brothers, husbands and sons.
>Every movement has its radicals. There actually are 'real feminists' who are completely normal and well-adjusted, contrary to what you might think.
You said that crazy feminists aren't real feminists, and I said they are. I'm not saying that there aren't any sane feminists, just that you can't pull this "no true scotsman/feminist" nonsense when some (again, not all) feminists give feminism a bad reputation.
>We been around for awhile, and most of us do not bite. And we actually do care about the men in our lives, feminists don't all hate their fathers and brothers, husbands and sons.
And non-feminists care about the women in our lives. In fact, over 80% of Americans claim to want gender equality but only 20% of Americans say they're feminists. "Feminism" has a lot of baggage, and again, feminists would do well to remember and address their extremists. Someone else replied to me and said that radicals like the 'rape manual' woman was "laughed off the face of the planet". Uh, no. She was the director of the UCLA's Center for the Study of Women, and is currently a distinguished professor at UCLA. It's not just attention (excuse the possibly-gendered insult) whores like femen.
Aha I thought you were saying all feminists were crazy feminists.
> It's not as if there are 'real feminists', who are all completely normal and well-adjusted..
Obviously femen are real and not straw. And no, not excusing the gendered insult. Don't argue for gender equality then use sexist insults, it destroys your credibility. Femen aren't whores, you can't pay them to have sex with you. The 'rape manual' woman said she regretted the characterization. Have you never said anything you regretted? She apologized.
>And no, not excusing the gendered insult. Don't argue for gender equality then use sexist insults, it destroys your credibility.
That's my point (or at least one of my points): different people have different ideas of what constitutes "gender equality". I don't think calling someone a whore (or dick, or any other gendered insult) is necessarily sexist. You're basically saying, "These people say they want gender equality, but they have no credibility because their actions don't meet my definition of gender equality".
>The 'rape manual' woman said she regretted the characterization. Have you never said anything you regretted? She apologized.
I'm glad she regrets that characterization, but my point is that many feminists say or do things that gives the word "feminist" a lot of baggage. Look at when Luce Irigaray said that E=mc^2 is a sexist equation because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us". Are you really surprised that many Americans are reluctant to associate with a group known for postmodern, Marxist-ish bullshit like that? (And FYI, the same woman said that sexism has led engineers to study 'masculine' rigid mechanics more than 'feminine' fluid dynamics.)
You're totally free to be a feminist if you can accept baggage like that, but your original post painted opposition to feminism as the work of a bunch of 4chan dwellers who like to exaggerate. Again, I t hink feminists would do well to be aware of the reasons many/most people have for rejecting the label "feminist" despite seeking gender equality.
> Luce Irigaray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray#Criticism
"Many feminists seek to criticize the perceived essentialist positions of Luce Irigaray."
I can call myself a MRA and go around saying all women should be hanged, you gonna blame the whole movement for that? Free speech is a bummer sometimes but you have to take the good with the bad. You're choosing to put the spotlight on the warts. What does that say about you?
>I can call myself a MRA and go around saying all women should be hanged, you gonna blame the whole movement for that?
Better example: since a significant portion of MRAs seem like they'd rather complain than actually do anything, I think less of the mens' rights movement (even though they might have a couple of good points).
Anyway, this isn't some random lady who decided to call herself a feminist and go off the deep end: the 'rape manual' woman was a distinguished professor of gender studies at UCLA and the 'E=mc^2 is sexist' woman is an influential member of the feminist movement, who is often-cited and has had her work translated into multiple languages.
In any case, it says that many feminists "seek to criticize the perceived essentialist positions" of this woman. It does not say that many feminists criticized her for making that particular claim about E=mc^2. The criticism of that particular statement came from outside the feminist community, from Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont (two physicists), and from Richard Dawkins (a biologist).
And even if a few feminists criticized that comparison, the fact is: this woman is still influential in the feminist movement! Can you not see that many people are hesitant in associating with her?
A significant portion of everyone is do nothing bitchers. Feminists, mras, freebies, animal rights folks, etc.
NOW is against giving fathers parental rights.
So much AMR brigade.
http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1996/resoluti.html#alert
That's funny, Karen DeCrow former president of NOW is listed as a "Notable Commentator" who voiced public support for the Father's rights movement on Wikipedia. Perhaps NOW doesn't like the part of the father's rights movement that wants to give fathers a say in abortions, because they're not real fond of men having the ability to force women to carry pregnancies to term.
Then it's a good thing hat the fathers rights movement doesn't advocate for the right for fathers to prevent abortion. You're thinking of American religious conservatives. So explain to me again why NOW would be against fathers having equal footing in family court? I missed that part.
No, NOW advocates for the fathers to not be able to prevent abortion. Some father's rights advocates argue that they should.
> Some fathers' rights advocates have sought the right to prevent women from having an abortion without the father's consent, on the basis that it is discriminatory for men not to have the ability to participate in a decision to terminate a pregnancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers'rightsmovement#Parentalandreproductive_rights
>No, NOW advocates for the fathers to not be able to prevent abortion.
That makes no sense. Nothing in the Michigan law said anything about abortion. Certainly nothing about fathers being given the right to prevent abortion. This is the proposed legislation, HB5267. Go ahead. Show me where they asked for the ability for fathers to prevent abortions.
Source?
http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1996/resoluti.html#alert
NOW is against default 50/50 custody, because that's not always in the best interests of the child. Also, this is the Michigan faction of NOW, not the entire organization. Here's another article which discusses why joint custody should not be court mandated.
NOW is not against fathers having rights. FFS do some research and actually read what's available to you before you spout bullshit.
God forbid having a father in their life. Against default 50/50, for 100/0.
Yeah, except they're not for 100/0 and you made that up.
Obviously not 100/0 smh. But they are opposing any kind of progress father's try to make without putting forward any of their own. They completely misrepresent statistics which is classic feminist doctrine.
They mention that,
"The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian."
completely ignoring the fact that father's know that the family courts are fucked up and have little hope at getting custody. They mention offhandedly that,
"According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases."
When it's the EXACT OPPOSITE. If you go here, http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm You can clearly see that when the parents mediate father's only get sole possession 6% of the time versus mother's 63% and when they go to trial father's only get sole possession 11% of the time compared to the mother's 44%.
They're liars and the AMR around here could give two shits about men.
Obviously not exactly what you said, right.
That is not what either link says, at all. Seriously, read what I posted before you start building strawmen everywhere.
My reply to the other person.
So, I read the rationale and it appears they didn't even read the proposed law. Kind of despicable to be against something without reading it first. The 50/50 presumption was just that, a presumption. It didn't prevent mitigating factors affecting the judge's final decision. It simply prevented them saying "the child belongs with its mother". Which is pretty common, if you knew anything about the men's rights or fathers rights movements.
>NOW is against default 50/50 custody, because that's not always in the best interests of the child.
Of course it's not always in the best interest of the child. Sometime the mother getting custody is not the best either. Which is why default 50/50 contains the word "default"- if it can be proven otherwise then it is changed. The problem is the current default is the mother getting the child, and that's sexist.
>The problem is the current default is the mother getting the child,
Do you have any sources to back that up? That the mother always gets custody unless the father fights for it? Are you aware that when dads fight for custody, they receive it about 70% of the time?
As the NOW link I posted points out, making 50/50 the default means it's actually much harder to prove that it shouldn't be the default (as in cases of child abuse, neglect, etc.), rather than evaluating each case on its own terms to figure out what's in the best interests of the child in question.
>Are you aware that when dads fight for custody, they receive it about 70% of the time?
Wrong, try 6% by mediation, 11% by trial. http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm
> Are you aware that when dads fight for custody, they receive it about 70% of the time?
Surveys differ. However, you didn't cite a source. Besides, if it was that biased against mothers why wouldn't you be for default 50/50 to correct the gender bias?
>Do you have any sources to back that up? That the mother always gets custody unless the father fights for it?
Irony alert!
>As the NOW link I posted points out, making 50/50 the default means it's actually much harder to prove that it shouldn't be the default (as in cases of child abuse, neglect, etc.),
How does it make it harder? Is there now a burden of proof that wasn't there before?
Dude, I provided sources in my first comment, you responded back without sources, and are now getting on me for not having sources. I'll look for my sources later when I have time and edit this post; but the real irony is you getting on my case about it when you made a positive claim without any sources, then duck that by calling me out for not having sources.
I think that custody should be decided on a case-by-case basis. It's not necessarily healthy for the child to have to move back and forth all the time, as would be necessary under default 50/50, for instance.
My original comment and point is that NOW is not against fathers' rights. Feminism is not against fathers' rights. It's just another strawman that MRAs and others construct in order to blame all of men's problems on feminism, even though patriarchy, which feminists are working to dismantle, is the true culprit, as is the case with courts being biased towards mothers (when that happens).
MRAs are brigading in here.
I know. It was inevitable, and I shouldn't bother arguing, but oh well.
Lol, AMR brigade all over. Look at the numbers.
More Comments - Click Here
>Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination.
It's impossible for the patriarchy to be at fault of men's problems.
Patriarchy theory is nice and can lead to interesting conclusions. The problem with social theories is you can expand the definition to cover anything. Unfortunately when you get start making unprovable theories, you can use them as a lens though which everything can be viewed. Hence you can justify patriarchy as the cause of just about any problem.
You deeply misunderstand the term. It's not that hard to figure it out, though. Google is your friend.
More Comments - Click Here
> Dude, I provided sources in my first comment, you responded back without sources, and are now getting on me for not having sources.
Dude, you provided no sources for the 70% claim (it is not mentioned in your links). I didn't feel the need to cite a source for the default being mom getting custody, because it wasn't percentage based and it is quite common knowledge that there are more women getting child support than visa versa. But if I must, then here.
>but the real irony
I didn't ask for sources in my original reply, so maybe you have a lose definition of irony.
>I think that custody should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
As opposed to what?
>It's not necessarily healthy for the child to have to move back and forth all the time, as would be necessary under default 50/50, for instance.
It's not healthy for parent to divorce or for children to only have one parent. Therein lies the problem.
>My original comment and point is that NOW is not against fathers' rights.
Except for Michigan's NOW which is against 50/50 default parent custody.
>Feminism is not against fathers' rights.
I don't think many are, but they don't usually advocate for fathers rights either. Mostly because it doesn't affect their demographic.
I thought you didn't take things on reddit this seriously ;)
More Comments - Click Here
Not a dude, thanks.
So, I'm getting tired of arguing in circles with you, but I will address a few things.
You stated in your first reply to me:
>The problem is the current default is the mother getting the child, and that's sexist.
And since we were talking about court-mandated custody, I assumed you were saying in the courts the default is the mother getting the child. The source you just provided in your above comment does not address that at all. It shows that more women have custody compared to men, but does not show that's due to courts ordering mother as custodial parent by default.
>>I think that custody should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
>As opposed to what?
Uh, as opposed to default 50/50, which I'd stated multiple times? You're not showing yourself to be great with the whole reading comprehension thing.
>It's not healthy for parent to divorce or for children to only have one parent. Therein lies the problem.
Wow, nice blanket statement you have there. Some children are better off being raised by only one loving parent rather than witnessing a parent being abused by their other parent, don't you think? And as a product of a single mother myself, I find that to be a pretty dismissive, insulting, and simplistic view to have of single-parent households.
>>My original comment and point is that NOW is not against fathers' rights.
>Except for Michigan's NOW which is against 50/50 default parent custody.
I guess if you define "fathers rights" as automatically getting their child 50% of the time, even if they didn't spend nearly that time with the kid prior to the divorce, or are abusive, etc. Having 50/50 custody as the default is not always the best thing for the kids, that's the whole point behind my stance and Michigan NOW's opposition to that legislation.
Edit: formatting
More Comments - Click Here
Dude, you know the feminists had something called the "Sex Wars" due to a variety of reason, that's why there's 2nd, 3rd and 4th wave feminism.
Honestly, there are crazies in pretty much every faction of feminism (along with most other political movements). My problem is that many feminists seem to refuse to accept the crazies as 'real feminists' despite the fact that several crazies are actually pretty damn influential in the feminist movement. Plenty of people claim to want equality (~80% of Americans), but only ~20% consider themselves feminists, and I think a lot of it is this baggage.
I consider myself a libertarian but wouldn't be caught posting in /r/libertarianism (anymore). So yeah, i understand the fact there's crazies in every faction. The problem is that a lot people think that feminists are ONLY the people posting in Tumblr and ignore the woman helping other girls learn more engineering.
I tend towards libertarianism and I agree that /r/libertarianism isn't a very good subreddit. In any case, I think the common image(/stereotype) of a feminist is an academic who has spent enough time in the ivory tower that she feels postmodernism and/or Marxist theory is valid. I think this is at least accurate for a good number of feminists, and is the reason many 'average' Americans don't identify with the movement.
Again, my point isn't that every feminist is a crazy freebleeder (don't google this) who insists that everyone use xer crazy-ass pronouns, or an SRSer who doesn't understand humor, it's that feminists need to stop pretending like people are only judging them on the craziest .001%.