NEWS: How Feminism Helps Men (Part Three Hundred and Forty-Eight)

I hope I expressed that properly. I'm not sure "abstract" is the right word.

I wish I could continue to edit that thing.

A) that's true but it doesn't mean it does exist either. unless you're ready to provide proof that there's a feminist somewhere fighting for the end of female preference for child custody. (which still wouldn't amount to much unless you could prove that most feminists were doing so)
B) "many states"? how many exactly?
C) i'm not under that impression at all but, please, tell me what you think equality means.

Oh, my. After reading this, I'm all flush, and friggin' jealous as shit of Subrosa.

Google is a wonderful tool.

No. That's not the case. You said initially you had yet to see "a" feminist fight to eliminate female preference. As in "one". It's clear from a very cursory review of applicable scholarship and law that at least some feminists have done just that. And successfully. I don't have to prove anything more than that.

Well, I'm not an expert on law in every state, but it's my understanding that the answer is "most if not all". Including yours!

Equality can mean many things to many different people. Equality can mean equality of opportunity, equality of situation, equality under the law and many more. Differently situated people can fight for "equality" under any number of these ideas and be fighting for very, very different things.

I get jealous of me sometimes too.

Indeed.

Which is why I've previously advocated that feminism abandon its fetishisation of "equality" outside of particular well-defined situations where equality can be meaningfully defined and measured.

Outside of those particular situations, I think symbiosis is a really good word. A symbiosis of men and women (of all stripes, hues and sexualities), without fixating on whether we're all getting an equal number of orgasms or doing an equal number of hours in the office. I really think feminists could make a lot of progress in new and appealing-to-the-unconverted directions by focussing on defining and achieving a healthy symbiosis.

But I usually end up talking to myself on these matters.

You say that like it's an unusual thing.

No, I'm pretty used to it.

It's really more that sometimes I expect slightly higher standards. Silly, I know.

however, even though i used a singular example, the point of the argument i'm trying to make here is that, in spite of feminist (the term) standing for sexual equality, feminists (the people) don't seem to be in a rush to give up rights in situations where males are less well off than females. sorry that wasn't plain to you. so as i said, one example doesn't really amount to much as my initial argument hasn't really been rebutted.

no. equality is "the quality or state of being equal". the definition of equal as it applies to male/female rights is "like for each member of a group, class, or society (as in 'provide equal employment opportunities')." definitions are fact not opinion. [also as a side note, a word can not be defined using the word being defined.]

now while it's true that some so-called feminists with their own personal definitions concerning what equality is, fight a myriad of battles in the name of a word they don't know the definition of, that doesn't make them all right.

i concede the point, however, that most states seems to have abolished the ancient tender years doctrine in favor of less blatant preferential doctrine. one popular factor is the newer "primary caregiver" doctrine which gives preference to the parent who performs such arbitrary tasks as putting the children to bed, grooming the children, and acting to teach the children basic life cooping skills. of course, since it's up to the judge to decide what activities make one a "primary caregiver" moms still seem to receive preference over dads, albeit somewhat less so than before.

That wasn't plain to me because that wasn't the statement I was responding to. The overarching argument that you're making is so hugely broad and full of generalizations that it's both unprovable and unrebuttable. I will say that in my opinion "feminists" are not nearly as united in actions or thought as you're making them out to me. Even just reading this thread (specifically TFOK's posts) one can see how those can diverge.

Yes, but what does that mean in application?

Yes, but what does THAT mean in appliction? Also, define "like".

Interesting theory. But practically, that's not really how things work, is it? People disagree over definitions all the time. Does that mean that one person is always right and one person is always wrong? No. Some definitions are fact-ier than others.

Also as a side note, you realized you did the very same thing above?

I never said any particular group of feminists were right or wrong. Certainly some people misinterpret things or don't behave how (I would argue) a feminist should behave, but then again I'm not the end-all-be-all arbiter of what a feminist should and should not do. I will say that my impressions of people who call themselves feminists are generally a lot more positive than yours seem to be.

You've actually just demonstrated my point about the different interpretations of the word "equality".

Here, you have equality under the law. The law is gender neutral. It is written specifically devoid of gender preferences and should be applied to give custody to the primary caregiver no matter the sex of the parent.

However, it is your argument that there is inequality of opportunity because women tend to be primary caregivers. In jurisdictions where the Primary Caregiver Doctrine is used, this has turned out to be the case, in fact. (It should be noted that most states do not use the Primary Caregiver Doctrine and those that do use it as one of the factors to be considered in the Best Interests of the Child Doctrine, which is the prevailing modern standard.)

Now, some feminists will fight for equality under the law. Some will fight for equality of opportunity. Which is more equal? Some would argue that the only equality that government should be concerned with is equality of law, for to attempt to control for the inequality of opportunity makes us less equal because it invariably ends up forcing people to conform to standards that some people may not be able to fit in. Others argue that the only way to ensure equality is to attempt to make everything as fair as possible, nevermind that the language itself is gender-neutral. Which one is right? Which one has the best handle on the word "equality"?

You see what I'm getting at here? Equality might have a simple definition if you look it up, but what it really means when it gets down to brass tacks is going to vary wildly depending on each individual's perspective.

I agree with you Subrosa and I agree with TFOK in the statement that there are many different branches of feminism. For the most part I've had positive experiences, and learned (at least I think) many things that have enhanced my perspective.

I am curious about something browngirl.

If we are too look at the world, and start counting the various situations where males are less well off than females. Then did a count of situations where females are less well off than males. Which gender would come out with a greater number of negative situations? You might be able to list the male issues in one book. The female issues? There are libraries that describe the situation.

I see no reason why feminists should focus on situations where males are less well off than females, when they already have their work cut out for them with female issues. Not to say feminists can't or shouldn't focus on helping out with male issues, but seriously it looks like their hands are full.

Simple counter-example.

Defining equal rights is not one and the same as equal opportunities, neither of which is the same as equal outcomes.

I've seen feminists (and others) conflate these and other interpretations of "equality".

I would only argue for a cultural attitude for good sportmanship in all things competition, fostering a taste for it as being a geeky yet sophisticated superior taste (eg being more sexually liberated/complete than a particular woman/group of women because as a man you can't get pregnant hardly counts as a definition of being sexually liberated).

Politically that is another ball of wax. What? 100% estate tax for the rich? It sounds great but I'm not equipped to defend it.

True. That's sometimes presented as being a good thing, whereas I think it tends to cause damage.

Like it or not (I know I don't), health is a commodity. Therefore, it is like a toy store not stocking toy guns.

I like you. You're perceptive and thoughtful. I'm gonna think about all that for a while. In the meantime...

I know that's definitely not a case example, but hardly anything is a perfect parallel nowadays.

Present any analogy and you'll immediately hear people screaming "That's not at all the same type of thing!" Like I could do to your handicap inaccessible example, but I won't, because I don't think it was your intention to use it as an argument against pharmacists refusing service. And if it was, then I'll gladly rip it apart as imperfect for comparison.

First of all, thank you for indulging me in an actual debate now.

1.) If that's true, why not just award custody of the child to the father. Obviously, he is better suited to provide/take care of the child if he's rolling in so much frikken money.

Fact: Women do on average make less than men, but they are also on average less likely to ask for a raise or a promotion then men. Furthermore, when they do ask for a raise and are offered a small one, they are less likely then men to negotiate for a bigger one. There's studies of a more academic nature out there that say the same thing but I'll leave it to you to find them:
http://www.paywizard.co.uk/index.php?pid=64
http://thingsilearnedthehardway.com/2006/10/asking_for_more_money.html

Fact: Another reason this used to be true was because before women were also less likely to be the breadwinner of the house so the boss sympathized with their financial need less because there was no child depending on them, though that is quickly changing, and all the power to you.

I find it funny that so many people quote the "75 cents to every dollar" statistic but don't actually look into why that is, instead assuming it's because society is somehow conciously making a decision to pay women less. The ball is in women's hands to change the "75 cents to every dollar" situation, mkay?

2.) Sweet. Sound good. Let's add that to the feminist agenda then: Erasing the social stigma against men who claim to have been raped. And less perpetuatiing the stereotype that "men are more violent than women". Actually, if we want to make generalisation, I think if we take psychological/emotional abuse into consideration the two genders would be on par for violence.

3.) They're out there. i'm glad to here you're not one of them.

Maybe because there are more factors taken into account than simply who has more money. Issues like, say, who is going to be better emotionally equipped to raise the child, come into play as well. I never said that women should get custody by default, I simply stated a fact, that women are more likely than men to get custody.

I don't doubt that this is the case, however, I also do not see how this (at least to a great extent) explains the enormous disparity. Even on the website you cited the difference is somewhat negligible (44% of men spoke to their supervisor about pay rate while 39% of women did). And if there are more "academic" studies that prove this point, why not cite them instead of the sources you chose? Furthermore, this type of scenario does not at all explain the lack of female individuals in corporate management where "asking" likely isn't going to get you the job.

Fact: this has not been the case for decades. And if this is changing, as you stated, why haven't we seen a sharp decrease in the wage gap? Some sources such as the one at the bottom of
this page even show an increase in the gap.

I never once argued that society is "consciously" making a decision to pay women less than men. What I am arguing is that there is an implicit bias in many developed nations (such as the US) (and an even more explicit bias in many developing nations) that somehow values women's contributions to the economy to a lesser extent than it does men's.

I find it both ironic and humorous that you say this yet you fault feminists for working towards changing this fact....well played.

First of all, the idea that men commit more violent crime than women is not a stereotype, it is a fact. Secondly, who said anything about emotional violence, I thought we were talking about rape here...

Wow, well I'm satisfied. Your anecdotal experiences are certainly sufficient enough to generalize to the entire population of feminists...

I think I agree with this.

Me too, but I think that is what most feminists are working towards. I guess what I don't understand are the people who are critical of feminists and feminism in general for not trying to work towards goals that would specifically benefit men. To me this is akin to arguing that an organization dedicated to saving the whales should be working on saving x species... Quite obviously an organization, movement, etc... dedicated to goal x is going to spend the majority of their time and effort working towards goal x and arguing that they should "broaden their horizons" is in my opinion asinine.