Feminism in decline

[MERIZoC]

Oh yes, the Republican Congressmen trying to limit female access to birth control are all feminists.

You aren't really reading, are you?

They will, by the way, similarly be interested in "limiting access" to male birth control pills once they come out. If they continue to try to block birth control pills at all. But right now, that's a hypothetical future as far as Republicans are concerned, and they'll start reacting once they see it.

Now, right now, your typical feminist will speak in favor of a male birth control pill. But if men start using it, it takes much of the power over reproduction out of women's hands. I expect that as with child custody laws, feminists will find reasons - as in the above - to oppose the actual use of the pill and lobby for restrictions.

Expect all you want. Your assumptions about what a few self described feminists might do in the future is hardly an argument against feminism.

[Ostroeuropa]

You aren't really reading, are you?

They will, by the way, similarly be interested in "limiting access" to male birth control pills once they come out. If they continue to try to block birth control pills at all. But right now, that's a hypothetical future as far as Republicans are concerned, and they'll start reacting once they see it.

Now, right now, your typical feminist will speak in favor of a male birth control pill. But if men start using it, it takes much of the power over reproduction out of women's hands. I expect that as with child custody laws, feminists will find reasons - as in the above - to oppose the actual use of the pill and lobby for restrictions.

Expect all you want. Your assumptions about what a few self described feminists might do in the future is hardly an argument against feminism.

No, but their actions in the past are a good argument as to what to expect from them in the future, and that becomes a good argument as to why we should cripple their power before they can.

[Divitaen]

Expect all you want. Your assumptions about what a few self described feminists might do in the future is hardly an argument against feminism.

No, but their actions in the past are a good argument as to what to expect from them in the future, and that becomes a good argument as to why we should cripple their power before they can.

No, but in this case he is making the argument that feminists in the future will oppose male birth control, when there is no real logical reason to do so. How is that analogous to anything feminists currently support or oppose?

[Ostroeuropa]

You aren't really reading, are you?

They will, by the way, similarly be interested in "limiting access" to male birth control pills once they come out. If they continue to try to block birth control pills at all. But right now, that's a hypothetical future as far as Republicans are concerned, and they'll start reacting once they see it.

Now, right now, your typical feminist will speak in favor of a male birth control pill. But if men start using it, it takes much of the power over reproduction out of women's hands. I expect that as with child custody laws, feminists will find reasons - as in the above - to oppose the actual use of the pill and lobby for restrictions.

Umm wait, I'm kind of confused. It sounds like an interesting point you are making there. Why would a feminist wish to limit male access to male contraception pills? It seems that they should be in favour of bodily sovereignty and autonomy, in the same way as we feminists support principles of reproductive sovereignty for women. How does the male pill contravene women's reproductive health?

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE.

If a man and woman are trying to have a baby, and he's secretly on the pill, every time they have sex, he's raping her. We're not against men having contraception, no no no, it just needs to be clearly visible contraception.

Or whatever. They don't really seem to have any shame when they pull this shit. They just come out with a really dodgy or shit argument, and attack and socially shame people for opposing it, demand they be fired from their positions, etc.
Basically use all their social and institutional power to oppress people, then whine about being oppressed because they lack institutional power.

See:
Duluth model
NOW opposes shared parenting

etc.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, but their actions in the past are a good argument as to what to expect from them in the future, and that becomes a good argument as to why we should cripple their power before they can.

No, but in this case he is making the argument that feminists in the future will oppose male birth control, when there is no real logical reason to do so. How is that analogous to anything feminists currently support or oppose?

Duluth model and NOW opposing shared parenting.
Those are just two examples that spring immediately to mind.
You're looking for a logical reason to do it? There is none. They just hate men.

Or rather, their ideological worldview forces them to be indistinguishable from someone who hates men, and I suspect they must hate men anyway in order to buy into the theories.

[Divitaen]

Umm wait, I'm kind of confused. It sounds like an interesting point you are making there. Why would a feminist wish to limit male access to male contraception pills? It seems that they should be in favour of bodily sovereignty and autonomy, in the same way as we feminists support principles of reproductive sovereignty for women. How does the male pill contravene women's reproductive health?

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE.

If a man and woman are trying to have a baby, and he's secretly on the pill, every time they have sex, he's raping her. We're not against men having contraception, no no no, it just needs to be clearly visible contraception.

Or whatever. They don't really seem to have any shame when they pull this shit. They just come out with a really dodgy or shit argument, and attack and socially shame people for opposing it, demand they be fired from their positions, etc.
Basically use all their social and institutional power to oppress people, then whine about being oppressed because they lack institutional power.

See:
Duluth model
NOW opposes shared parenting

etc.

Umm what.

It doesn't seem analogous though. Why would feminists care about that? A woman doesn't have the right to force men to make babies for her. If anything, feminists would be very much against that sort of perspective, because it legitimises men forcing women to make babies for them and vice versa.

Also, could you provide me a link for the Duluth model and NOW's position? Because I'm honestly not informed about that.

[Ostroeuropa]

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE.

If a man and woman are trying to have a baby, and he's secretly on the pill, every time they have sex, he's raping her. We're not against men having contraception, no no no, it just needs to be clearly visible contraception.

Or whatever. They don't really seem to have any shame when they pull this shit. They just come out with a really dodgy or shit argument, and attack and socially shame people for opposing it, demand they be fired from their positions, etc.
Basically use all their social and institutional power to oppress people, then whine about being oppressed because they lack institutional power.

See:
Duluth model
NOW opposes shared parenting

etc.

Umm what.

It doesn't seem analogous though. Why would feminists care about that? A woman doesn't have the right to force men to make babies for her. If anything, feminists would be very much against that sort of perspective, because it legitimises men forcing women to make babies for them and vice versa.

Also, could you provide me a link for the Duluth model and NOW's position? Because I'm honestly not informed about that.

Why would feminists care? Because it's data that goes against their worldview. It's an area men need to be brought up to equal with women that can't be rationalized into misogyny. They will oppose it so they can continue to deny such a thing is ever possible. Plus, the female supremacist strain of their movement will oppose it in order to skew power towards women.
Then there are the delusional feminists who think women need to be "raised" to be equal with men tend to oppose any and all measures that will help out men, since this raises men further away from women.
Their institutions and such have a very good track record of oppressing men in this manner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model

https://nationalparentsorganization.org ... or-fathers

[Divitaen]

Umm what.

It doesn't seem analogous though. Why would feminists care about that? A woman doesn't have the right to force men to make babies for her. If anything, feminists would be very much against that sort of perspective, because it legitimises men forcing women to make babies for them and vice versa.

Also, could you provide me a link for the Duluth model and NOW's position? Because I'm honestly not informed about that.

Why would feminists care? Because it's data that goes against their worldview. It's an area men need to be brought up to equal with women that can't be rationalized into misogyny. They will oppose it so they can continue to deny such a thing is ever possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model

https://nationalparentsorganization.org ... or-fathers

Ok, I don't think support for the Duluth model is analogous, neither is feminist opposition to allowing fathers to abstain from financially providing for children. Feminists may support the Duluth model because it fits within the notion of domestic violence being part of wider female sexual objectification and patriarchal stereotypes, whereas NOW has argued in the past that men abstaining from providing for children that are already alive in the world is not the same as granting women the right to exercise bodily sovereignty over unborn foetuses.

Take note, I'm not endorsing or supporting the feminist position on either issue. I'm just saying there is some feminist basis for supporting Duluth and opposing policies that would allow fathers not to provide child support, and it logically benefits the feminist cause. What you are talking about doesn't remotely affect or aid the feminist cause at all. If anything opposing male contraception undermines feminist rhetoric on bodily sovereignty and how women cannot be forced or obligated by their husbands to have children, and goes against feminist interests.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why would feminists care? Because it's data that goes against their worldview. It's an area men need to be brought up to equal with women that can't be rationalized into misogyny. They will oppose it so they can continue to deny such a thing is ever possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model

https://nationalparentsorganization.org ... or-fathers

Ok, I don't think support for the Duluth model is analogous, neither is feminist opposition to allowing fathers to abstain from financially providing for children. Feminists may support the Duluth model because it fits within the notion of domestic violence being part of wider female sexual objectification and patriarchal stereotypes, whereas NOW has argued in the past that men abstaining from providing for children that are already alive in the world is not the same as granting women the right to exercise bodily sovereignty over unborn foetuses.

Take note, I'm not endorsing or supporting the feminist position on either issue. I'm just saying there is some feminist basis for supporting Duluth and opposing policies that would allow fathers not to provide child support, and it logically benefits the feminist cause. What you are talking about doesn't remotely affect or aid the feminist cause at all. If anything opposing male contraception undermines feminist rhetoric on bodily sovereignty and how women cannot be forced or obligated by their husbands to have children, and goes against feminist interests.

That isn't what shared parenting is, I may have provided the wrong link.
But NOW opposes assumed shared parenting, which is where both parents have equal custody of the children. They prefer one parent to be selected. (Which will in all likelyhood be the woman.)
This ALSO goes against what you would consider to be their goals, but there is a very, very important factor here:
The power is in the womans hands. If SHE wants shared parenting and the husband does too, then that's fine.
This is the same with the male pill.
If SHE doesn't want kids, she can take the pill.
But allowing a man to have the same power? Well, that goes against womens interests, so feminist institutions will inevitably oppose it.
They may argue that allowing men to have the pill further treats women as sex objects and such. They're truly disingenuous and capable of no shame when they argue these kinds of things, as is evidences by their continued defence of the duluth model.

[Galloism]

No, but their actions in the past are a good argument as to what to expect from them in the future, and that becomes a good argument as to why we should cripple their power before they can.

No, but in this case he is making the argument that feminists in the future will oppose male birth control, when there is no real logical reason to do so. How is that analogous to anything feminists currently support or oppose?

While it's true that past history is not a guarantee of future performance, it is an indication, and past history shows feminists virulently opposing the male birth control pill on ideological grounds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/m ... -soon.html

[Ostroeuropa]

By the way:

"No, we can't let men abandon their children!"

"But we must figure out an argument to allow women to deny men parenthood if they want to..."

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... omen_seek/

This is another example of them trying to stack as much power and decision making in the womans hands.
This is why I'm skeptical they will allow the male pill.

It's a very consistent pattern with feminist institutions. They are extremely hostile to the notion of men having any reproductive rights whatsoever, but very pro-women having those rights.

Let a man decide to not be a parent? NO.
Let a woman decide to not let a man be a parent? YES.

Let a man decide he wants shared parenting? NO.
Let a woman decide she wants shared parenting? YES.

Let a woman have the pill? YES.
Let a man have the pill? I'm betting NO.

[Divitaen]

No, but in this case he is making the argument that feminists in the future will oppose male birth control, when there is no real logical reason to do so. How is that analogous to anything feminists currently support or oppose?

While it's true that past history is not a guarantee of future performance, it is an indication, and past history shows feminists virulently opposing the male birth control pill on ideological grounds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/m ... -soon.html

Wait, when I read the article at the end they only mentioned practical problems with the pill, and the one feminist they interviewed, Ariel Levy, was in full support of the male birth control pill.

Its a bit hard for me to understand too. As someone who's been a feminist campaigner for a while, I'm in full support of the male birth control pill, and it fits very nicely into the feminist worldview on bodily sovereignty and autonomy. So its a bit difficult for me to fathom why real feminists would ever oppose it.

[Divitaen]

That isn't what shared parenting is, I may have provided the wrong link.
But NOW opposes assumed shared parenting, which is where both parents have equal custody of the children. They prefer one parent to be selected. (Which will in all likelyhood be the woman.)
This ALSO goes against what you would consider to be their goals, but there is a very, very important factor here:
The power is in the womans hands. If SHE wants shared parenting and the husband does too, then that's fine.
This is the same with the male pill.
If SHE doesn't want kids, she can take the pill.
But allowing a man to have the same power? Well, that goes against womens interests, so feminist institutions will inevitably oppose it.
They may argue that allowing men to have the pill further treats women as sex objects and such. They're truly disingenuous and capable of no shame when they argue these kinds of things, as is evidences by their continued defence of the duluth model.

Ok wait, let me understand something. So NOW supports a system where only one person is chosen to have custody of the children, rather than an equal custody system in court? I'm guessing this is referring to child custody proceedings.

I'm honestly not sure about NOW, but from what I know many feminists may not support equal custody, but they do support striking down gender preferences in determining which partner gets child custody, because it reinforces gender stereotypes of maternity and child-rearing.

And like I said, I don't think its fair to say feminists support anything that puts down men and uplifts women. That's slightly conspiracy-theory-like. I mean many feminists have argued before that gender stereotypes put down men that don't fit within the strict masculine expectations of the modern man. Like I said, the male birth control pill fits within the feminist mindset so nicely, it doesn't seem realistic that a feminist would reject it.

[Ostroeuropa]

While it's true that past history is not a guarantee of future performance, it is an indication, and past history shows feminists virulently opposing the male birth control pill on ideological grounds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/m ... -soon.html

Wait, when I read the article at the end they only mentioned practical problems with the pill, and the one feminist they interviewed, Ariel Levy, was in full support of the male birth control pill.

Its a bit hard for me to understand too. As someone who's been a feminist campaigner for a while, I'm in full support of the male birth control pill, and it fits very nicely into the feminist worldview on bodily sovereignty and autonomy. So its a bit difficult for me to fathom why real feminists would ever oppose it.

It's because they hate men. It's the only explanation for their behavior at this point.
Or their brains are too riddled with feminist theory to comprehend that men are disadvantaged in some areas relative to women, and not as a result of misogyny, so they view any attempt to help men as hostile to women.
(See the "Women need to be raised up" type of feminist.)

[Divitaen]

By the way:

"No, we can't let men abandon their children!"

"But we must figure out an argument to allow women to deny men parenthood if they want to..."

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... omen_seek/

This is another example of them trying to stack as much power and decision making in the womans hands.
This is why I'm skeptical they will allow the male pill.

It's a very consistent pattern with feminist institutions. They are extremely hostile to the notion of men having any reproductive rights whatsoever, but very pro-women having those rights.

Let a man decide to not be a parent? NO.
Let a woman decide to not let a man be a parent? YES.

Let a man decide he wants shared parenting? NO.
Let a woman decide she wants shared parenting? YES.

Let a woman have the pill? YES.
Let a man have the pill? I'm betting NO.

Actually, wait, this is a lot clearer, thank you.

Ok let me clarify why I think they are disanalogous. And take note, I'm only arguing why the three are disanalogous, and not necessarily supporting the feminist position on the first two issues. On the first issue, the feminist argument is just that women are granted the right to abort because removing an unborn foetus is simply an exercise of a woman's bodily sovereignty and autonomy. A man abstaining from providing for a child that has already been born into the world, and is a separate being outside of the man's sovereign bodily control, is very different from providing abortion rights for women.

On the second, the shared parenting issue, like I said I was under the impression that most feminists opposed shared parenting but also opposed gender preferential treatment in favouring women over men in assigning child custody.

Finally, for the pill, like I said this is disanalogous from the issue of parenthood, as in the case of parenthood the woman is exercising bodily sovereignty over the foetus whereas the man is not exercising his bodily sovereignty over the already-born child, whereas for birth control, both the man and woman are exercising their same right to reproductive and bodily sovereignty pre-conception, so there is no difference.

[Galloism]

While it's true that past history is not a guarantee of future performance, it is an indication, and past history shows feminists virulently opposing the male birth control pill on ideological grounds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/m ... -soon.html

Wait, when I read the article at the end they only mentioned practical problems with the pill, and the one feminist they interviewed, Ariel Levy, was in full support of the male birth control pill.

Its a bit hard for me to understand too. As someone who's been a feminist campaigner for a while, I'm in full support of the male birth control pill, and it fits very nicely into the feminist worldview on bodily sovereignty and autonomy. So its a bit difficult for me to fathom why real feminists would ever oppose it.

When launched at the 1974 World Health Conference in Budapest, religious groups voiced concern and feminists staged a boycott, storming Coutinho’s presentation and demanding that only women – not men – should be making choices about parenthood.

from the link. To hear the scientist in question tell what happened, inTahar's video, the feminist delegation started chanting "NO MALE PILL" over and over.

Like I said. Hopefully the feminist tune has changed, but there IS a history.

[Ostroeuropa]

That isn't what shared parenting is, I may have provided the wrong link.
But NOW opposes assumed shared parenting, which is where both parents have equal custody of the children. They prefer one parent to be selected. (Which will in all likelyhood be the woman.)
This ALSO goes against what you would consider to be their goals, but there is a very, very important factor here:
The power is in the womans hands. If SHE wants shared parenting and the husband does too, then that's fine.
This is the same with the male pill.
If SHE doesn't want kids, she can take the pill.
But allowing a man to have the same power? Well, that goes against womens interests, so feminist institutions will inevitably oppose it.
They may argue that allowing men to have the pill further treats women as sex objects and such. They're truly disingenuous and capable of no shame when they argue these kinds of things, as is evidences by their continued defence of the duluth model.

Ok wait, let me understand something. So NOW supports a system where only one person is chosen to have custody of the children, rather than an equal custody system in court? I'm guessing this is referring to child custody proceedings.

I'm honestly not sure about NOW, but from what I know many feminists may not support equal custody, but they do support striking down gender preferences in determining which partner gets child custody, because it reinforces gender stereotypes of maternity and child-rearing.

And like I said, I don't think its fair to say feminists support anything that puts down men and uplifts women. That's slightly conspiracy-theory-like. I mean many feminists have argued before that gender stereotypes put down men that don't fit within the strict masculine expectations of the modern man. Like I said, the male birth control pill fits within the feminist mindset so nicely, it doesn't seem realistic that a feminist would reject it.

There is a substantial section of feminists that support that. It isn't a conspiracy, it's a clusterfuck. Their ideology and worldview is broken and incapable of properly being applied to reality without discriminating against men because of their gynocentric understanding of the problem.
I think that in order to buy into the gynocentric understanding, you need to be a sexist in the first place, but that it also makes your sexism worse.

Yes, they have argued that. The problem is, they argue it from a gynocentric perspective and aren't actually capable of fixing this problem as a result of that, and they are also extremely hostile to anyone NOT using a gynocentric perspective to fix the problem. They make gender equality impossible to achieve because they are insistent on their ideology as the only means to achieve it, when their ideology is broken. All they ever accomplish is empowering women.

The male birth control pill fits within SOME feminist mindsets nicely. It also goes directly against some of them. And, most importantly, against those with institutional power and control.

[Divitaen]

Wait, when I read the article at the end they only mentioned practical problems with the pill, and the one feminist they interviewed, Ariel Levy, was in full support of the male birth control pill.

Its a bit hard for me to understand too. As someone who's been a feminist campaigner for a while, I'm in full support of the male birth control pill, and it fits very nicely into the feminist worldview on bodily sovereignty and autonomy. So its a bit difficult for me to fathom why real feminists would ever oppose it.

When launched at the 1974 World Health Conference in Budapest, religious groups voiced concern and feminists staged a boycott, storming Coutinho’s presentation and demanding that only women – not men – should be making choices about parenthood.

from the link. To hear the scientist in question tell what happened, inTahar's video, the feminist delegation start chanting "NO MALE PILL" over and over.

Like I said. Hopefully the feminist tune has changed, but there IS a history.

Hmm, I suppose there may be a history, but like I said feminism in the 1970s was very different. That was second-wave feminism, and intellectually the second-wave feminists hadn't been exposed to many issues of sexual and bodily sovereignty. The focus of second-wave feminists was on ending sexual objectification, modern perspectives of empowering women to make free sexual choices and wear whatever they want and have sex however they want is a third-wave feminist perspective, so its not really fair to hold us third-wave feminists accountable for whatever views feminists had in the 1970s. Especially since, as the article mentions, Ariel Levy today is very much in support of the male birth control pill, and she is a self-proclaimed feminist.

[Ostroeuropa]

By the way:

"No, we can't let men abandon their children!"

"But we must figure out an argument to allow women to deny men parenthood if they want to..."

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... omen_seek/

This is another example of them trying to stack as much power and decision making in the womans hands.
This is why I'm skeptical they will allow the male pill.

It's a very consistent pattern with feminist institutions. They are extremely hostile to the notion of men having any reproductive rights whatsoever, but very pro-women having those rights.

Let a man decide to not be a parent? NO.
Let a woman decide to not let a man be a parent? YES.

Let a man decide he wants shared parenting? NO.
Let a woman decide she wants shared parenting? YES.

Let a woman have the pill? YES.
Let a man have the pill? I'm betting NO.

Actually, wait, this is a lot clearer, thank you.

Ok let me clarify why I think they are disanalogous. And take note, I'm only arguing why the three are disanalogous, and not necessarily supporting the feminist position on the first two issues. On the first issue, the feminist argument is just that women are granted the right to abort because removing an unborn foetus is simply an exercise of a woman's bodily sovereignty and autonomy. A man abstaining from providing for a child that has already been born into the world, and is a separate being outside of the man's sovereign bodily control, is very different from providing abortion rights for women.

On the second, the shared parenting issue, like I said I was under the impression that most feminists opposed shared parenting but also opposed gender preferential treatment in favouring women over men in assigning child custody.

Finally, for the pill, like I said this is disanalogous from the issue of parenthood, as in the case of parenthood the woman is exercising bodily sovereignty over the foetus whereas the man is not exercising his bodily sovereignty over the already-born child, whereas for birth control, both the man and woman are exercising their same right to reproductive and bodily sovereignty pre-conception, so there is no difference.

That isn't what the first issue is. Read the link. It's about women giving birth and having the legal ability to refuse a man be treated as the father.

You're under that impression, but you'd be wrong. Plenty of feminist lawyers and feminist grants and such are available for women to be able to sue for custody. If the woman wants custody, feminists will help her get it and equality be damned. If a woman DOESN'T want custody, then it's a completely moot point and she won't get custody. Like I said, they support all decision making and power being in the womans hands.

On the pill, there are a lot of historical feminists who have been against the male pill. Why, especially with all the other shit they get up to, should I trust them?

[Galloism]

from the link. To hear the scientist in question tell what happened, inTahar's video, the feminist delegation start chanting "NO MALE PILL" over and over.

Like I said. Hopefully the feminist tune has changed, but there IS a history.

Hmm, I suppose there may be a history, but like I said feminism in the 1970s was very different. That was second-wave feminism, and intellectually the second-wave feminists hadn't been exposed to many issues of sexual and bodily sovereignty. The focus of second-wave feminists was on ending sexual objectification, modern perspectives of empowering women to make free sexual choices and wear whatever they want and have sex however they want is a third-wave feminist perspective, so its not really fair to hold us third-wave feminists accountable for whatever views feminists had in the 1970s. Especially since, as the article mentions, Ariel Levy today is very much in support of the male birth control pill, and she is a self-proclaimed feminist.

I have sort of a "wait and see" attitude. I have no reason to extend trust on this, given history.

However, if the feminist movement, as a whole, throws massive social support behind a viable male contraceptive, I will be pleased. At this point there isn't one, but I keep hoping (the method proposed in the 70s has an unacceptably high risk of permanent infertility).

[Gauthier]

So Evil Feminazis would oppose male birth control pills, a medical advance that would be the wet dream of many single males and PUAs that would allow them to be sexually active with practically guaranteed protection from unwanted pregnancies because Evil Feminazis want to entrap men into relationships and suck paternity from them?

Nope. Not a tin-foil conspiracy at all.

[Divitaen]

That isn't what the first issue is. Read the link. It's about women giving birth and having the legal ability to refuse a man be treated as the father.

You're under that impression, but you'd be wrong. Plenty of feminist lawyers and feminist grants and such are available for women to be able to sue for custody. If the woman wants custody, feminists will help her get it and equality be damned. If a woman DOESN'T want custody, then it's a completely moot point and she won't get custody. Like I said, they support all decision making and power being in the womans hands.

On the pill, there are a lot of historical feminists who have been against the male pill. Why, especially with all the other shit they get up to, should I trust them?

If I'm not wrong, feminists have supported laws that would prevent male rapists from being able to claim custody and be legal guardians over the child, which are often used as leverage in court cases, so some states have put in place laws to combat this situation. I remember Jon Stewart and the Daily Show covered a few proposals in the US to ensure male rapists can be locked out of being fathers for their children conceived through the rape. I'm not entirely sure if that's the issue you are referring to, as I couldn't really understand the Reddit article to be completely honest with you.

As for the second issue, I was slightly confused because this article on EverydayFeminism makes a strong case for why gender stereotypes are harmed and perpetuated when courts favour women disproportionately in child custody cases: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/bia ... t-fathers/

In fact, the writer of the article argued that gender stereotypes of male careerists and female caretakers bleed into the court and subtly influence judges to side with women as more reliable caretakers because they've "spent more time with the kids" or what not, so from what I know most intellectual feminists do indeed support ending gender discrimination in child custody because it reinforces gender stereotypes and directly harms female empowerment in the workplace, which has long been a feminist goal.

Finally, as for why you should trust feminists, its because like I said, feminists have not just an intellectual interests but a selfish incentive to support the male birth control pill. Feminists have long argued for bodily independence and to derail social notions of an "obligation to reproduce". If a feminist argues that a man using birth control infringes on a woman's right to have children, it will undermine a woman's independence and right to argue against raising children for her husband. Given the patriarchal stereotypes of today, the latter is a bigger worry than the former and thus feminists will be careful to ensure that birth control is actively promoted in society to permanently remove any notions of a "duty to reproduce" in relationships. Whatever feminists supported in the past, it shouldn't be an indication for the future, especially since as mentioned before feminists in 1970s may have opposed the male pill, but feminists in the 70s also opposed Miss America, opposed lipstick, opposed revealing skirts and opposed pornography and BDSM, and most feminists today have polar opposite views on all these issues.

[Divitaen]

Hmm, I suppose there may be a history, but like I said feminism in the 1970s was very different. That was second-wave feminism, and intellectually the second-wave feminists hadn't been exposed to many issues of sexual and bodily sovereignty. The focus of second-wave feminists was on ending sexual objectification, modern perspectives of empowering women to make free sexual choices and wear whatever they want and have sex however they want is a third-wave feminist perspective, so its not really fair to hold us third-wave feminists accountable for whatever views feminists had in the 1970s. Especially since, as the article mentions, Ariel Levy today is very much in support of the male birth control pill, and she is a self-proclaimed feminist.

I have sort of a "wait and see" attitude. I have no reason to extend trust on this, given history.

However, if the feminist movement, as a whole, throws massive social support behind a viable male contraceptive, I will be pleased. At this point there isn't one, but I keep hoping (the method proposed in the 70s has an unacceptably high risk of permanent infertility).

Well, I do understand the caution. But as I said the feminists I know in my life all support male contraception, and the feminist Ariel Levy cited in the article supports it too, because male birth control fits nicely within the feminist view that a "duty to reproduce" doesn't exist.

[Kelinfort]

Hmm, I suppose there may be a history, but like I said feminism in the 1970s was very different. That was second-wave feminism, and intellectually the second-wave feminists hadn't been exposed to many issues of sexual and bodily sovereignty. The focus of second-wave feminists was on ending sexual objectification, modern perspectives of empowering women to make free sexual choices and wear whatever they want and have sex however they want is a third-wave feminist perspective, so its not really fair to hold us third-wave feminists accountable for whatever views feminists had in the 1970s. Especially since, as the article mentions, Ariel Levy today is very much in support of the male birth control pill, and she is a self-proclaimed feminist.

I have sort of a "wait and see" attitude. I have no reason to extend trust on this, given history.

However, if the feminist movement, as a whole, throws massive social support behind a viable male contraceptive, I will be pleased. At this point there isn't one, but I keep hoping (the method proposed in the 70s has an unacceptably high risk of permanent infertility).

From what I read, I thought the more radical feminists wanted men to be more responsible for birth control than women.

[Blakk Metal]

So Evil Feminazis would oppose male birth control pills, a medical advance that would be the wet dream of many single males and PUAs that would allow them to be sexually active with practically guaranteed protection from unwanted pregnancies because Evil Feminazis want to entrap men into relationships and suck paternity from them?

Nope. Not a tin-foil conspiracy at all.

Why do leftists always accuse other people of being conspiracy theorists?