Re: The Failure of Feminism


PolishKnight wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Hyerdahl wrote:

But feminists are doing just fine without it, Mark. Just look at what
they have, the right to own property, vote, control their own
gestations and patriarchy has nothing to do with upholding that. Too
bad you are so easily confused.

At the point when there are no further "special" rights, privileges and
protections for women in relation to men, you might be able to make the
claim that "patriarchy/chivalry has nothing to do with it, until then
your assertion is disingenuous and without merit...

What laws exist that deny men equal rights?

As you well know, the devil is in the details...when laws are enforced
in a biased way it matters not whether they are written in gender
neutral ways...

Then PROVE the bias, Mark. Show us with a study how men are being
discriminated against. Because until you do, all you have is opinion
or conjecture.


I might be able to agree with you, Ken, but you have not provided one
single study SHOWING where there is bias. You can't just make things
up and hope people will address something that isn't there.

This is something you should be familiar with Parg, remember the ERA ?
It was hotly sought after by feminists because even though the laws of
the land were written in gender neutral language, feminists insisted
that they were being applied in gender biased ways. They based this
insistence not upon proven discrimination but upon statistical outcomes
that could have arisen for any number of reasons.

The ERA didn't pass, Mark. :-) Did you forget that. And, feminsts
have provided numerous studies showing how bias was inherent in sexist
laws. As to statistical outcomes, alone I wouldn't buy those from
feminists any more than I'd by them from you.
So, I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific in proving bias from
either side.

A law suggesting that people are equal doesn't really demand a showing
of discrimination, Ken. :-) In fact, such a law would simply support
our Constitutional goals of equality for each citizen.

Actually, equality doesn't mean that people must be the same, but
rather, that the laws must apply to them in order to get equal
treatment. IOW, putting urinals in ALL restrooms would not give women
an equal right to pee. :-) To place urinals in ALL bathrooms, would
.....in fact, be discriminatory, demanding that women BE men in order to
achieve equality. So, if you can prove up some kind of discrimination,
society will be happy to address it.

Well if statistical outcomes are good enough for feminists, they have
to be good enough for men's rights advocates...the fact that over 85% of
contested child custody is awarded to women rings alarm bells right
away.

Not really. You see, most custody is undisputed with women retaining
custody because that's what most people want. Those cases which are
disputed result in more maternal custody because more mothers have
chosen to be primary caregivers and judge acknowledge that. The few
remaining cases, where men have also provided primary care tend to find
for fathers more often since there are more male judges.

No, because it can be explained away by men's own poor choices when it
comes to being a primary parent.

Yup.>
Hahahahahahaha!

I don't see that it's funny, but perhaps I'm missing something here?


Another great time to ask her about all the women who are on welfare
or have their children in dire financial situations because they
gestated> children for men who don't support them...

Actually, women choose to gestate or not for themselves, Mark, and men
have their own responsibility in the choices they make. Judges know
this even if you don't.

You can't CLAIM bias when the problem is explainable from some other source. If more men chose to be primary in the lives of their kids more men would retain custody.

Couldn't the same be said of women's participation in the workforce?

Sure. Except that most women today DO work outside the home.

Wouldn't women earn more if they didn't rely on welfare, alimony,
or C.S.?

Alimony is a payment to women based on their sacrifice of career, and
that has nothing to do with other choices women make. IOW, men would
also "work more" if we didn't allow them to inherit from daddy. :-)
Child support is for children, and even if taking it away would benefit
daddy, it still goes to children. Welfare is for children whose
parents are having a tough go, so taking that away would make little
difference in terms of women's career advancement, IMO.

After all, most of the judges are men, and people tend to choose those
most like themselves.

If that was the case, then Parg wouldn't have any rights at all.

That IS the case, but men don't determine my rights any more than women
determine yours.

The fact that over 90% of non-custodial fathers pay child support
while less than 30% of non-custodial mothers pay child support rings
alarm bells right away.

Not really. Women earn less than men, and mothers may be SAH moms. It
stands to reason.

Again, no. Most men choose to be primary wage earners instead of
choosing to be primary parents. That explains why more women than men
raise kids...they did so before the divorce.

Indeed! Parg remembers that men provide and support their families
when she can use it as a liability against them. Of course,
does this mean that career women aren't primary parents? :-)

The judge determines who, in the family, tends to the child's needs
whether that is mother or father. Someone will be primary to that
unless the child is left on the streets to struggle alone. Poor Mark,
must really resent that. :-)

The fact that men are four times as likely to be > imprisoned as women
for the same crime, and that even when women are imprisoned they, on average, receive 1/3rd the sentence rings alarm> bells right away.

Not if there are other explanations, i.e. that women commit crimes for
other reasons, including issues of domestic abuse, and self defense, or
that women pose less of risk to socitey, etc.

Suddenly, she discovers merit.

Merit is a wonderful thing, Mark. So is merit plus diversity. :-)

It's ok to toss men into jail> if they deserve it but hiring should be
quota based.

Criminals are certainly not the same as the rest of it, especially as
it applies to earning a living, a generic right.

Men also defend themselves and are victims of DV as the FBI
has admitted but they are charged less. Studies also found
that white women are less likely to be issued tickets (this
was commissioned by black civil rights groups seeking to
address profiling. Scarlette Ohara, though, didn't want to
give up her privileges.)

???? I have no objection to using studies to show how different
social groups are treated unfairly, Mark. Bring them on. Of course,
using stats on DV that don't include the DEGREE of harm, are not
impressive.

The fact that women have legally unconstrained post
coital reproductive rights while men have their natural abilities to
chose or decline parenthood legally constrained rings alarm bells right
away...shall I go on ?

There are no "post coital" rights. There are only bodily rights each
retains over his or her own bod. You bitter babies just can't
understand the difference between wallets and bodies, but don't
worry....the SC can.

The same SC that gave Al Gore a lesson on Constitutional law? :-)

Sure. The very same. You see, Mark. I tend to agree with the SC on
most issues.
That's what you fail to comprehend. The few times the SC has erred in
the past ten years, I can count on one hand. :-)


regards,
PolishKnight

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The truth about soc.men "regulars"
    ... so-called moderate feminists moreso than us because they ... rights they've gained. ... No one is holding a gun to your head, Andre and Mark. ... discrimination present, then you are correct, Mark. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Knoxys InGratitude to Men
    ... For the society you take for granted to ... Mark. ... the rights and freedoms that men grant them. ... who did the excluding, even when those men were our founders. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Thou Shall Not Cheat Thy Neighbors
    ... >He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing ... >with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. ... Then you do not believe they have the same rights we do. ... The car minds it a lot less, ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: The truth about soc.men "regulars"
    ... so-called moderate feminists moreso than us because they ... rights they've gained. ... No one is holding a gun to your head, Andre and Mark. ... discrimination present, then you are correct, Mark. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: principles? Re: stoning, burning alive, Re: A job for life and source of income
    ... still ask about the morality or immorality of the punishment. ... > laws of God and Social laws of God. ... killing of human beings but we know for a fact that the Bahai faith is ... >> American civil rights movement, there are definitely examples of how ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)