Examples of "Feminazi's", if they're so common
The term feminazi, used to mean radical feminist, is so commonly used online, but yet those sheep who use it omit that it was infact created by someone who could arguably be categorised as a radical, Rush Limbaugh.
There are such things as radical feminists, the type that write manifestos about hating men, but there are also radical gay and race based activists. However there's a difference between a "radical" that sits on tumblr all day, over analysing the race, gender and sexuality roles in a weetabix advert to form a ridiculous conclusion, and the radicals who take action and effect real human lives.
So let's compare the action of these radical feminists, it shouldn't be hard to find examples of them given the supposed abundance of them that exist should it? To the actions of radical anti feminists.
Firstly we have:
On July 22, Breivik slaughtered 77 of his countrymen, most of them teenagers, in Oslo and at a summer camp on the island of Utøya, because he thought they or their parents were the kinds of “politically correct” liberals who were enabling Muslim immigration. But Breivik was almost as voluble on the subjects of feminism, the family, and fathers’ rights as he was on Islam. “The most direct threat to the family is ‘divorce on demand,’” he wrote in the manifesto he posted just before he began his deadly spree. “The system must be reformed so that the father will be awarded custody rights by default.”
Secondly:
After 10 years of custody battles, court-ordered counseling and imminent imprisonment for non-payment of child support, Thomas James Ball, a leader of the Worcester branch of the Massachusetts-based Fatherhood Coalition, had reached his limit. On June 15, 2011, he doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire just outside the Cheshire County, N.H., Courthouse. He was dead within minutes.
In a lengthy “Last Statement,” which arrived posthumously at the Keene Sentinel, Tom Ball told his story. All he had done, he said, was smack his 4-year-old daughter and bloody her mouth after she licked his hand as he was putting her to bed. Feminist-crafted anti-domestic violence legislation did the rest. “Twenty-five years ago,” he wrote, “the federal government declared war on men. It is time to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.” Calling for all-out insurrection, he offered tips on making Molotov cocktails and urged his readers to use them against courthouses and police stations. “There will be some casualties in this war,” he predicted. “Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.”
Finally:
The first shots in this so-called war on feminism were fired 22 years before Tom Ball’s suicide. On Dec. 6, 1989, Marc Lépine, a troubled 25-year-old computer student, strolled into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, Canada, carrying a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle and a hunting knife. He walked into a classroom, ordered the men to leave, and lined the women up against a wall.
“I am fighting feminism,” he announced before opening fire. “You’re women, you’re going to be engineers. You’re all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists.”
A few obviously mentally disturbed radicals don't define a movement, but unfortunately the online behaviour isn't exactly a nice portrait of anti feminists either. An underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations. There are literally hundreds of websites, blogs and forums devoted to attacking virtually all women (or, at least, Westernized ones) — the so-called “manosphere,” which now also includes a tribute page for Tom Ball (“He Died For Our Children”). While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many. Women are routinely maligned as sluts, gold-diggers, temptresses and worse; overly sympathetic men are dubbed “manginas”; and police and other officials are called their armed enablers. Even Ball — who did not directly blame his ex-wife for his troubles, but instead depicted her and their three children as co-victims of the authorities — vilified “man-hating feminists” as evil destroyers of all that is good.
More evidence here: http://manboobz.com
But yet even with all of this, things like the straw feminist and alleged feminazi's are a much more commonly feared/detested notion than say anti "feminazi's", who are evidently more mobilized online and more radical in leaps and bounds.
Some men's rights groups have some actual issues that we agree on, but I'm sorry, anti feminism has acted more radical in it's short life than the entire history of feminism. And I find this reactionary movements rhetoric to be just so full of projection.
There are such things as radical feminists, the type that write manifestos about hating men, but there are also radical gay and race based activists. However there's a difference between a "radical" that sits on tumblr all day, over analysing the race, gender and sexuality roles in a weetabix advert to form a ridiculous conclusion, and the radicals who take action and effect real human lives.
So let's compare the action of these radical feminists, it shouldn't be hard to find examples of them given the supposed abundance of them that exist should it? To the actions of radical anti feminists.
Firstly we have:
On July 22, Breivik slaughtered 77 of his countrymen, most of them teenagers, in Oslo and at a summer camp on the island of Utøya, because he thought they or their parents were the kinds of “politically correct” liberals who were enabling Muslim immigration. But Breivik was almost as voluble on the subjects of feminism, the family, and fathers’ rights as he was on Islam. “The most direct threat to the family is ‘divorce on demand,’” he wrote in the manifesto he posted just before he began his deadly spree. “The system must be reformed so that the father will be awarded custody rights by default.”
Secondly:
After 10 years of custody battles, court-ordered counseling and imminent imprisonment for non-payment of child support, Thomas James Ball, a leader of the Worcester branch of the Massachusetts-based Fatherhood Coalition, had reached his limit. On June 15, 2011, he doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire just outside the Cheshire County, N.H., Courthouse. He was dead within minutes.
In a lengthy “Last Statement,” which arrived posthumously at the Keene Sentinel, Tom Ball told his story. All he had done, he said, was smack his 4-year-old daughter and bloody her mouth after she licked his hand as he was putting her to bed. Feminist-crafted anti-domestic violence legislation did the rest. “Twenty-five years ago,” he wrote, “the federal government declared war on men. It is time to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.” Calling for all-out insurrection, he offered tips on making Molotov cocktails and urged his readers to use them against courthouses and police stations. “There will be some casualties in this war,” he predicted. “Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.”
Finally:
The first shots in this so-called war on feminism were fired 22 years before Tom Ball’s suicide. On Dec. 6, 1989, Marc Lépine, a troubled 25-year-old computer student, strolled into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, Canada, carrying a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle and a hunting knife. He walked into a classroom, ordered the men to leave, and lined the women up against a wall.
“I am fighting feminism,” he announced before opening fire. “You’re women, you’re going to be engineers. You’re all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists.”
A few obviously mentally disturbed radicals don't define a movement, but unfortunately the online behaviour isn't exactly a nice portrait of anti feminists either. An underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations. There are literally hundreds of websites, blogs and forums devoted to attacking virtually all women (or, at least, Westernized ones) — the so-called “manosphere,” which now also includes a tribute page for Tom Ball (“He Died For Our Children”). While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many. Women are routinely maligned as sluts, gold-diggers, temptresses and worse; overly sympathetic men are dubbed “manginas”; and police and other officials are called their armed enablers. Even Ball — who did not directly blame his ex-wife for his troubles, but instead depicted her and their three children as co-victims of the authorities — vilified “man-hating feminists” as evil destroyers of all that is good.
More evidence here: http://manboobz.com
But yet even with all of this, things like the straw feminist and alleged feminazi's are a much more commonly feared/detested notion than say anti "feminazi's", who are evidently more mobilized online and more radical in leaps and bounds.
Some men's rights groups have some actual issues that we agree on, but I'm sorry, anti feminism has acted more radical in it's short life than the entire history of feminism. And I find this reactionary movements rhetoric to be just so full of projection.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Janeylee
The term feminazi, used to mean radical feminist, is so commonly used online, but yet those sheep who use it omit that it was infact created by someone who could arguably be categorised as a radical, Rush Limbaugh.
There are such things as radical feminists, the type that write manifestos about hating men, but there are also radical gay and race based activists. However there's a difference between a "radical" that sits on tumblr all day, over analysing the race, gender and sexuality roles in a weetabix advert to form a ridiculous conclusion, and the radicals who take action and effect real human lives.
So let's compare the action of these radical feminists, it shouldn't be hard to find examples of them given the supposed abundance of them that exist should it? To the actions of radical anti feminists.
Firstly we have:
On July 22, Breivik slaughtered 77 of his countrymen, most of them teenagers, in Oslo and at a summer camp on the island of Utøya, because he thought they or their parents were the kinds of “politically correct” liberals who were enabling Muslim immigration. But Breivik was almost as voluble on the subjects of feminism, the family, and fathers’ rights as he was on Islam. “The most direct threat to the family is ‘divorce on demand,’” he wrote in the manifesto he posted just before he began his deadly spree. “The system must be reformed so that the father will be awarded custody rights by default.”
Secondly:
After 10 years of custody battles, court-ordered counseling and imminent imprisonment for non-payment of child support, Thomas James Ball, a leader of the Worcester branch of the Massachusetts-based Fatherhood Coalition, had reached his limit. On June 15, 2011, he doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire just outside the Cheshire County, N.H., Courthouse. He was dead within minutes.
In a lengthy “Last Statement,” which arrived posthumously at the Keene Sentinel, Tom Ball told his story. All he had done, he said, was smack his 4-year-old daughter and bloody her mouth after she licked his hand as he was putting her to bed. Feminist-crafted anti-domestic violence legislation did the rest. “Twenty-five years ago,” he wrote, “the federal government declared war on men. It is time to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.” Calling for all-out insurrection, he offered tips on making Molotov cocktails and urged his readers to use them against courthouses and police stations. “There will be some casualties in this war,” he predicted. “Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.”
Finally:
The first shots in this so-called war on feminism were fired 22 years before Tom Ball’s suicide. On Dec. 6, 1989, Marc Lépine, a troubled 25-year-old computer student, strolled into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, Canada, carrying a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle and a hunting knife. He walked into a classroom, ordered the men to leave, and lined the women up against a wall.
“I am fighting feminism,” he announced before opening fire. “You’re women, you’re going to be engineers. You’re all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists.”
A few obviously mentally disturbed radicals don't define a movement, but unfortunately the online behaviour isn't exactly a nice portrait of anti feminists either. An underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations. There are literally hundreds of websites, blogs and forums devoted to attacking virtually all women (or, at least, Westernized ones) — the so-called “manosphere,” which now also includes a tribute page for Tom Ball (“He Died For Our Children”). While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many. Women are routinely maligned as sluts, gold-diggers, temptresses and worse; overly sympathetic men are dubbed “manginas”; and police and other officials are called their armed enablers. Even Ball — who did not directly blame his ex-wife for his troubles, but instead depicted her and their three children as co-victims of the authorities — vilified “man-hating feminists” as evil destroyers of all that is good.
More evidence here: http://manboobz.com
But yet even with all of this, things like the straw feminist and alleged feminazi's are a much more commonly feared/detested notion than say anti "feminazi's", who are evidently more mobilized online and more radical in leaps and bounds.
Some men's rights groups have some actual issues that we agree on, but I'm sorry, anti feminism has acted more radical in it's short life than the entire history of feminism. And I find this reactionary movements rhetoric to be just so full of projection.
There are such things as radical feminists, the type that write manifestos about hating men, but there are also radical gay and race based activists. However there's a difference between a "radical" that sits on tumblr all day, over analysing the race, gender and sexuality roles in a weetabix advert to form a ridiculous conclusion, and the radicals who take action and effect real human lives.
So let's compare the action of these radical feminists, it shouldn't be hard to find examples of them given the supposed abundance of them that exist should it? To the actions of radical anti feminists.
Firstly we have:
On July 22, Breivik slaughtered 77 of his countrymen, most of them teenagers, in Oslo and at a summer camp on the island of Utøya, because he thought they or their parents were the kinds of “politically correct” liberals who were enabling Muslim immigration. But Breivik was almost as voluble on the subjects of feminism, the family, and fathers’ rights as he was on Islam. “The most direct threat to the family is ‘divorce on demand,’” he wrote in the manifesto he posted just before he began his deadly spree. “The system must be reformed so that the father will be awarded custody rights by default.”
Secondly:
After 10 years of custody battles, court-ordered counseling and imminent imprisonment for non-payment of child support, Thomas James Ball, a leader of the Worcester branch of the Massachusetts-based Fatherhood Coalition, had reached his limit. On June 15, 2011, he doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire just outside the Cheshire County, N.H., Courthouse. He was dead within minutes.
In a lengthy “Last Statement,” which arrived posthumously at the Keene Sentinel, Tom Ball told his story. All he had done, he said, was smack his 4-year-old daughter and bloody her mouth after she licked his hand as he was putting her to bed. Feminist-crafted anti-domestic violence legislation did the rest. “Twenty-five years ago,” he wrote, “the federal government declared war on men. It is time to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.” Calling for all-out insurrection, he offered tips on making Molotov cocktails and urged his readers to use them against courthouses and police stations. “There will be some casualties in this war,” he predicted. “Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.”
Finally:
The first shots in this so-called war on feminism were fired 22 years before Tom Ball’s suicide. On Dec. 6, 1989, Marc Lépine, a troubled 25-year-old computer student, strolled into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, Canada, carrying a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle and a hunting knife. He walked into a classroom, ordered the men to leave, and lined the women up against a wall.
“I am fighting feminism,” he announced before opening fire. “You’re women, you’re going to be engineers. You’re all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists.”
A few obviously mentally disturbed radicals don't define a movement, but unfortunately the online behaviour isn't exactly a nice portrait of anti feminists either. An underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations. There are literally hundreds of websites, blogs and forums devoted to attacking virtually all women (or, at least, Westernized ones) — the so-called “manosphere,” which now also includes a tribute page for Tom Ball (“He Died For Our Children”). While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many. Women are routinely maligned as sluts, gold-diggers, temptresses and worse; overly sympathetic men are dubbed “manginas”; and police and other officials are called their armed enablers. Even Ball — who did not directly blame his ex-wife for his troubles, but instead depicted her and their three children as co-victims of the authorities — vilified “man-hating feminists” as evil destroyers of all that is good.
More evidence here: http://manboobz.com
But yet even with all of this, things like the straw feminist and alleged feminazi's are a much more commonly feared/detested notion than say anti "feminazi's", who are evidently more mobilized online and more radical in leaps and bounds.
Some men's rights groups have some actual issues that we agree on, but I'm sorry, anti feminism has acted more radical in it's short life than the entire history of feminism. And I find this reactionary movements rhetoric to be just so full of projection.
A couple of mentally ill criminals represent anyone who disagrees with Feminism now?
Take a look at the state of family courts and custody issues. Maybe modern 'Feminism' hasn't killed anyone, but it's certainly destroyed families and ruined fathers through no fault of their own.
Valerie Solanas:
According to Robert Marmorstein in 1968, "she has dedicated the remainder of her life to the avowed purpose of eliminating every single male from the face of the earth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas#The_shooting
According to Robert Marmorstein in 1968, "she has dedicated the remainder of her life to the avowed purpose of eliminating every single male from the face of the earth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas#The_shooting
Original post by Janeylee
blah blah blah
Have you seen my post?
Original post by Steevee
A couple of mentally ill criminals represent anyone who disagrees with Feminism now?
Aw, sorry boo, I predicted this strawman:
A few obviously mentally disturbed radicals don't define a movement, but unfortunately the online behaviour isn't exactly a nice portrait of anti feminists either.
Guess you didn't read the post, right?
Take a look at the state of family courts and custody issues. Maybe modern 'Feminism' hasn't killed anyone, but it's certainly destroyed families and ruined fathers through no fault of their ow
And how can this alleged bias be attributed to feminism? I'm pretty sure in societies lacking feminism women are expected to take care of the children.
Destroyed families? How? Ruined fathers? How?
Perception: the courts are biased against fathers, who almost never get custody.
Fact: According to DivorcePeers.com the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts. In 51% of the cases both parents agreed that mom be the custodial parent.
Though it is true that women are far more likely to be awarded custody, they are also far more likely toask for it in the first place. To establish bias, one must show (at the very minimum) that equally qualified fathers who request custody are denied more than half of the time, and here the data prove inconvenient. Courts can't be expected to award what they're not asked to. It turns out that fathers who ask for custody (and don't give up) are very likely to get either sole or joint custody:
From a state of Massachusetts study of custody awards at the state and national level come these studies of cases where fathers requested custody:
Study 1: MASS
2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%)
5 year duration
29% of fathers got primary custody
65% of fathers got joint custody
7% of mothers got primary custody
Study 2: MASS
700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody
6 years
67% of fathers got primary custody
23% of mothers got primary custody
Study 3: MASS
500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody
6 years
41% of fathers got sole custody
38% of fathers got joint custody
15% of mothers got sole custody
Study 4: Los Angeles
63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful
Study 5: US appellate custody cases
51% of fathers who sought custody were successful (not clear from wording whether this includes just sole or sole/joint custody)
The study concluded:The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers.
More on fathers and custody:Through most of Anglo-American legal history, there was little custody litigation because there was nothing to fight over. Dad always got the kids. Under English and early American common law, children were regarded as paternal property.In the mid-1800s, the Industrial Revolution swept fathers out of jobs at or near home and into factories and businesses, prompting the courts to reverse course on custody. Under the “tender years” doctrine, eventually adopted in every state, the mother was presumed to be the proper custodian, especially for young children.
In the 1970s, this doctrine was replaced by the ostensibly gender-neutral “best interest of the child” standard. Today, only five states—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee—have some form of maternal preference in custody statutes or case law, says Jeffrey Atkinson, author of Modern Child Custody Practice, 2d ed., and professor at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on maternal preferences, Atkinson believes these holdout states are on shaky constitutional ground. “A presumption that women are inherently better able to care for children than men is not a legitimate, accurate method for determining custody,” he says.
Old stereotypes die hard, though, and fathers’ rights advocates say neutral statutory language has done little to change the courts’ pro-mother leanings. Moms are granted custody in 85 percent of all cases, notes Dianna Thompson, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based American Coalition for Fathers and Children. She says the expense of litigation and likelihood of losing discourages many dads from even fighting for custody.
However, statistics on custody awards can be deceiving, since most custody orders are uncontested or negotiated by the parties. A 1992 study of California cases showed that fathers were awarded primary or joint custody in about half of contested custody matters.
Some lawyers believe the gender gap in custody awards reflects a preference for the status quo, rather than bias against fathers. “Family law is a case-by-case, judge-by-judge affair,” says Joel Bigatel, a family lawyer in Narberth, Pa. “If there’s a bias in awarding custody, it’s in favor of primary caretakers. If dad is the working parent, and mom is the stay-at-home, she generally has a leg up.”
Working fathers have the best shot at being named primary caretakers if they have flexible schedules, or if the mother is also working and the children are already in day care or school, says Bigatel.
*******************
Perception: Child support laws are biased against men.
Fact: Higher earning spouses (usually men) pay more but the standard itself is gender neutral.
33 states use the gender neutral income shares standard. For example, wife makes 40% of total income, husband makes 60% of total income, CS is 18% of the total or 18000 for a total income of 100K. Wife's share would be .4(18,000), husband's share would be .6(18,000). If either parent's income goes up, so does their share of child maintenance costs.
17 states apply a fixed percentage to the non-custodial parent's income. Using the preceding example, noncustodial Mom's share would be .4(18,000) or noncustodial Dad's share would be .6(18,000). If custodial parent's income goes up, that does not affect noncustodial parent's duty to pay, since it is based upon his/her income alone.
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by nohomo
Valerie Solanas:
According to Robert Marmorstein in 1968, "she has dedicated the remainder of her life to the avowed purpose of eliminating every single male from the face of the earth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas#The_shooting
According to Robert Marmorstein in 1968, "she has dedicated the remainder of her life to the avowed purpose of eliminating every single male from the face of the earth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas#The_shooting
Okay that could be one, but does she self identify as feminist? Because if just wanting to kill the opposite sex counts as feminist/anti feminist radicals then we have you beat by miles in terms of misogynistic killings vs misandrist killings, and she only attempted to kill one person right?
Her wiki says "English professor Dana Heller argued that Solanas was "very much aware of feminist organizations and activism",[65] but that she "had no interest in participating in what she often described as 'a civil disobedience luncheon club.'"[65] Heller also stated that Solanas could "reject mainstream liberal feminism for its blind adherence to cultural codes of feminine politeness and decorum which the SCUM Manifesto identifies as the source of women's debased social status."
Still got along way to go to break even.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Janeylee
Aw, sorry boo, I predicted this strawman:
A few obviously mentally disturbed radicals don't define a movement, but unfortunately the online behaviour isn't exactly a nice portrait of anti feminists either.
Guess you didn't read the post, right?
And how can this alleged bias be attributed to feminism? I'm pretty sure in societies lacking feminism women are expected to take care of the children.
Destroyed families? How? Ruined fathers? How?
Perception: the courts are biased against fathers, who almost never get custody.
Fact: According to DivorcePeers.com the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts. In 51% of the cases both parents agreed that mom be the custodial parent.
Though it is true that women are far more likely to be awarded custody, they are also far more likely toask for it in the first place. To establish bias, one must show (at the very minimum) that equally qualified fathers who request custody are denied more than half of the time, and here the data prove inconvenient. Courts can't be expected to award what they're not asked to. It turns out that fathers who ask for custody (and don't give up) are very likely to get either sole or joint custody:
From a state of Massachusetts study of custody awards at the state and national level come these studies of cases where fathers requested custody:
Study 1: MASS
2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%)
5 year duration
29% of fathers got primary custody
65% of fathers got joint custody
7% of mothers got primary custody
Study 2: MASS
700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody
6 years
67% of fathers got primary custody
23% of mothers got primary custody
Study 3: MASS
500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody
6 years
41% of fathers got sole custody
38% of fathers got joint custody
15% of mothers got sole custody
Study 4: Los Angeles
63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful
Study 5: US appellate custody cases
51% of fathers who sought custody were successful (not clear from wording whether this includes just sole or sole/joint custody)
The study concluded:The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers.
More on fathers and custody:Through most of Anglo-American legal history, there was little custody litigation because there was nothing to fight over. Dad always got the kids. Under English and early American common law, children were regarded as paternal property.In the mid-1800s, the Industrial Revolution swept fathers out of jobs at or near home and into factories and businesses, prompting the courts to reverse course on custody. Under the “tender years” doctrine, eventually adopted in every state, the mother was presumed to be the proper custodian, especially for young children.
In the 1970s, this doctrine was replaced by the ostensibly gender-neutral “best interest of the child” standard. Today, only five states—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee—have some form of maternal preference in custody statutes or case law, says Jeffrey Atkinson, author of Modern Child Custody Practice, 2d ed., and professor at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on maternal preferences, Atkinson believes these holdout states are on shaky constitutional ground. “A presumption that women are inherently better able to care for children than men is not a legitimate, accurate method for determining custody,” he says.
Old stereotypes die hard, though, and fathers’ rights advocates say neutral statutory language has done little to change the courts’ pro-mother leanings. Moms are granted custody in 85 percent of all cases, notes Dianna Thompson, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based American Coalition for Fathers and Children. She says the expense of litigation and likelihood of losing discourages many dads from even fighting for custody.
However, statistics on custody awards can be deceiving, since most custody orders are uncontested or negotiated by the parties. A 1992 study of California cases showed that fathers were awarded primary or joint custody in about half of contested custody matters.
Some lawyers believe the gender gap in custody awards reflects a preference for the status quo, rather than bias against fathers. “Family law is a case-by-case, judge-by-judge affair,” says Joel Bigatel, a family lawyer in Narberth, Pa. “If there’s a bias in awarding custody, it’s in favor of primary caretakers. If dad is the working parent, and mom is the stay-at-home, she generally has a leg up.”
Working fathers have the best shot at being named primary caretakers if they have flexible schedules, or if the mother is also working and the children are already in day care or school, says Bigatel.
*******************
Perception: Child support laws are biased against men.
Fact: Higher earning spouses (usually men) pay more but the standard itself is gender neutral.
33 states use the gender neutral income shares standard. For example, wife makes 40% of total income, husband makes 60% of total income, CS is 18% of the total or 18000 for a total income of 100K. Wife's share would be .4(18,000), husband's share would be .6(18,000). If either parent's income goes up, so does their share of child maintenance costs.
17 states apply a fixed percentage to the non-custodial parent's income. Using the preceding example, noncustodial Mom's share would be .4(18,000) or noncustodial Dad's share would be .6(18,000). If custodial parent's income goes up, that does not affect noncustodial parent's duty to pay, since it is based upon his/her income alone.
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html
A few obviously mentally disturbed radicals don't define a movement, but unfortunately the online behaviour isn't exactly a nice portrait of anti feminists either.
Guess you didn't read the post, right?
And how can this alleged bias be attributed to feminism? I'm pretty sure in societies lacking feminism women are expected to take care of the children.
Destroyed families? How? Ruined fathers? How?
Perception: the courts are biased against fathers, who almost never get custody.
Fact: According to DivorcePeers.com the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts. In 51% of the cases both parents agreed that mom be the custodial parent.
Though it is true that women are far more likely to be awarded custody, they are also far more likely toask for it in the first place. To establish bias, one must show (at the very minimum) that equally qualified fathers who request custody are denied more than half of the time, and here the data prove inconvenient. Courts can't be expected to award what they're not asked to. It turns out that fathers who ask for custody (and don't give up) are very likely to get either sole or joint custody:
From a state of Massachusetts study of custody awards at the state and national level come these studies of cases where fathers requested custody:
Study 1: MASS
2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%)
5 year duration
29% of fathers got primary custody
65% of fathers got joint custody
7% of mothers got primary custody
Study 2: MASS
700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody
6 years
67% of fathers got primary custody
23% of mothers got primary custody
Study 3: MASS
500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody
6 years
41% of fathers got sole custody
38% of fathers got joint custody
15% of mothers got sole custody
Study 4: Los Angeles
63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful
Study 5: US appellate custody cases
51% of fathers who sought custody were successful (not clear from wording whether this includes just sole or sole/joint custody)
The study concluded:The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers.
More on fathers and custody:Through most of Anglo-American legal history, there was little custody litigation because there was nothing to fight over. Dad always got the kids. Under English and early American common law, children were regarded as paternal property.In the mid-1800s, the Industrial Revolution swept fathers out of jobs at or near home and into factories and businesses, prompting the courts to reverse course on custody. Under the “tender years” doctrine, eventually adopted in every state, the mother was presumed to be the proper custodian, especially for young children.
In the 1970s, this doctrine was replaced by the ostensibly gender-neutral “best interest of the child” standard. Today, only five states—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee—have some form of maternal preference in custody statutes or case law, says Jeffrey Atkinson, author of Modern Child Custody Practice, 2d ed., and professor at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on maternal preferences, Atkinson believes these holdout states are on shaky constitutional ground. “A presumption that women are inherently better able to care for children than men is not a legitimate, accurate method for determining custody,” he says.
Old stereotypes die hard, though, and fathers’ rights advocates say neutral statutory language has done little to change the courts’ pro-mother leanings. Moms are granted custody in 85 percent of all cases, notes Dianna Thompson, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based American Coalition for Fathers and Children. She says the expense of litigation and likelihood of losing discourages many dads from even fighting for custody.
However, statistics on custody awards can be deceiving, since most custody orders are uncontested or negotiated by the parties. A 1992 study of California cases showed that fathers were awarded primary or joint custody in about half of contested custody matters.
Some lawyers believe the gender gap in custody awards reflects a preference for the status quo, rather than bias against fathers. “Family law is a case-by-case, judge-by-judge affair,” says Joel Bigatel, a family lawyer in Narberth, Pa. “If there’s a bias in awarding custody, it’s in favor of primary caretakers. If dad is the working parent, and mom is the stay-at-home, she generally has a leg up.”
Working fathers have the best shot at being named primary caretakers if they have flexible schedules, or if the mother is also working and the children are already in day care or school, says Bigatel.
*******************
Perception: Child support laws are biased against men.
Fact: Higher earning spouses (usually men) pay more but the standard itself is gender neutral.
33 states use the gender neutral income shares standard. For example, wife makes 40% of total income, husband makes 60% of total income, CS is 18% of the total or 18000 for a total income of 100K. Wife's share would be .4(18,000), husband's share would be .6(18,000). If either parent's income goes up, so does their share of child maintenance costs.
17 states apply a fixed percentage to the non-custodial parent's income. Using the preceding example, noncustodial Mom's share would be .4(18,000) or noncustodial Dad's share would be .6(18,000). If custodial parent's income goes up, that does not affect noncustodial parent's duty to pay, since it is based upon his/her income alone.
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html
And a large portion of online Feminist behavior is far from savoury. And I think you'll find that far more 'Feminist' demonstrations show absolutely abhorrent behavior as compared to MRA rallies.
Would you happen to have any UK stats? Those look awfully like you've copied and pasted them from somewhere aswell...
My eyes hurt, so much bull **** in the op.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by rad_student
Nice 1.
Not really, considering he provided zero evidence of me ever stating a radical belief. Radical doesn't equate to bitchy, sorry.
The boobster...renowned for his quotemining skills!
Attachment not found
You fell for it! I think by reowned you'll probably mean a couple of cases that your type uses to dismiss the hundred of legitimate cases of anti feminists acting like awful human beings online.
Not to mention how the splc lists several sites as hate groups.
No wonder all u had were USA info!
Because that changes anything how? Not to mention two of the killer listed weren't in the usa, derp.
Or how about The NUS motion to deny having a Men's Officer.
Do they have a white and straight officer?
When Toronto Fems shouted "this is what Men's Rights look like"... What does it look like Janeylee? Calm, ignoring...peaceful?
Lol. You point to non violent protests? Really, don't be anti freedom of speech now little one.
Story Here - National Women’s Encounter opposed Church's view on abortion
Okay finally you present something, erm how many deaths were there during that protest by the way?
You read the Earl Silverman story, how many DV shelters for men in Canada?
You can't attribute that to radical feminists. Any more than I can attribute the abundance of wives and girlfriends killed in domestic abuse to anti feminists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/29/earl-silverman-dead-suicide_n_3179850.html
Erin Pizzey, received death threats for her findings in the DV shelters she established. http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=a41532d6-d4df-46a2-a784-f6499938f3b0
Okay, that's one dog. Yet radical feminism still haven't got one single human murder under there belt yet.
Esther Vilar also received death threats for her book The Manipulated Man (easily find a copy.)
Do you really want to go in to death and rape threats from anti feminists? Really?
We're still counting murders so far anti feminists I list are up to 80 people, and radical feminists have one dog. Bit of a difference? Nope? Of course not there coming for you in your sleep cause youtube videos.
- the above are NOT individuals. Online = Agent Orange files http://agentorangefiles.com (LOTS of screenshots once opened) so a few shown here http://radfemhubexposed.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/radfem-hub-underbelly-of-hate-movement.html
Oh wow a couple of forum posts that's really equal, show me an actual website that is as popular as mra reddit and avfm.
(from the defunct Radfem Hub https://www.facebook.com/pages/RadFem-HUB/237868122941729)
923 likes? Lol, oh noes, they're coming.
Original post by Kiss
These are all good examples 
Not really, as shouting and swearing at a protest doesn't really equate to radical for me. Do you know what was radical though? The response this one overused example of "radical feminism" (which apprantely means an agressive woman now
) got, look here: http://jezebel.com/rape-and-death-threats-what-mens-rights-activists-rea-476882099
Personal rape and death threats are a bit more radical than arguing aggressively, but still non violently, in the street.
So much violence, how radical.
Really? BBC breakfast? How many causalities? If our "radicals" are on bbc breakfast I think that attests to my point.
Straw man annotations?
Original post by Algorithm69
Mary P. Koss. An incredibly influential feminist whose "research" created the "1 in 4" rape statistic repeated ad nauseam by feminists
(she had the kindness to admit the entire study was flawed).
(she had the kindness to admit the entire study was flawed).
So she admits her study was flawed, yet is still a radical?
As far as 2012 stands
• Nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women and 1 in 71 men
(1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some time in
their lives.
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf
Original post by the mezzil
So name a single factual error. My point is rationalised and valid, radical feminism hasn't taken a human life so far given the examples, yet anti feminism has.
people are angrier at women who claim to hate men than at men who actually hate, rape, kill and abuse women.
ok then.
ok then.
Original post by Algorithm69
Did you not read the rest of my post?
Yes.
That explains why she is radical.
No, it doesn't.
Further, why post a survey from an organisation (the CDC) that I told you in my post has been influenced by Koss' fuzzy thinking and doesn't classify made-to-penetrate as rape.
What proof do you have in order to disagree with the cdc statistics? Let me guess an mra site saying how most rape is false?
The cdc are government statistics.
Made to penetrate will be included in coercion or sexual assault, so to dismiss them on that basis is irrelevant. To address how you made a claim that her 4 in 1 statistics were so false so I thought it important to show that the truth is not that far off based on the current 2012 statistic documented by the goverment ran cdc.
It's statistics are junk and deeply misandrist.
Yeah everything is a misandrist conspiracy.
(edited 10 years ago)
Take this forum as an example, you get threads about how horrible feminism is every day. And threads by feminists are a reaction to this. There are more threads slagging off the apparently mass spreading evil feminism and subsequent defenses of feminism then there are genuine threads arguing for feminist causes.Women have rights lol
Original post by Janeylee
So name a single factual error. My point is rationalised and valid, radical feminism hasn't taken a human life so far given the examples, yet anti feminism has.
Wtf are you on about murder for? It has nothing to do with feminazis.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Algorithm69
Saying women who have unconsenual sex with men aren't rapists and their male victims aren't victims of rape isn't radical?
If a woman is forced to penetrate a man with an "aid", it isn't counted as rape either. Saying it is sexual assault isn't radical, denying it being any kind of a assault would be radical. It's semantics, not radicalism.
I've never encountered an MRA who has stated most rape is false. Not one of any significance anyway.
And I've never encountered a man hating feminist.
Your fact sheet simply states "experienced rape". What does that even mean? The statistic, if you dig deeper, comes from this methodology:
Yes, it also includes attempted rape, that doesn't make it any better. 1 in 5 women have experienced rape or attempted rape, why is that such an issue for you? Why is denying rape statistics a cause for you, huh?
People who have been the victims of attempted rape are not rape victims.
They are victims of attempted rape.
As for the "alcohol/drug faciliated completed penetration", I don't think anything needs to be said. That statistic is highly open to abuse.
No because you omit the question that was asked was: “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?"
And unable to consent, not or, and there's no gray line if you are unable to consent then that is rape.
"The CDC is misandrist in its methodology."
Again, no it isn't as it is included in sexual assault and coercion. To explain, in NISVS we define rape as “any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”We defined sexual violence other than rape to include being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences. Made to penetrate is defined as including “times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”
The difference between “rape” and “being made to penetrate” is that in the definition of rape the victim is penetrated; “made to penetrate” by definition refers to cases where the victim penetrated someone else.
While there are multiple definitions of rape and sexual violence used in the field, CDC, with the help of experts in the field, has developed these specific definitions of rape and other forms of sexual violence (such as made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences). We use these definitions to help guide our analytical decisions.
Original post by the mezzil
But if they were just as radical as anti feminists, it would have.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
