|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10 20 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
posted July 17, 2014 04:52 PM |
|
|
Orzie said:
I even don't mention a breed of cold-minded and cold-hearted women who does not have any borders in what they do, to men especially.
Oh like men have never treated women this way either.
Please stop the silly double-standards.
Up until recently women couldn't even apply for a divorce and if her husband divorced her, she lost the children, even if he never once looked after them and farmed them off to some aged spinster aunt in another country.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Proper rights to both parents should be in existence. And Family Courts do their darnedest to ensure the happiness of the child - which is considered paramount. The parents may have fallen out of love and divorced, but the children need both their mother and father.
What is best for the child, may not be best for the father or mother and the court will decide who has custody. Sometimes it is shared, and if the parents can work together fairly the courts never need to intervene again. However, some parents just cannot do this. Use the children as weapons, abandon their responsibilities - and yes both men and women do this.
Oh and an FYI in the states, the non-custodial parent is responsible for paying maintenance for their children, regardless of whether mom has custody or dad does. There is no discrimination there.
So if you have any real reasons to hate feminism and to hate equal rights, just say so. Making up a list of things that men are now no longer allowed to get away with, isn't a valid argument.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 05:03 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
Lol. Stupid autocorrect.
As for sources, I'm sure you can find this historical record on your own, though it's a fairly well known fact.
if it's well-known, I would have known about it.
Nah, I'm too lazy to look for it. If you want that to be an established fact, you'll have to be the one to provide sources. 
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 05:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Please stop the silly double-standards.
I didn't say men didn't treat women like that, and I didn't say it was okay either. Please speak logically, not emotionally.
Quote:
Up until recently
Nowadays it is vice versa. I don't see equality. If you want women to have more rights, it's fully okay, and most probably it won't be so much bad for everyone. But don't call it equality - it is something else.
Quote:
Oh and an FYI in the states, the non-custodial parent is responsible for paying maintenance for their children, regardless of whether mom has custody or dad does.
In Russia only the father does it, practically. If he is conscientious enough.
Quote:
So if you have any real reasons to hate feminism and to hate equal rights, just say so.
Again, I repeat: please #define "equal_rights"
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 05:23 PM |
|
|
Baklava said:
Quote:
The case of Marie Curve works against you. The Nobel committee fully intended to exclude her from the 1903 Nobel prize, and certainly would have were it not for a single Sweden mathematician who was a vocal advocate for women in the sciences - a discipline that still continues to have gender disparity. We're it not for his complaint, Cutie surely would have never been recognized for her work.
These have got to be the two best typos in the history of debate around feminism.
lol, i thought so too.  
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 05:41 PM |
|
|
Orzie said:
Quote:
Please stop the silly double-standards.
Orzie said:
Quote:
I didn't say men didn't treat women like that, and I didn't say it was okay either. Please speak logically, not emotionally.
Orzie said:
Quote:
Orzie said:
I even don't mention a breed of cold-minded and cold-hearted women who does not have any borders in what they do, to men especially.
- No. Your quote specifically targets women. And it is written in such a way to insinuate that there is now some 'breed' of woman who target men. And it never once mentions men apart from being victims of said women. And considering the subject matter and the sexism in this thread, your quote isn't unoffensive.
Quote:
Up until recently
Nowadays it is vice versa. I don't see equality. If you want women to have more rights, it's fully okay, and most probably it won't be so much bad for everyone. But don't call it equality - it is something else.
- Wrong again. Feminism has never wanted more rights for women than men. Its equal rights Orzie. Nowadays in western society a woman has the same rights to her children after divorce that a man does. A woman doesn't have any 'more' rights. Prove a woman has more rights than a man please. You may be correct in Russia regarding custody of children, but that is Russia's fault and I bet there is more to it than simply saying men don't get custody in favor of women. Perhaps they will even the field a little soon. But I can assure you that in the States and England it is not the case. And an FYI I have worked in this field - I worked in Children & Families Social Work, Family Courts, Adoption etc. I do have some working knowledge of this. And even though the majority of child rearing still falls to the woman - and that is cool, we bear them, it makes sense. It is by no means guaranteed to go in a woman's favor in the Family Court regarding custody. There are many more reasons to take into consideration - children's routines, school etc. Whatever parent best provides the most secure routine.
Quote:
Oh and an FYI in the states, the non-custodial parent is responsible for paying maintenance for their children, regardless of whether mom has custody or dad does.
In Russia only the father does it, practically. If he is conscientious enough.
- Well that is Russia's fault. Again, I don't know why Russia decided on that policy. I notice you say if he is conscientious enough. Maybe that is why?
Quote:
So if you have any real reasons to hate feminism and to hate equal rights, just say so.
Again, I repeat: please #define "equal_rights"
Equal
1. a person or thing that is the same as another in status or quality.
"we all treat each other as equals"
Rights
1. that which is morally correct, just, or honourable.
2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 06:02 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 18:04, 17 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
Wrong again. Feminism has never wanted more rights for women than men. Its equal rights Orzie.
A woman doesn't have any 'more' rights. Prove a woman has more rights than a man please.
I did not say that woman has more rights than a man. I did say that the fight for woman rights is being called the fight for equality, while the situation is much more complex. Speaking of additional rights, I mean "additional in comparison to what was before and to what is now".
It is not equality. It is giving women more rights than they had before. Feel the difference. The word "equality" might be used for justifying this or that change in the law, but no change that tweaks only one side can be called a step to equality. This is life, and its complex perspectives. Saying that enhancing the women rights is a fight for equality is like being isolated in vacuum, not thinking about the consequences of this action on men's rights and the society as a whole. There are different kinds of rights, and the principle "your rights end where my rights start" did not disappear anywhere with a poof sound.
Quote:
I notice you say if he is conscientious enough. Maybe that is why?
Because often women don't feel it necessary or desirable to pursue the father for not paying the penalty. Not supporting your own children is already a shame.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 06:20 PM |
|
Edited by meroe at 18:22, 17 Jul 2014.
|
Orzie said:
Quote:
Wrong again. Feminism has never wanted more rights for women than men. Its equal rights Orzie.
A woman doesn't have any 'more' rights. Prove a woman has more rights than a man please.
I did not say that woman has more rights than a man. I did say that the fight for woman rights is being called the fight for equality, while the situation is much more complex. Speaking of additional rights, I mean "additional in comparison to what was before and to what is now".
It is not equality. It is giving women more rights than they had before. Feel the difference. The word "equality" might be used for justifying this or that change in the law, but no change that tweaks only one side can be called a step to equality. This is life, and its complex perspectives. Saying that enhancing the women rights is a fight for equality is like being isolated in vacuum, not thinking about the consequences of this action on men's rights and the society as a whole. There are different kinds of rights, and the principle "your rights end where my rights start" did not disappear anywhere with a poof sound.
- This interested me a great deal, especially this "Saying that enhancing the women rights is a fight for equality is like being isolated in vacuum, not thinking about the consequences of this action on men's rights and the society as a whole". Any change to an establish structure is going to ruffle feathers. However, things HAVE to change when there is a massive disparity in regards to control and power. You talk about men's rights - 'the consequences of this action on men's rights and the society as a whole', but what does that mean exactly. The relevant argument (and yes there will be others) is that men's rights so far have oppressed women's and governed society to benefit them. So those changes have to be made. That is just a fact, pure and simple. That quote in itself is struggling against change. Portraying a perceived injustice towards men in having to share their rights. This mindset is part of the problem.
Men have always had rights, women have not. How is that anything but bad.
Quote:
I notice you say if he is conscientious enough. Maybe that is why?
Because often women don't feel it necessary or desirable to pursue the father for not paying the penalty. Not supporting your own children is already a shame.
One of the great things about women being able to earn their own money, has meant that they can be independent and rear their own children alone if need be. They no longer have to continue living/married to men who are not conscientious enough, or violent or absent etc etc.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 06:33 PM |
|
|
However, it is children's right to have both parents in contact. See, you mention only one side which benefits from the situation. It is not a secret that mothers often don't allow fathers to see their children, and usually it is hard to set things in another way. Because again, mothers are favored in court when the situation comes to it.
In my home town among my friends and familiars, there is a real freaking lack of fathers in families. I myself have my parents divorced, and it was a big luck that they divorced when I was 20 y.o., not 5. Thousands of boys and men have complexes in their education because they have never met their fathers, and they grew up in the society of women. The cult of virginity also comes from there - more and more complexed boys grow up and realize they do have too soft personality, they flush when they meet a girl, they often cry in childhood, etc., etc. This leads to colossal problems in building character. And surprisingly, they are then judged by girls/wives because they are not manly.
And here comes another rhetorical question - where is the broken chain?
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 06:47 PM |
|
Edited by meroe at 19:02, 17 Jul 2014.
|
Orzie said:
However, it is children's right to have both parents in contact. See, you mention only one side which benefits from the situation. It is not a secret that mothers often don't allow fathers to see their children, and usually it is hard to set things in another way. Because again, mothers are favored in court when the situation comes to it.
- If you read my post correctly you would see I advocate for the shared custody of children in divorce proceedings. Its the right and moral thing to do. I have certainly never stated a preference for women over men.
- Yes I have experience of many women denying fathers contact. And I have witnessed fathers successful sue for custody because of it. Judges take a very dim view of women who do such a thing, as it harms the children.
- You are quoting Russia, and I am sorry if Russia hasn't got its act together regarding child custody. But to try and lay the blame at the feet of women and feminism is simply wrong and misplaced. Russia's family courts (or whatever you have) are not run 100% by feminists. So whoever has decided on this rule where the children always go to the mother isn't a feminist issue. Its a Governmental one that they have gotten wrong. But again I do not know what the reasons are. You will need to find that out.
Orzie said:
In my home town among my friends and familiars, there is a real freaking lack of fathers in families. I myself have my parents divorced, and it was a big luck that they divorced when I was 20 y.o., not 5. Thousands of boys and men have complexes in their education because they have never met their fathers, and they grew up in the society of women. The cult of virginity also comes from there - more and more complexed boys grow up and realize they do have too soft personality, they flush when they meet a girl, they often cry in childhood, etc., etc. This leads to colossal problems in building character. And surprisingly, they are then judged by girls/wives because they are not manly.
And here comes another rhetorical question - where is the broken chain?
- Women are not the only reason for absent fathers, Orzie. That is just silly. Men who want to be active in their childrens lives find a way. However, there are men out there, many of them, who simply wipe their hands of all responsibility. (Not all, but many). So that is not a feminist issue. Its a human one and a lot of the responsibility lies at the feet of the fathers. You want your children, then fight for them.
- Feminists are only too aware of the damage done to children growing up without a father figure. Sole parenting is not advocated by feminism.
- And you have lost me on broken chain ?????
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 07:29 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 19:30, 17 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
If you read my post correctly you would see I advocate for the shared custody of children in divorce proceedings. Its the right and moral thing to do. I have certainly never stated a preference for women over men.
As you may have noticed, I try to make you understand it's not like that everywhere. Russia is not a third world country.
Quote:
So whoever has decided on this rule where the children always go to the mother isn't a feminist issue.
Of course it's not. But it's a shining example of prevalence of women's rights over men's, and it is real, not an anti-feminist fairy-tale. And the reasons are simple - it's a decision of logic because single mothers are much more capable of raising children than single fathers are, and also mothers are en masse more responsible. And this is the case when the desired 'equality' starts a war with logic and common sense.
Quote:
Feminists are only too aware of the damage done to children growing up without a father figure.
Feminists, however, state the ultimate victim status of all women and thus request (if not demand) more and more steps towards their rights. Women get such rights, the majority of boys grow without fathers. End of story. The rights are given, the women are happy... and the boys are feminine (speaking roughly). And then other women whom those men will meet in their life will demand those men to be masculine. See where the root of the problem is? You cannot have both cake and the money for it. Either the prejudice about feminine men must be removed, or women rights on that point must be reconsidered. This is one of the examples.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 07:42 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:52, 17 Jul 2014.
|
Occasional examples of women doing better than men (in say custody) is also a feminist problem, because feminism isn't just about women. It's about gender, and child custody is a great example where men are at a disadvantage. That's a gender inequality and thus feminist problem. That does not change the fact that women are the focus of feminism, for they are being far more oppressed than men, even in countries where they have attained equal rights.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 07:44 PM |
|
|
I never stated Russia being a third world country. I stated that in regards to the custody of children in divorce cases, I do not believe that a blanket policy of only allow the custody to the mother is unfair .... unfair to men I might add.
Your second comment explains to my why the Russian courts have probably decided on an ill-thought out discriminatory practice - single mothers being more capable of raising children than male's. That is probably more down to the way Russian fathers have acted in the past. That is their fault, not the fault of women.
Men need to take more responsibility for their children and stop blaming it on women.
I have run out of time, I am late for work as I have been hanging around on this subject for too long.
I'll come back to later Orzie.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 08:40 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 20:41, 17 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
That is their fault, not the fault of women. Men need to take more responsibility for their children and stop blaming it on women.
No one blames it on women. The point of my statement was the general inequality. The step towards equality would change the percentage of cases when mothers get children after the divorce. The reason not to do this step was described by me above - it was logic and common sense. Time to guess what has a higher priority for you - your beliefs, or common sense. [s]It's like religion.[/s]
Quote:
Occasional examples of women doing better than men (in say custody) is also a feminist problem.
However, Xerox, feminism does not say anything about decreasing or tweaking women's rights in this, although you say the opposite. And this is one of the reasons why the definition of feminism as 'the struggle of equality' is lame. Posing women as the ultimate victims in every situation is not the right way to go. I said about the transformed form of modern chivalry and its application to incogitant boy education/character building several posts earlier.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 08:43 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:45, 17 Jul 2014.
|
It's been mentioned several times that feminism is about gender inequality in general, but that the focus is on women. It is NOT an exclusively women's club, and in a strongly patriarchical and macho cultures like the Russian, feminism is certainly needed to change the gender role norm of men.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 08:44 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Occasional examples of women doing better than men (in say custody) is also a feminist problem, because feminism isn't just about women. It's about gender, and child custody is a great example where men are at a disadvantage. That's a gender inequality and thus feminist problem. That does not change the fact that women are the focus of feminism, for they are being far more oppressed than men, even in countries where they have attained equal rights.
no one has still given me examples of why women are more oppressed than men.
Is it because feminists can't give me any answers? (because it's not true?)
Also, action speaks louder than words. I don't think custody cases are a concern of feminists. Give me examples of feminists working on them.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 08:50 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 20:53, 17 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
It's been mentioned several times that feminism is about gender inequality in general, but that the focus is on women.
I don't get this statement. It might be a language barrier, but both parts of the sentence seem to be contradicting with each other. Either you struggle against of the lack of women's rights (and call it feminism, everything's okay), or you struggle for the genders being equal (and call it, say, equalism). And if the first variant with feminism has no problems with its understanding, the second one with 'equalism' has a huge load of questions and requires a lot of explanations.
For now, it seems that the vast majority of pro-feminist activists (you know, Xerox, in Russian we don't have the formal word for male feminists...) uses the word "equality" to justify their demands and to try to make them sound more convincing to make them a law. Simply put, it's a populistic trick.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 08:53 PM |
|
|
There have been like literally a MILLION examples given Jeremiah.
Lex's advice about you is starting to sound very appealing.
____________
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 08:55 PM |
|
|
Adrius said:
There have been like literally a MILLION examples given Jeremiah.
Lex's advice about you is starting to sound very appealing.
List them.
The way I see it, you're just entertaining the thought of ignoring me because you can't provide any examples.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 09:11 PM |
|
|
Orzie said:
Quote:
It's been mentioned several times that feminism is about gender inequality in general, but that the focus is on women.
I don't get this statement. It might be a language barrier, but both parts of the sentence seem to be contradicting with each other. Either you struggle against of the lack of women's rights (and call it feminism, everything's okay), or you struggle for the genders being equal (and call it, say, equalism). And if the first variant with feminism has no problems with its understanding, the second one with 'equalism' has a huge load of questions and requires a lot of explanations.
For now, it seems that the vast majority of pro-feminist activists (you know, Xerox, in Russian we don't have the formal word for male feminists...) uses the word "equality" to justify their demands and to try to make them sound more convincing to make them a law. Simply put, it's a populistic trick.
Feminism is about achieving equality for men and women, but women are less equal than men.
A male feminist is called a feminist.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 09:12 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 21:13, 17 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
but women are less equal than men.
This one goes to favorites. Which half do you want to take - the lesser one, or the bigger one?
|
| |
|
|
