Replacing "Feminism"

[Ashmoria]

that's not a threat. that is reality. if you get divorced a judge has to decide what happens with your jointly owned property. what is so wrong with dividing it equally?

Because some things can't be divided equally. You can't take a saw to your house and cut it in half. If the house was payed for by both parties equally, who get it then? What if one party paid in full, but the other side gets it? Is that fair?

sometimes it is fair. sometimes it isn't. that is why we have judges.

[NERVUN]

that's not a threat. that is reality. if you get divorced a judge has to decide what happens with your jointly owned property. what is so wrong with dividing it equally?

Because some things can't be divided equally. You can't take a saw to your house and cut it in half. If the house was payed for by both parties equally, who get it then? What if one party paid in full, but the other side gets it? Is that fair?

Usually the reason women end up with the house is due to having primary custody of children... it's THEIR house in other words.

[Genivaria]

Because some things can't be divided equally. You can't take a saw to your house and cut it in half. If the house was payed for by both parties equally, who get it then? What if one party paid in full, but the other side gets it? Is that fair?

Usually the reason women end up with the house is due to having primary custody of children... it's THEIR house in other words.

Why do they primary custody?

[Ashmoria]

If you could prove that, then there would a legal issue. The thing is, though, property tends to be distributed regardless of who payed for it. If you payed for your house and cars in full, they are rightfully yours.

Um, no. Given the costs, especially of houses, both parties go in on it. I.e. My wife provided about half of the cost of our house, I'm providing the other half.

It's unlikely that in a marriage relationship one party is doing the sole providing of big ticket items that get split.

which is so unlike the past where women didn't work for pay and yet they would get the house and alimony and child support in the case of divorce. things are more equal in divorce now than it was when men and women were so much less equal.

what are divorce laws like in japan?

[Nailed to the Perch]

Usually the reason women end up with the house is due to having primary custody of children... it's THEIR house in other words.

Why do they primary custody?

More often than not, either because they sought it and the father didn't, or because they were the primary caregivers during the marriage and the father was not. The easiest way to get primary custody of your child after a divorce is to be the primary caregiver to the child while you're married. Courts quite reasonably tend to judge that children do best with caretakers who have already been taking care of them.

[NERVUN]

Usually the reason women end up with the house is due to having primary custody of children... it's THEIR house in other words.

Why do they primary custody?

Why do they usually end up with primary custody?

Might just be me, but given that, while it has improved a great deal, men on average spend about half the time that women do devoted to child care, women are the primary caregivers in many family situations. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20071588.html

what are divorce laws like in japan?

A mess, and as much as many people Stateside complain about the divorce laws in America, it's because they haven't had to deal with them in Japan. Pretty much there is NO such thing as joint custody in Japan. Whoever manages to get the kid first (Physically I mean) and then spring the divorce has the best chance of ending up with the child. The same for property.

It might change soon, with Japan possibly signing the Hague, but...

I admit that one thing I do like about Japan's divorce laws is that lack of sex is grounds for divorce, for both sides.

[Kamchastkia]

I support gender equality but not feminism. The thing about the majority of feminists is they tend to only see the inequalities for the women, and not the men. Men, traditionally lose custody battles for children, get drafted for wars (which women don't have to worry about), etc. I admit, most inequalities favor men and go against women, but it is not entirely true 100% of the time. At least until feminism adopts a GENDER NEUTRAL/GENDER EQUAL term, I will refuse to identify with it, even then I probably won't because it'd just be the same people.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I dislike how misandrists hide behind the feminist label.
I also dislike how when any male tries to bring up issues about men's rights he's automatically labeled a chauvinist and shunned.
I myself prefer the term Humanist if one must use a label.

That's hilarious. Please, tell me more about how we can counter systemic social discrimination against one group by pretending it effects people equally.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I support gender equality but not feminism. The thing about the majority of feminists is they tend to only see the inequalities for the women, and not the men. Men, traditionally lose custody battles for children, get drafted for wars (which women don't have to worry about), etc. I admit, most inequalities favor men and go against women, but it is not entirely true 100% of the time. At least until feminism adopts a GENDER NEUTRAL/GENDER EQUAL term, I will refuse to identify with it, even then I probably won't because it'd just be the same people.

Also feminists want to end the draft, and men don't seek custody more often than not.

The people who decide that movements comprising hundreds of thousands, millions, of supporters should bend their activities to their will or be undeserving of their support.

They do this not because they particularly care about a movement (in fact, it's a pretty strong indicator that they hold little interest in the advancement of its aims), they do this either because they view it with suspicion and think "well, if they're going to maybe get somewhere I'm at least going to get something out of it", or because they view it with outright hostility and think "this way I'll be able to condemn them for not doing x" (see, e.g.: "feminists don't do enough for men's rights, so I can't support them").

The people who do this, the people I was referring to, are fundamentally different to people who say "I wouldn't necessarily call myself a feminist because I don't support all of what you do, but I do support some of it". There is a good argument for engaging with these people on some issues; where interests overlap, or where they find themselves drawn to support a particular campaign. There is little point in attempting to get them to agree with the stuff they don't agree with - either they think what you're doing is right or they don't. Still; these people are useful, and are worth working with, but they must accept that they don't get to set the agenda and the movement shouldn't change to suit them. The people that egalitarian movements should really be reaching out to, though, are those who willingly offer their support because they feel that what that movement is trying to do is the right thing to do. Not those who ask for us to give them something in return. Qualified, conditional, support is barely support at all. There is no point whatsoever in wasting time with people that hold no interest in what the movement is trying to achieve, but will happily make demands of it for their own ends.

Why? Because here's the deal: progressive movements win. Movements that fight for recognition of rights of minorities win. Egalitarian movements win. Every time. It can take decades, but the result is always that those of us who seek recognition of equal rights, or equal treatment, or recognition of a minority group, are always on the winning side. Why waste time trying to convince people to support a movement when they don't believe in what it's trying to do? It's a complete waste of time and energy. If they don't believe that it's the right thing to do they will never believe that it's the right thing to do. If they say "I would support you, but I don't like that you don't do enough for men" then move on. If they say "I would support you, but feminism's for girls" then move on. All we have to do is wait for them to die and in the meantime keep spreading the message to those who are interested in what we're trying to do, even those who don't fully align themselves with the movement but who support some of its goals, and who think that what we're trying to do is the right thing to do. If they say "I like most of what you do, although maybe not x, but I'm happy to accept that I don't get to set the agenda and will support you on the things I like" then you have something to work with.

[Desperate Measures]

I just find it funny that my own personal life pretty much negates almost all of what you just said. I was married to a card carrying capital "F" Feminist. We had a divorce. Everything was split down the middle. We both share equal responsibility. Everything was just completely and awesomely divided and shared. Joint custody of our kid. No alimony payments (as we are both employed full time and we both find the time to take care of the kid - she's doing awesome, by the way). Our divorce has proven better than our marriage ever was. And I have to say that it was pretty much (besides us both being pretty cool people) almost a direct result of feminism. My kid is sleeping in the very next room because of this way of thinking and I couldn't be more grateful.

So you think it's just so awesome that all the goods, property, and other material items you owned, worked for, and payed over your whole life for were given to your wife for no reason? This is exactly why I don't buy that argument that marriage is anything but a property insurance contract. Always has been, and always will be until we change it or abolish the failing institution altogether. What you own should be yours.

What... what are you talking about? I wrote words that don't relate to your counter-argument and I'm unsure how to proceed. Um... wrong again? Yes. That works.

[Grandais]

Wanting to eliminate discrimination against women= Feminism
Wanting to eliminate discrimantion against both genders= Egalatarianism

Most feminists are both but focus their work on the former.

I imagined egalitarianism(sp) as being less about gender and more about equality in general.

[Genivaria]

I dislike how misandrists hide behind the feminist label.
I also dislike how when any male tries to bring up issues about men's rights he's automatically labeled a chauvinist and shunned.
I myself prefer the term Humanist if one must use a label.

That's hilarious. Please, tell me more about how we can counter systemic social discrimination against one group by pretending it effects people equally.

I really don't understand what you're saying.

[Genivaria]

Wanting to eliminate discrimination against women= Feminism
Wanting to eliminate discrimantion against both genders= Egalatarianism

Most feminists are both but focus their work on the former.

I imagined egalitarianism(sp) as being less about gender and more about equality in general.

It is.
Freedom is the Right of All Sentient Beings.
-Optimus Prime
^My hero.

[The Steel Magnolia]

That's hilarious. Please, tell me more about how we can counter systemic social discrimination against one group by pretending it effects people equally.

I really don't understand what you're saying.

I'm saying that using the term humanist is wishy washy bullshit that doesn't do shit to address inequalities. It implies that the problems faced by men and women are equal. They are not.

[Regnum Dominae]

If you ignore the nutters who call themselves "radfems", most of the movement (not all) is fine.

[Genivaria]

I really don't understand what you're saying.

I'm saying that using the term humanist is wishy washy bullshit that doesn't do shit to address inequalities. It implies that the problems faced by men and women are equal. They are not.

I fail to see how 'everyone should have equal rights and full liberty before the law' is in anyway 'wishy washy'.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I'm saying that using the term humanist is wishy washy bullshit that doesn't do shit to address inequalities. It implies that the problems faced by men and women are equal. They are not.

I fail to see how 'everyone should have equal rights and full liberty before the law' is in anyway 'wishy washy'.

Because it ignores systemic, institutionalized problems that minorities face. Saying everyone should have equal rights is great.

It's also useless if you want to actually counter discrimination and oppression. Men absolutely face problems under the current system, and they are negatively effected without a doubt?

Women? A bit more so, to say the least.

So it makes sense then, that we spend more resources and time and energy on the latter, and our movement is titled accordingly.

[Genivaria]

I fail to see how 'everyone should have equal rights and full liberty before the law' is in anyway 'wishy washy'.

Because it ignores systemic, institutionalized problems that minorities face. Saying everyone should have equal rights is great.

It's also useless if you want to actually counter discrimination and oppression. Men absolutely face problems under the current system, and they are negatively effected without a doubt?

Women? A bit more so, to say the least.

So it makes sense then, that we spend more resources and time and energy on the latter, and our movement is titled accordingly.

Thus causing further divisiveness by focusing on one group to the exclusion of all others.

[Regnum Dominae]

I admit that one thing I do like about Japan's divorce laws is that lack of sex is grounds for divorce, for both sides.

[Cannot think of a name]

Because it ignores systemic, institutionalized problems that minorities face. Saying everyone should have equal rights is great.

It's also useless if you want to actually counter discrimination and oppression. Men absolutely face problems under the current system, and they are negatively effected without a doubt?

Women? A bit more so, to say the least.

So it makes sense then, that we spend more resources and time and energy on the latter, and our movement is titled accordingly.

Thus causing further divisiveness by focusing on one group to the exclusion of all others.

I don't buy it.

Sorry, I just don't. I don't believe for a second this daycare-attitude nonsense that if they'd just give us some blocks to play with we'd all be okay with it.

I don't.

It just doesn't ring even remotely true.

Because if you're that immature, if you're that incapable of actually understanding the situation, if your actual, honest to god objection is that you don't get to play too, I don't think some sort of bullshit semantic name change is going to matter one fucking wit.

This is theater. What's worse, it's the kind of theater a 4 year old does because they can't grasp anything beyond their own desires.

These concepts aren't complicated. Adults are fully capable of understanding them. To pretend not to insults all involved, including those who put it forward.

[NERVUN]

I admit that one thing I do like about Japan's divorce laws is that lack of sex is grounds for divorce, for both sides.

I'm not sure I follow...

[NERVUN]

Thus causing further divisiveness by focusing on one group to the exclusion of all others.

I don't buy it.

Sorry, I just don't. I don't believe for a second this daycare-attitude nonsense that if they'd just give us some blocks to play with we'd all be okay with it.

I don't.

It just doesn't ring even remotely true.

Because if you're that immature, if you're that incapable of actually understanding the situation, if your actual, honest to god objection is that you don't get to play too, I don't think some sort of bullshit semantic name change is going to matter one fucking wit.

This is theater. What's worse, it's the kind of theater a 4 year old does because they can't grasp anything beyond their own desires.

These concepts aren't complicated. Adults are fully capable of understanding them. To pretend not to insults all involved, including those who put it forward.

A-wha-huh?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Because it ignores systemic, institutionalized problems that minorities face. Saying everyone should have equal rights is great.

It's also useless if you want to actually counter discrimination and oppression. Men absolutely face problems under the current system, and they are negatively effected without a doubt?

Women? A bit more so, to say the least.

So it makes sense then, that we spend more resources and time and energy on the latter, and our movement is titled accordingly.

Thus causing further divisiveness by focusing on one group to the exclusion of all others.

In a perfect world you'd be right.

Sadly, this isn't perfect, and you kinda you know actually have to focus on one group to deal with the problems they face.

Or do you think the civil rights movement for blacks should have focused on the poor whitey too?

I'm legitimately disappointed that you'd make that argument.

[Distruzio]

OP doesn't understand feminism, seeks to eliminate feminism. news at 11.

[Regnum Dominae]

I'm not sure I follow...

Read the last line of my sig, you'll understand.