Replacing "Feminism"

[Stanisburg]

5.How are men proving themselves to be bad fathers right now? There are many statistics that show the opposite. Single moms have been shown to be far worse parents than single fathers statistically. The only reason men fail to get equal custody right now is because courts have decided it's cruel to take a kid out of a father's hands, but even more cruel to take one out of the mother's hands. That's pretty much the result of feminism causing favortism in the courts, though..

Yeah, except that in half the cases, the father gets the child so your entire story is just that, a story.
The reason why more women end up with custody over men is because men to a far lesser degree file for custody, not because judges are statistically more likely to award it to the mother.

Got a source? I've read as high as 75% of disputed cases being ruled in favor of the mother.


I don't think feminism needs to be "replaced." I do sometimes wonder if feminists see feminism more as "everyone's movement for gender equality" or as the "women's movement." It can't always be both.

[Snafturi]

a part of your mind called the Cerebral Cortex is what you use in that situation. You take control and assert yourself. It is what you are supposed to do when you want to do something that is wrong really really badly like say, hitting some one else, or attempting suicide, averting a situation caused by your emotions and instincts through will power.

Don't fucking rape people. If you think you may be raping someone, make sure you're fucking not. Raping someone without the willpower (fuck!) to prevent rape is still rape.

Things like what Conway wrote truly make my blood run cold. I've also read through PUA forums, and I've read guys advising to force a girl who is resistant but to "be careful" with force because you might end up with a "false rape charge". The really terrifying thing about that is I think at least some of those guys honestly believed it (thanks in part to asshats like Farrell). This is the primary reason why I would never, ever even consider going home with someone from a club (the secondary reason is, I've talked to too many people that pick up people from clubs, and I would never knowingly let anyone with the attitudes I've commonly run across anywhere near my lady bits. It's just, ew, no).

And I really don't see what's wrong with making sure you have the consent of the person you're going to be having sex with. It's not beyond possibility that there are complete lunatics out there who will completely lose their shit if you ask, but it's a bad idea to sleep with people who are that crazy anyway. Plus, they're going to be the small minority, and a much bigger percentage are going to be completely turned off by their partner ignoring their request to stop. Most men and women are going to appreciate their partner stopping if they say "no". I see no reason to put the desires of the batshit insane few above the desires of sane, vast majority.

[Juristonia]

Got a source? I've read as high as 75% of disputed cases being ruled in favor of the mother.

http://divorcesupport.about.com/b/2011/12/28/child-custody-there-is-no-gender-bias-during-custody-decisions.htm
http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Children-Families-and-Elders/Marriage-Divorce-and-Custody/Resource-Guide.aspx

Basically, women typically end up with the kid more often because either the parents decided on that together or the mother is the one filing for custody.
In cases of the man filing too, it actually evens out for the most part.

[Desperate Measures]

Don't fucking rape people. If you think you may be raping someone, make sure you're fucking not. Raping someone without the willpower (fuck!) to prevent rape is still rape.

Things like what Conway wrote truly make my blood run cold. I've also read through PUA forums, and I've read guys advising to force a girl who is resistant but to "be careful" with force because you might end up with a "false rape charge". The really terrifying thing about that is I think at least some of those guys honestly believed it (thanks in part to asshats like Farrell). This is the primary reason why I would never, ever even consider going home with someone from a club (the secondary reason is, I've talked to too many people that pick up people from clubs, and I would never knowingly let anyone with the attitudes I've commonly run across anywhere near my lady bits. It's just, ew, no).

And I really don't see what's wrong with making sure you have the consent of the person you're going to be having sex with. It's not beyond possibility that there are complete lunatics out there who will completely lose their shit if you ask, but it's a bad idea to sleep with people who are that crazy anyway. Plus, they're going to be the small minority, and a much bigger percentage are going to be completely turned off by their partner ignoring their request to stop. Most men and women are going to appreciate their partner stopping if they say "no". I see no reason to put the desires of the batshit insane few above the desires of sane, vast majority.

It's a disturbing point of view.

[New Conway]

Things like what Conway wrote truly make my blood run cold. I've also read through PUA forums, and I've read guys advising to force a girl who is resistant but to "be careful" with force because you might end up with a "false rape charge". The really terrifying thing about that is I think at least some of those guys honestly believed it (thanks in part to asshats like Farrell). This is the primary reason why I would never, ever even consider going home with someone from a club (the secondary reason is, I've talked to too many people that pick up people from clubs, and I would never knowingly let anyone with the attitudes I've commonly run across anywhere near my lady bits. It's just, ew, no).

And I really don't see what's wrong with making sure you have the consent of the person you're going to be having sex with. It's not beyond possibility that there are complete lunatics out there who will completely lose their shit if you ask, but it's a bad idea to sleep with people who are that crazy anyway. Plus, they're going to be the small minority, and a much bigger percentage are going to be completely turned off by their partner ignoring their request to stop. Most men and women are going to appreciate their partner stopping if they say "no". I see no reason to put the desires of the batshit insane few above the desires of sane, vast majority.

It's a disturbing point of view.

then I go to a completely different site to say the same thing and they say you got your but between your ears.

[Desperate Measures]

It's a disturbing point of view.

then I go to a completely different site to say the same thing and they say you got your but between your ears.

Awesome for you? yay?

[Snafturi]

It's a disturbing point of view.

then I go to a completely different site to say the same thing and they say you got your but between your ears.

Despite that being eloquent and very well-reasoned, it doesn't address the fundamental point: Why should we ignore the wishes of the majority because there might be a small minority of people out there whose non-con role plays will be completely ruined by someone making sure they're okay with it? Especially since raping someone carries significantly more consequences for everyone involved than ruining the mood for the batshit insane?

[Howdoyoudoland]

I am absolutely tickled by your revelation that a movement based specifically on the advancement of women wouldn't take the problems men experience into account.

As for something that could replace it...I would suggest a healthy dose of individualism and traditionalism, if you're looking for ideologies that support both men and women equally and look at the problems each gender faces.

[Gravlen]

Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

I honestly don't think changing the name is going to do much of anything for either success in its aims or to silence its critics.

I do find it a bit distressing that groups where one would think there would be more cooperation and working together, namely the various civil rights commencements, seem to be more focused on petty bickering and turf fights, but I suppose that it human nature.

'Tis a rare bird who doesn't loudly squawk, I've got mine, now go away!

Well, as I've said, there's clear evidence supporting the theory that a name change wouldn't change a thing.

[Meryuma]

Feminism is a fitting word because women are the more oppressed gender compared to men. However, that doesn't mean men don't face problems of their own in a heteropatriarchal society, which any reasonable feminist is able to see.

I am absolutely tickled by your revelation that a movement based specifically on the advancement of women wouldn't take the problems men experience into account.

As for something that could replace it...I would suggest a healthy dose of individualism and traditionalism, if you're looking for ideologies that support both men and women equally and look at the problems each gender faces.

Individualism and traditionalism are opposed.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Is it time to abandon the term?

Maybe.

Is there a more effective term we could use?

"Gender equality" gets the point across and isn't likely to turn people off.

Should feminism merge with other sexual and gender rights movements?

Yes. The issues that feminists, gay rights activists, etc. deal with are all interconnected, so it makes sense for everyone to coordinate their efforts.

Other social and civil rights groups?

No because they deal with issues that are not related. We don't want people's disagreements about other issues like immigration, race relations, welfare, etc. to prevent them from coming together in support of gender equality.

[Dilange]

I prefer the gender equalism. It has a much better tone than feminist has received.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I prefer the gender equalism. It has a much better tone than feminist has received.

I don't think "equalism" is a word. Non-words offend my Nazi sensibilities.

[Dilange]

I prefer the gender equalism. It has a much better tone than feminist has received.

I don't think "equalism" is a word. Non-words offend my Nazi sensibilities.

Its a word now.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I don't think "equalism" is a word. Non-words offend my Nazi sensibilities.

Its a word now.

There's no reason to use that instead of "equality."

[Snafturi]

There's no reason to replace it at all. It will make no difference, the same people will moan, they'll just moan that it's "equality gone too far".

[Dilange]

Its a word now.

There's no reason to use that instead of "equality."

Fine.....Gender equality.

[Tahar Joblis]

Got a source? I've read as high as 75% of disputed cases being ruled in favor of the mother.

http://divorcesupport.about.com/b/2011/12/28/child-custody-there-is-no-gender-bias-during-custody-decisions.htm
http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Children-Families-and-Elders/Marriage-Divorce-and-Custody/Resource-Guide.aspx

Basically, women typically end up with the kid more often because either the parents decided on that together or the mother is the one filing for custody.
In cases of the man filing too, it actually evens out for the most part.

I do not think your links demonstrate what you think they do.

Notably, you can find through the second link this paper, which contains survey data indicating judges have a substantial pro-maternal bias.

Broken up by age bracket and taking the difference between "mother" and "father" questions:

Mothers are by experience better parents: +14/21/28%
"Tender years" doctrine bias: +36/34/70%
Children better adjusted with mother: +3/10/16%
Mothers are by nature better parents: +5/22/46%
As "primary caregiver," would be favored in custody decisions: +2/-5/+15%

The only item there is that judges in one age bracket are modestly more likely to think that a male primary caregiver would be favored in custody decisions over a female primary caregiver.

Since there is much more to say and the rest would be me repeating myself from several days ago, I will simply quote myself before continuing.

It did not initially seem like rendering statutes gender-neutral actually changed that much. Moving forward, the scholarly debate remains on the topic of sole maternal custody vs. joint custody. And we are today in an environment in which the expectation of maternal custody - usually fulfilled - is in fact a substantial motivating factor in divorce. [The main factor when there are children of a divorcing couple.]

All evidence is that the presumption of maternal custody being awarded is strong enough that the small number of cases which proceed to litigation are not representative of the whole. As far as I can tell, this author is correct: There is shit-all for good research into whether or not the courts themselves are truly biased.

We know this:

1. Mothers file expecting custody.
2. In spite of generally having equal desire for children, being more likely to remarry, and spending an increasingly large amount of time with children, we still generally end up with sole maternal custody; that is to say, the expectation is fulfilled.
3. We should actually expect major changes in the percentage of women obtaining custody given a best-interest standard and dramatic shifts in the ratio of mother/father contact time and parental labor; we don't see that. We've seen practically no change. Fathers make up the same percentage of custodial parents now as in the early nineties; and those figures aren't very far from the rates of the mid eighties.

Weird, no? Is what we really need for fathers to nerve up to actually go to court? Or do fathers avoid court after being well-advised that they don't have a strong enough case?

Maybe all we need is to eliminate the perception that family court is biased against men; and we will see dramatic improvement immediately. It doesn't, however, seem terribly likely. Most of the justification I've heard offered for why men don't end up with custody very often is that men just don't want to be parents.

Which do you expect me to believe? The large and compelling inequality of actual outcomes, and fulfilled expectations of mothers initiating divorce, and the baffling failure of the more involved father to result in a greater paternal share of custody? Or ultimately unsubstantiated and sexist attacks claiming that men are bad and don't want to be parents?

There are, when it comes to child custody law, four simple facts worth noting:

1. We have clear patterns of gender discrimination in the assignment of custody. Due to large selection effects [only fathers who think they have a chance, which is not most of them, fight for custody], it is not clear how much of the difference in custody assignment is due to gender discrimination by the system and how much by preference of divorcing parents; but feminists regularly claim that family court is in fact biased against women, and father's rights activists that family court is biased against men. It will almost certainly have one or the other bias in any particular time and place; and that bias is most likely against men at present.

2. Feminist organizations support a primary caregiver presumption. Within an environment in which mothers are assumed to be primary caregivers in the absence of other evidence, this amounts to a maternal presumption, as a primary caregiver father must disprove this assumption first in order to gain classification as primary caregiver.

3. Actual literature on joint physical custody finds it is at worst difficult to distinguish from other outcomes; and at best markedly superior. That is to say, there is no compelling empirical case against joint physical custody.

4. Equitable determination of sole custody is an epistemic nightmare. You can't tell. You really can't tell. Feminist groups acknowledge this when they talk about the difficulty of preventing [male] abusers from gaining custody [this also applies to female abusers, but feminist groups usually use masculine pronouns to refer to abusers]; father's rights groups acknowledge this when they talk about good fathers being overlooked in favor of bad mothers with good courtroom drama sense.

The only just solution, therefore, is mandating joint physical custody as the 'default' custody arrangement; that is, if custody arrangements cannot be negotiated out of court and neither parent can be proven unfit, we have no business running roughshod over one or the other parents' rights based on which one retained a better lawyer or appeals marginally better to the judge's personal biases. And feminism is opposed to such a mandate; because it's viewed as being in fathers' interests. [How it can be in fathers' interests if divorce court is biased against mothers?]

This is one of the cases in which feminism is not a movement working towards gender equity, but a movement working, intentionally or not, to preserve female privileges. Feminism is pro-woman in its activities; the logic used is that whatever the issue, it must be women who are being oppressed, and that therefore, being pro-woman is being pro-equality.

[Defensor]

Whatever, all I'm saying is, I don't want female SEAL's operatives coming to rescue my patrol out at sea. You think a woman would be able to carry a 200+ lbs man (not including full gear) while treading water for 2 hours while trying to get to safety and dodge bullets? I don't think so. All for equality, just not in some areas.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Whatever, all I'm saying is, I don't want female SEAL's operatives coming to rescue my patrol out at sea. You think a woman would be able to carry a 200+ lbs man (not including full gear) while treading water for 2 hours while trying to get to safety and dodge bullets? I don't think so. All for equality, just not in some areas.

If there's some really tough chick out there who CAN physically do everything that SEALs are expected to do, there is no reason not to send her out to rescue you.

If someone can't do the job, that's a separate issue from gender.

[Eoghania]

There's already a word for equality.

Egalitarianism.

[Tahar Joblis]

You think a woman would be able to carry a 200+ lbs man (not including full gear) while treading water for 2 hours while trying to get to safety and dodge bullets?

Yes. Keeping someone's head above the water for a long time has as much to do with net bouyancy than sheer strength, and a woman in really spectacularly good shape will still have a bit more of that than a man in similarly good shape. If anything, that's a task more women are going to be able to do comparably to a man than hauling the same man out of a tough spot above the water.

[Desperate Measures]

Whatever, all I'm saying is, I don't want female SEAL's operatives coming to rescue my patrol out at sea. You think a woman would be able to carry a 200+ lbs man (not including full gear) while treading water for 2 hours while trying to get to safety and dodge bullets? I don't think so. All for equality, just not in some areas.

If there's some really tough chick out there who CAN physically do everything that SEALs are expected to do, there is no reason not to send her out to rescue you.

If someone can't do the job, that's a separate issue from gender.

But how can he focus on surviving when there are boobs in close proximity?

[Gravlen]

If there's some really tough chick out there who CAN physically do everything that SEALs are expected to do, there is no reason not to send her out to rescue you.

If someone can't do the job, that's a separate issue from gender.

But how can he focus on surviving when there are boobs in close proximity?

If all soldiers just sat around staring at boobs there would be no war. That's not acceptable!

It's also why gays can't be in the armed services. They'd just confuse the straight soldiers, turning them gay and having them be unable to focus on anything other than the bulges of the other soldiers.

[Bottle]

We can get rid of the "fem" prefix when female and feminine people/things are not disproportionately shat upon.

So get to work, guys!