Criticisms of Feminism

[Jormengand]

Feminism, by definition, does not mean equality of genders. It... strides for the equal rights

So which is it?

[Apollion]

Feminism, by definition, does not mean equality of genders. It... strides for the equal rights

So which is it?

Ignoring the paraphrasing, there is a subtle yet significant difference. Feminism is an advocacy movement that represents women based on the principle of equality. Meaning women are at the ideological center of the movement (and vice versa for masculism). Whilst gender egalitarianism, although admittedly broad in scope, represents all genders (including agender and non-gender) equally.

[Jormengand]

So which is it?

Ignoring the paraphrasing, there is a subtle yet significant difference. Feminism is an advocacy movement that represents women based on the principle of equality. Meaning women are at the ideological center of the movement (and vice versa for masculism). Whilst gender egalitarianism, although admittedly broad in scope, represents all genders (including agender and non-gender) equally.

So...

Feminism advocates equality and women's rights (and therefore by extension men's rights), and egalitarianism advocates equality and women's rights and men's rights?

[Tahar Joblis]

Ignoring the paraphrasing, there is a subtle yet significant difference. Feminism is an advocacy movement that represents women based on the principle of equality. Meaning women are at the ideological center of the movement (and vice versa for masculism). Whilst gender egalitarianism, although admittedly broad in scope, represents all genders (including agender and non-gender) equally.

So...

Feminism advocates equality and women's rights (and therefore by extension men's rights), and egalitarianism advocates equality and women's rights and men's rights?

Advocating for women's rights on the basis of an appeal to equality is not the same as advocating for men's rights. The appeal to definition fails on two grounds. First, the definition offered isn't actually universal (and is, in the grand scheme of things, inadequate on a descriptive basis). Second, when dealing with the most typical forms of definition, such as the one in discussion in your current chain of responses, it conflates rhetorical justification with action.

The "dictionary" definition has varied - sometimes subtly and sometimes quite significantly, we have unfolded some of those dictionary definitions very carefully here on NSG - and its present form is as much a consequence of political pressure as good lexicography.

feminism

[From Latin femina: woman.]

(politics) A movement of 20-century politics holding that the rights of women are equal to those of men. Feminism is sometimes extended to assert that women are superior to men in ethics (e.g., more sensitive or altruistic) or even in epistemology (e.g., more wise or insightful).

Here we have an explicit acknowledgement that feminists - yes, actual feminists - sometimes assert the superiority of women, as well as acknowledging that the claim of equal rights is central.

feminism
Commitment to the abolition of male domination in human society. Feminists differ widely in their accounts of the origins of patriarchy, their analyses of its most common consequences, and their concrete proposals for overcoming it, but all share in the recognition that the subordination of women to men in our culture is indefensible and eliminable. Many feminist philosophers oppose Cartesian dualism, scientific objectivity, and traditional theories of moral obligation as instances of masculine over-reliance on reason. Serious attention to the experiences of women would offer a more adequate account of human life.

Recommended Reading: The Cambridge Companion to Feminism in Philosophy, ed. by Miranda Fricker and Jennifer Hornsby (Cambridge, 2000); The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory, ed. by Linda Nicholson (Routledge, 1997); A Companion to Feminist Philosphy, ed. by Alison M. Jaggar and Iris Marion Young (Blackwell, 1999); Seyla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, Nancy Fraser, and Linda J. Nicholson, Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange (Routledge, 1995); Feminist Theory and the Body, ed. by Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick (Routledge, 1999); Sandra Harding, Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives (Cornell, 1991); and Eva Feder Kittay, Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency (Routledge, 1998).

Also see EB, SEP on feminist topics, epistemology and philosophy of science, social epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, history of philosophy, perspectives on the self, and approaches to the intersection of pragmatism and continental philosophy, Kristin Switala, Judit Hell, IEP, Krishna Mallick, and Olga Voronina.

Gender equality didn't make it into this one at all.

fem·i·nism (fĕmə-nĭz′əm)
Share:
n.
1. Belief in or advocacy of women's social, political, and economic rights, especially with regard to equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

Note "equality" is shoe-horned in under the clause "especially with regard to." It's not actually necessary, in meeting this definition, to believe in equality of the sexes, it simply happens to be a common justification for advocacy on behalf of women's social, political, and economic rights.

feminism
Syllabification: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: /ˈfeməˌnizəm/
Definition of feminism in English:
noun

The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
The issue of rights for women first became prominent during the French and American revolutions in the late 18th century. In Britain it was not until the emergence of the suffragette movement in the late 19th century that there was significant political change. A ‘second wave’ of feminism arose in the 1960s, with an emphasis on unity and sisterhood.

I have emphasized an important group of four words. You do not need to believe in gender equality to be a feminist per this definition, either; this definition says that feminists invoke equality as the justification for advocacy of women's rights. You can do this independent of actually believing in gender equality, or advocating for men's rights in the cases where they are inferior to women's rights. (E.g., parental rights.)

feminism (ˈfɛmɪˌnɪzəm Pronunciation for feminism )

Definitions
noun

a doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women

Closest match so far for you - but feminism refers to doctrine or movement. Which is to say that simply being a movement explicitly advocating equal rights for women suffices, even if (as with the "Ism Book" definition above at the start) some of its members assert, implicitly or explicitly, female superiority.

feminism

NOUN [UNCOUNTABLE] feminism pronunciation in American English /ˈfemɪˌnɪzəm/
the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men

Same rights and opportunities. Note, by the way, we have a lot of significant variation in terms of the scope of "equality." The Collins version didn't refer to opportunities (just rights) while the MacMillian version includes opportunities. (We can, historically, identify people in both camps as feminist ... or not feminist.)

feminism
noun fem·i·nism \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\

1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Mirriam-Webster. First definition refers back to a theory - the ideology described in the philosophical dictionary, really - while the second refers to a movement acting for women's interests (as well as rights). We've gone from "rights" to "rights and opportunities" to "rights and interests." Interesting, no?

feminism
noun [U] /ˈfem·əˌnɪz·əm/ US
› world history an organized effort to give women the same economic, social, and political rights as men

Here feminism refers to the effort - again, to the movement.

So what we see in the meta-analysis of these different definitions is that there are several distinct things that are being lumped under the term "feminism." Descriptively, the word is used to refer to movements that have typically (but not always, historically speaking) used the rhetoric of equality to justify advocacy on behalf of women's interests, but which includes people who appear to think that women are in some ways superior to men. Descriptively, Valerie Solanas was a feminist (at least until she was committed to a mental institution for criminal insanity), even though her beliefs were very far from gender equality. She was an intimate of the movement and her work resided inside of the radical branch of feminism. Descriptively, Warren Farrell is no longer a feminist (having lost most of his ties to the movement and concentrated his attention on men and boys), even though he firmly believes in gender equality.

Feminism also refers to the ideologies associated with this movement. The Oxford definition is in some way the most insightful: Equality is the justification for advocacy on behalf of women. Use of this justification for action on behalf of women's interests more or less requires the belief that that women are disadvantaged. Pursuit of these ideologies may end up with the assertion that women are in some sense superior to men.

As you can see, though, "the" definition of feminism is not universally held by experts to be what you claim it is - and what you are objecting to, the description of feminism in terms of being a movement, which is to say identifiable group, with its members (defined by their presence within the movement in spite of whatever their beliefs might be) being called feminists, is actually not at all unusual.

[Jormengand]

Advocating for women's rights on the basis of an appeal to equality is not the same as advocating for men's rights.

No, it's not the same as it, but it implies it.

Women should have rights.
Women and men should have equal rights.
Therefore men should have rights.

Geddit? There's no way you can believe in women's rights and equal rights and not believe in men's rights, because women having rights and men not having them would be - gosh - unequal.

[Tahar Joblis]

MRAism exists and the matriarchy does not.

MRA (Christina Hoff-Sommers joined a voice for men, again) exist not due some fictional matriarchy, but due they're defending male privileges: some of them really believe they're oppressed because they do not recognise their privileges, some others are simply misogynists.

Christina Hoff Sommers, or her media managers, permitted AVFM to purchase the appropriate license to republish articles of hers originally published in TIME magazine. AVFM is far from the only website that has republished her articles.

This is the article which started the anti-MRAs' rhetorical line about CHS having "joined" AVFM. As you can see, it was published in TIME. You can note that this article was widely recirculated and discussed outside of MRA circles independent of AVFM's republication of the piece.

This has been your periodic warning not to rely on what Chessmistress says, as it is frequently not accurate.

[Tahar Joblis]

Advocating for women's rights on the basis of an appeal to equality is not the same as advocating for men's rights.

No, it's not the same as it, but it implies it.

It implies that feminists ought to advocate on behalf of men's rights, and that not doing so would make them hypocrites.

It does not, however, defend them against the accusation that they are hypocrites, and in practice will fight against men's rights whenever they are perceived as conflicting with women's interests. And again, that's not actually a universal definition for feminism. The above post quotes several definitions that note that belief in female superiority sometimes falls under the aegis of feminism.

Women should have rights.
Women and men should have equal rights.
Therefore men should have rights.

Geddit? There's no way you can believe in women's rights and equal rights and not believe in men's rights, because women having rights and men not having them would be - gosh - unequal.

If you think that it's impossible for people to hold contradictory beliefs, engage in hypocrisy, or fail to adequately evaluate reality, then you are very naive.

First and foremost, surveys have frequently uncovered not only inconsistent beliefs that contradict each other indirectly, but have shown that people have, to a degree, malleable opinions that vary by circumstance. Second, hypocritical behavior has been well-known for a very long time. Third, psychologists have demonstrated that many people reason from position to justification, rather than the reverse. Specifically in regard to sexism, we have seen that isn't unusual for people to interpret lack of sexism as the presence of sexism based on self-serving biases.

As I have pointed out previously, major feminist organizations insist that child custody assignment in the US is biased against women. Many also fought against liberalization of child custody laws to remove the explicit maternal preference that was once present in them. Judges are actually biased in favor of women. Feminist organizations' exhibited beliefs on the topic are very false. But feminists' beliefs are influenced by female-centered ("gynocentric") priorities.

Does this make those feminists hypocrites? For most of them, yes, as they theoretically affirm gender equality as a principle, but that principle does not translate into egalitarian action.

[Jormengand]

It implies that feminists ought to advocate on behalf of men's rights, and that not doing so would make them hypocrites.

It does not, however, defend them against the accusation that they are hypocrites, and in practice will fight against men's rights whenever they are perceived as conflicting with women's interests. And again, that's not actually a universal definition for feminism. The above post quotes several definitions that note that belief in female superiority sometimes falls under the aegis of feminism.

If you think that it's impossible for people to hold contradictory beliefs, engage in hypocrisy, or fail to adequately evaluate reality, then you are very naive.

First and foremost, surveys have frequently uncovered not only inconsistent beliefs that contradict each other indirectly, but have shown that people have, to a degree, malleable opinions that vary by circumstance. Second, hypocritical behavior has been well-known for a very long time. Third, psychologists have demonstrated that many people reason from position to justification, rather than the reverse. Specifically in regard to sexism, we have seen that isn't unusual for people to interpret lack of sexism as the presence of sexism based on self-serving biases.

As I have pointed out previously, major feminist organizations insist that child custody assignment in the US is biased against women. Many also fought against liberalization of child custody laws to remove the explicit maternal preference that was once present in them. Judges are actually biased in favor of women. Feminist organizations' exhibited beliefs on the topic are very false. But feminists' beliefs are influenced by female-centered ("gynocentric") priorities.

Does this make those feminists hypocrites? For most of them, yes, as they theoretically affirm gender equality as a principle, but that principle does not translate into egalitarian action.

So basically your argument is now that being misandrist doesn't mean you're not fighting for equality, it just makes you hypocritical? Right, we're done here.

[Tahar Joblis]

It implies that feminists ought to advocate on behalf of men's rights, and that not doing so would make them hypocrites.

It does not, however, defend them against the accusation that they are hypocrites, and in practice will fight against men's rights whenever they are perceived as conflicting with women's interests. And again, that's not actually a universal definition for feminism. The above post quotes several definitions that note that belief in female superiority sometimes falls under the aegis of feminism.

If you think that it's impossible for people to hold contradictory beliefs, engage in hypocrisy, or fail to adequately evaluate reality, then you are very naive.

First and foremost, surveys have frequently uncovered not only inconsistent beliefs that contradict each other indirectly, but have shown that people have, to a degree, malleable opinions that vary by circumstance. Second, hypocritical behavior has been well-known for a very long time. Third, psychologists have demonstrated that many people reason from position to justification, rather than the reverse. Specifically in regard to sexism, we have seen that isn't unusual for people to interpret lack of sexism as the presence of sexism based on self-serving biases.

As I have pointed out previously, major feminist organizations insist that child custody assignment in the US is biased against women. Many also fought against liberalization of child custody laws to remove the explicit maternal preference that was once present in them. Judges are actually biased in favor of women. Feminist organizations' exhibited beliefs on the topic are very false. But feminists' beliefs are influenced by female-centered ("gynocentric") priorities.

Does this make those feminists hypocrites? For most of them, yes, as they theoretically affirm gender equality as a principle, but that principle does not translate into egalitarian action.

So basically your argument is now that being misandrist doesn't mean you're not fighting for equality, it just makes you hypocritical? Right, we're done here.

Sexist action means you're not fighting for equality, whether or not you employ the rhetoric of equality or even believe in gender equality in the abstract.

The most accurate defining characteristic of feminism as a movement, as it has existed, is that it acts in women's interest. Yes, the rhetoric of equality is frequently employed, and some definitions refer to that rhetoric. And? Even that inclusion still doesn't establish the claim you made that feminism acts on behalf of men's rights when doing so advances the cause of equality.

Hypocrisy is nothing new on the face of the world.

[Forsher]

If patriarchy wouldn't exists, Feminism would have no reason to exist.

No, it wouldn't have a good reason to exist. That's a very different thing.

The Patriarchy doesn't exist. That's a radical feminist conflation. However, the the is not present so moving on...

Patriarchy, in the sense of patriarchal society, does exist. However, if you are going to argue that feminism is defined as the anti-patriarchal movement (as seems to be the case in both Salandriagado and Chessmistress' posts) you have a big problem because then it's not a movement for equal "rights" it's something that is against something, which is not as strong a position to hold. It also begs the question of whether or not feminism would fight matriarchy. This is a big problem because, you know, when you talk to feminists (radfems aside) they will define feminism positively (i.e. it's for something) and, assuming that matriarchal society has similar issues to patriarchal society, there is no definitional reason to wonder whether or not feminists would oppose it. In other words, framing feminism in the way we see above just doesn't tally with the stated rationales of feminism/most feminists (or, at least, internet ones).

Of course, as I have explained in the past (and a few pages ago), feminism's perspective also misses quite a few problems that are as a result of patriarchal society so framing it like that doesn't even work if you want to isolate what feminism is like in practice. Furthermore, one also finds that feminism's perspective is generally flawed when it comes to helping it fight the good fight but that doesn't mean its rationale isn't equal rights (which, obviously, it approaches from a female perspective; although, generally, that perspective is wealthy white women: middle class is wealthy btw*).

I've put rights in quotation marks because we really mean something broader than rights, which is all very well and good.

*Which is obvious if you actually think about it.

Feminism, by definition, does not mean equality of genders. It... strides for the equal rights

So which is it?

When you remove words from context it is possible to create contradictions that do not exist.

Ignoring the paraphrasing, there is a subtle yet significant difference. Feminism is an advocacy movement that represents women based on the principle of equality. Meaning women are at the ideological center of the movement (and vice versa for masculism). Whilst gender egalitarianism, although admittedly broad in scope, represents all genders (including agender and non-gender) equally.

So...

Feminism advocates equality and women's rights (and therefore by extension men's rights), and egalitarianism advocates equality and women's rights and men's rights?

No, feminism advocates for women's rights which aren't by extension men's rights. It does so on the grounds of equality, which is not the same as saying that it advocates equality... that is its rationale for agitating for women's rights. However, that does mean that feminism does not advocate for female privilege and it does mean that anyone who believes in the superiority of women isn't a feminist (because that belief is contrary to the premise that feminists have, i.e. men and women should be equal).

Women's rights aren't men's rights by extension because it's more complex than this. They are also not not equivalent because they are in opposition (i.e. men's rights are not in opposition to women's rights and vice versa).

Advocating for women's rights on the basis of an appeal to equality is not the same as advocating for men's rights.

No, it's not the same as it, but it implies it.

Women should have rights.
Women and men should have equal rights.
Therefore men should have rights.

Geddit? There's no way you can believe in women's rights and equal rights and not believe in men's rights, because women having rights and men not having them would be - gosh - unequal.

But we're not talking about belief, we are talking about advocacy. So it's really:

Men and women should have equal rights. (the rationale that all feminists must share)
Therefore, we shall advocate for women's rights. (what feminists do)

That is feminism's logic. It works pretty well when women (as was the case until very recently) were unambiguously and very clearly more disadvantaged. Since then the situation has become more complex and the issues involved that need solving more complex and less open (in the developed, Western world; large areas of the globe are still in the former state). The problem is that this logic means that feminism approaches the issue of equality from a female perspective. With the more complex state, that perspective's utility is lessened (especially given that it is still dominated by the wealthy white female perspective as well, despite attempts to address this). For example, see my discussion here when I start talking about perspective.

This is a good definition, in my eyes, because it captures the understanding of people in general (as opposed to the biased and heated perspectives you get in threads like this) for whom feminism is understood as something like the above. If you walked out on a busy street and did vox pops with this, most people will agree with you. But, it's also a definition that captures the beliefs of feminism (a feminist must unambiguously agree with the equality of men and women) and one that explains the practical reality that we see (advocacy of women's rights from a female perspective; again using that broad meaning of rights). It also shows how to reconcile feminism's beliefs with the fact that it does seem to ignore male issues without excluding the possibility that some feminists can transcend that female perspective. And with a little knowledge of people, it shows how one can reconcile some feminists saying that feminism is for men as well and other ones, er, not. And it does this without being enormously complicated and it doesn't have gaps: it's robust.

[New Edom]

No, it wouldn't have a good reason to exist. That's a very different thing.

The Patriarchy doesn't exist. That's a radical feminist conflation. However, the the is not present so moving on...

Patriarchy, in the sense of patriarchal society, does exist. However, if you are going to argue that feminism is defined as the anti-patriarchal movement (as seems to be the case in both Salandriagado and Chessmistress' posts) you have a big problem because then it's not a movement for equal "rights" it's something that is against something, which is not as strong a position to hold. It also begs the question of whether or not feminism would fight matriarchy. This is a big problem because, you know, when you talk to feminists (radfems aside) they will define feminism positively (i.e. it's for something) and, assuming that matriarchal society has similar issues to patriarchal society, there is no definitional reason to wonder whether or not feminists would oppose it. In other words, framing feminism in the way we see above just doesn't tally with the stated rationales of feminism/most feminists (or, at least, internet ones).

Of course, as I have explained in the past (and a few pages ago), feminism's perspective also misses quite a few problems that are as a result of patriarchal society so framing it like that doesn't even work if you want to isolate what feminism is like in practice. Furthermore, one also finds that feminism's perspective is generally flawed when it comes to helping it fight the good fight but that doesn't mean its rationale isn't equal rights (which, obviously, it approaches from a female perspective; although, generally, that perspective is wealthy white women: middle class is wealthy btw*).

I've put rights in quotation marks because we really mean something broader than rights, which is all very well and good.

*Which is obvious if you actually think about it.

So which is it?

When you remove words from context it is possible to create contradictions that do not exist.

So...

Feminism advocates equality and women's rights (and therefore by extension men's rights), and egalitarianism advocates equality and women's rights and men's rights?

No, feminism advocates for women's rights which aren't by extension men's rights. It does so on the grounds of equality, which is not the same as saying that it advocates equality... that is its rationale for agitating for women's rights. However, that does mean that feminism does not advocate for female privilege and it does mean that anyone who believes in the superiority of women isn't a feminist (because that belief is contrary to the premise that feminists have, i.e. men and women should be equal).

Women's rights aren't men's rights by extension because it's more complex than this. They are also not not equivalent because they are in opposition (i.e. men's rights are not in opposition to women's rights and vice versa).

No, it's not the same as it, but it implies it.

Women should have rights.
Women and men should have equal rights.
Therefore men should have rights.

Geddit? There's no way you can believe in women's rights and equal rights and not believe in men's rights, because women having rights and men not having them would be - gosh - unequal.

But we're not talking about belief, we are talking about advocacy. So it's really:

Men and women should have equal rights. (the rationale that all feminists must share)
Therefore, we shall advocate for women's rights. (what feminists do)

That is feminism's logic. It works pretty well when women (as was the case until very recently) were unambiguously and very clearly more disadvantaged. Since then the situation has become more complex and the issues involved that need solving more complex and less open (in the developed, Western world; large areas of the globe are still in the former state). The problem is that this logic means that feminism approaches the issue of equality from a female perspective. With the more complex state, that perspective's utility is lessened (especially given that it is still dominated by the wealthy white female perspective as well, despite attempts to address this). For example, see my discussion here when I start talking about perspective.

This is a good definition, in my eyes, because it captures the understanding of people in general (as opposed to the biased and heated perspectives you get in threads like this) for whom feminism is understood as something like the above. If you walked out on a busy street and did vox pops with this, most people will agree with you. But, it's also a definition that captures the beliefs of feminism (a feminist must unambiguously agree with the equality of men and women) and one that explains the practical reality that we see (advocacy of women's rights from a female perspective; again using that broad meaning of rights). It also shows how to reconcile feminism's beliefs with the fact that it does seem to ignore male issues without excluding the possibility that some feminists can transcend that female perspective. And with a little knowledge of people, it shows how one can reconcile some feminists saying that feminism is for men as well and other ones, er, not. And it does this without being enormously complicated and it doesn't have gaps: it's robust.

Generally i agree with the perspectives presented here.

I think that the increasing complexity is often ignored in popular feminist rhetoric, which often states things as though little has changed since the 1970s when in fact a great deal has changed. This doesn't mean that both men and women do not suffer inequalities, but because I think it is a belief of most feminists that women suffer from this so much more than men and in more important ways any perspective offered by men is seen from what I can understand is a trick to undermine feminism unless done in a few particular ways:

1. White knighting (men defending women and standing firmly behind women to support them in their endeavors)

2. Men who 'don't fit the gender binary' ie men who are not conventionally heterosexual by the standards of many modern societies

3. Men who are expiating their sins against women. These men tend to be giving up their privilege in some very visible way as a kind of act of piety.

So anything that falls outside of these three are often presented by feminists as being ignorance or misogyny. This is unfortunate because sometimes what is presented is a very egaltiarian perspective but not a feminist one.

[Umcara]

http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=426760

[Haktiva]

Has this been posted yet?

7 Legal Rights And Privileges Afforded Only To Women
Lina Bryce, May 5, 2015

#1. Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die
When a man turns 18, he is required by law to register for the selective service. While technically the draft has been eliminated in the United States thanks to the work of Milton Friedman, there is still a registry in case the government ever decide that it’s important to sacrifice the lives of a few hundred thousand young men.
Women in America enjoy the privilege of being able to exercise their constitutional rights without also have to be obligated to die in defense of those rights.

I actually like the idea of men and women being drafted in a system similar to the Swiss Militia system, which is actually close to what the Constitution of the US talks about as far as I can tell.

#2. Women Have Genital Integrity Rights
Circumcision of men is a practice that is legal, and despite that fact, that it is illegal to cut any part of a female infant’s genitalia. Many parents fail to see the double standard in this custom. This is done without consent and only to male infants and children.
Many articles and research devoted to the study of female genitalia mutilation in other parts of the world as common practice, or “Female Circumcision” , questioning whether it is a rite of passage or a violation of rights without giving a thought to the fact that boys are victims to this practice today in America. Many argue, unwittingly, that it is not as harsh as FGM.

Eh. I'm unable to care for the most part, I'll admit considering my background. It is messed up from a personal choice standpoint and I do see the process as outdated, even some Rabbis argue against it, but it hasn't negatively affected me and I don't want kids so it's not an issue for me. For others, yeah they should really require permission rom the parents, and even then I dunno if it's necessary anymore to continue on.

#3. Women Have The Right To Choose Parenthood
While feminists fight declare that women do not have “equal rights”, here’s another example how the result is women with “special rights”. Women have three legal options to absolve themselves morally and financially with the responsibility for children they do not want or intend to keep.
1. Women may abort the child before it is born
2. Put the child up for adoption (without having to notify or identify the father)
3. A woman may leave the infant, in accordance to Safe Haven law in the state and walk away.
Additionally, there isn’t one state that makes it legal for paternal surrender without the written consent of the mother.
As a woman, I cannot be forced into parenthood, but have all the legal power to force a man into providing financial support for my choice to. Depending on what state one lives, men can be forced to pay for children even if they are not the biological father.
Although I may have personal reservations about whether changing these laws would help to make more fathers step up to the responsibility, I still believe that these laws work to undermine equality and give ‘special’ rights where women claim to have less.
#4. Women Have The Right To Be Assumed Caregivers
When fighting for legal custody today, laws in many states assume that one is a primary caregiver and one tertiary caregiver. Typically the primary caregiver is a woman. There is such a thing as “shared custody”, however it requires that the tertiary caregiver must sue to prove the ability to be worthy of equal parenting, which is difficult and costly.
The legal presumption of shared parenting upon divorce – that children have a legal right to an equal relationship with both their mother and their father following relationship breakdown – is strongly resisted by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other feminist organizations who know that women will almost always win custody of children under the default laws.
In actual fact, men who can afford to purse legal remedies and challenge primary custody stand a good chance of winning, because women do not have the market cornered on loving or caring for children. So while the law does not specifically indicate that custody will be awarded to women, the defacto result of primary/tertiary caregiver custody law is that women have a legal right to be assumed caregivers for children. Men do not.

One of the bones of contention I have with the current system. Kids are a big deal, yeah, and I will argue that women have an advantage when getting them, and they sure aren't afraid to use the kids as a weapon.

#5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape
This Mad Men scene hardly stirred a conversation after it aired like it typically would have if the roles were reversed. It’s understood that in our society, women have agency over their bodies, and any hint of coercion into sexual interaction is seen as a violation of a woman’s rights. But for men, it is believed that they “must have wanted it.”
This applies to many situations, especially those cases where female teachers have sex with their underage male students. The double standard reached into the legal system, where men receive harsher sentences for the same crimes, while women generally lighter ones.

And people wonder why guys aren't buying girls drinks anymore. At least on certain college campuses.

#6. Women have domestic violence shelters and government housing benefits
Men are generally not eligible to receive aid from domestic violence shelters. There are no court advocacy programs for male victims of domestic violence, and men and their children are not eligible for state and federal money for housing like women are if they are abused. As of now, there is only one shelter for male victims of domestic violence, the Valley Oasis Shelter. Women have approximately 1,800.

Most guys end up on the street in situations I've come across. Not a pretty sight.

#7. Women have the right to exclusive benefits for being a business owner
Own a small business? If you’re a woman you can get significant benefits from the government. There are multitudes of resources available to women that are not available to men such as loans and tax breaks. There’s even free grant money available with direct appropriations coming out of the taxpayer’s wallet to give women a leg-up in starting businesses.
The Small Business Administration aggressively polices male owned businesses that try to pass themselves off as female owned.
From the SBA:
"If you are a male-owned business and you make your wife or another woman 51 percent owner of the stock in order to qualify for 8(a) benefits, you are spinning your wheels. The SBA auditor will know what you are doing: 51 percent ownership is a red flag. Similarly, if the auditor comes to your office and sees that the male’s office is bigger than the female’s, you are not going to be certified. You must be able to show that the business is managed and controlled on a daily basis by a woman, and that the woman is the person who makes the day-to-day decisions of the company."

.... As a libertarian I don't believe in government subsidies for the most part anyways.
So tell us more about this patriarchy you speak of?
[url]http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/7-legal-rights-and-privi…/[/url]

[Lake Mead]

If feminism entails equality between men and women under the law and society (and by extension the creator), I support it. However, I tend to distance myself from the "Tumblr" wave that seems to make every issue a gender issue.

I also oppose the men who act as if feminism is somehow "oppression." One of my favorite scientific channels on YouTube sponsored a project geared towards their female demographic, and they were brutally attacked in comments by the privileged.

[Haktiva]

A little something from Turd Flinging Monkey