Are you a feminist?

[Woggle]

Woggle, I think you probably already know the answer to that if you think back. For instance to some of the discussion in the following thread:

 

https://www.loveshack.org/forums/off-topic/current-events/479977-men-s-rights-group-raises-25-000-protect-them-feminists

 

There are a lot of men's rights groups that, when you scratch below the surface, are less concerned with making life better for men and more concerned with making things tougher for women. It's what I always look for in any discussion with a man purporting to argue for men's rights. What is the right that he believes has been violated? How do you go about promoting and protecting that right? Is he really concerned with a right he has, that is being violated - or is his main priority to try to erode somebody else's right?

 

So for instance, a father's right to have contact with his children following divorce or separation. As we know, generally the woman's home will still be the main place of residence - but as is often less discussed in men's rights circles, this is very frequently because the man and woman have agreed between themselves that this should be the case. I deal with a lot of family law cases, and generally when I do a separation agreement where a child is involved, this is the pre-agreed situation that's brought to me. That the separating couple have agreed that the child will live with the mother.

 

However, in a lot of cases - and especially where the parents haven't been married (though here, in the case of children born after 2007, dad still has automatic parental rights even if he's never been married to mum) problems with contact can arise. Dad (and sometimes mum too - I've had a few cases involving women) has a right to contact, but the other parent is ignoring their right - so the right has to be asserted in court and a contact order made that the other parent has to comply with.

 

Since more often men are the ones who seek contact, evidently this is an issue that's paramount amongst men's rights advocates - and correctly so. Not only have I absolutely no problem with that, but I have often advocated for men in that situation. And occasionally I've done so pro bono (ie for free). I could show you texts and Christmas cards, and family photos sent as a "thank you for what you did" to prove that I, who would no doubt be slammed by plenty of men's rights advocates who just hate any woman on principle, have probably accomplished more (in terms of promoting individual men's rights), than most of those internet ranters ever will.

 

Leaving aside the issue of fathers' rights, we've talked about some of these MRA websites before. I'm not going to give them the oxygen of publicity by naming them yet again - but here are some of the popular topics they'll focus on.

 

Females who sexually abuse children - which seems like a valid topic for discussion, but the stench of hypocrisy becomes apparent when you realise that despite the fact that statistically sexual abusers of children are still significantly more likely to be male, these same guys who want to talk a lot about female sexual abusers will howl from the rooftops with anger whenever the topic of men abusing children or women is raised. In that scenario, how much benefit of the doubt should be extended to their professed desire to protect children from predatory women? To my mind, probably not much. It smacks less of a genuine desire to protect children and more of a desire to get one over on women.

 

Women who make rape allegations These are public enemies number one to Men's Rights Activist. There is probably no group more likely to invite their ire....and the reason for this is that they act on the assumption that when a woman makes a rape allegation, she is making a false rape allegation. That's how they read the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Let me remind you of this...and okay, I'm giving it the oxygen of publicity but this guy is generally considered to be one of the leading lights of the men's rights movement:

 

Jury duty at a rape trial? Acquit!

 

One of its main advocates states in a very public way that if he is ever sitting on the jury in a rape case, he will convict the accused no matter how overwhelming the evidence against the accused. And you're really asking why women (not just feminists, but women generally) would have a problem with a movement headed by people like that?

 

Believe me I don't support the wackjobs that make up much of the MRA movement but men who simply want a fair shake in family and divorce court and voice it in a non sexist way get crap as well. I actually think the MRAs and the extreme feminists are two sides to the same coin. If it were up to them men and women would be eternal enemies.

[Gloria25]

I absolutely could not disagree more. Again, despite my anti-feminist stance this is utter and complete BS. Unless of course you're arguing that women having basic rights and freedoms, being able to vote, enter the workforce and therefore not forced to depend solely on their husbands or male relatives is somehow some sort of societal ill?

 

I think his point is, while some people are happy with what Feminism has done for them (i.e. they met a man who wants to be "Mr. Mom"), that doesn't mean that Feminism has done damage in another/larger scale.

[Taramere]

Believe me I don't support the wackjobs that make up much of the MRA movement but men who simply want a fair shake in family and divorce court and voice it in a non sexist way get crap as well. I actually think the MRAs and the extreme feminists are two sides to the same coin. If it were up to them men and women would be eternal enemies.

 

I get that, but you asked why women have a problem with the MRA movement - and those numbskulls would be the reason.

 

Every ideology has it. Extremists who are driven more by hate, and personal issues they haven't developed good coping mechanisms to deal with, than they are by any genuine interest in fair play. So those who genuinely are interested in rights and fairness, and select a particular cause to champion (because, for instance, they believe they're well placed to help in that specific cause) find themselves lumped alongside hateful, irrational extremists just because they support similar causes.

[Lernaean_Hydra]

It played a big part by forcing both parents into the workforce just to make ends meat. Now just like Gloria said, "who's raising the kids?"

 

If two parents are in the work force to "make ends meet" how is that the fault of feminism? Two grown adults wanting not to be destitute is hardly a negative...

 

 

There was never any law preventing women from working whatever job they wanted. The reason most were nurses and cooks is because most jobs men had were blue color. Or women couldn't vote. Men couldn't vote either, only wealthy land owners could vote.

 

Revisionist history is alive and well I see.

[SummerDreams]

Raising a child does not require them to be under your thumb 24 hours a day. Once your child is of school age, what exactly are you raising between the hours of 7AM and 3PM? The furniture? Your pets? This kind of reactionary scare mongering sounds an awful lot like the vivid imaginations of naive women gone wild. It smacks of a desire to sit at home while your husband does the heavy lifting.

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a homemaker, but when you (general) start to act as if a household with two working parents is somehow detrimental or means children will be neglected you begin to sound like a lunatic.

 

My bf is at work for 14 hours a day without being paid any extra cause this is how the economy is at the moment, employees have almost no rights and the employers say that if you don't like it you can just leave and there are 1000 more people who'd do your job for even less money. I see my bf a total of 2 hours a day and I do all the housekeeping, errands, cooking etc. Do you really think that we could have a kid if I was working as well these crazy hours?

 

Many people have told me "my parents were both working full time and I turned out to be just fine". What they don't understand is that a child tends to compromise with a situation and get used to it. A child will never complain for something they miss that they have no clue about. If the kid grows up with both parents working, this is what they will adjust to. Nobody in the world though will convince me that it's not optimal for a parent (mostly a mother) to be there with her kid and spend both quality and quantity time with it.

[jay1983]

Oh good god, I'm an anti-feminist and even I can see this is utter BS. Feminism, including modern feminism - no matter how much I disagree with it - is not out to destroy the family unit. Feminists are not some evil overlords rubbing their hands together in wicked anticipation of the collapse of society. What purpose would that even serve?

 

The result, not the intention which is still arguable. The kids out of wedlock, the mothers that choice to be single, the working mother with little time for her kids.

Raising a child does not require them to be under your thumb 24 hours a day. Once your child is of school age, what exactly are you raising between the hours of 7AM and 3PM? The furniture? Your pets? This kind of reactionary scare mongering sounds an awful lot like the vivid imaginations of naive women gone wild. It smacks of a desire to sit at home while your husband does the heavy lifting.

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a homemaker, but when you (general) start to act as if a household with two working parents is somehow detrimental or means children will be neglected you begin to sound like a lunatic.

 

Not nearly that simple. Not too many jobs will give that schedule that fits and if they do, it's likely a low pay part time. My son is elementary, he gets out of school at 3:30, his mother doesn't get off until 6:30. Luckily he has grandparents to pitch. His grandmother see that he gets home okay from school, cooks food, see if he's having any problems, ect. My mother takes him to his guitar lessons, soccer practice, tutoring and any place he needs to go.

 

What if Grandmamas aren't there, who's gonna do that?

 

 

P.S. I like your argument though.

[Dontfindme]

I'm not gonna go over again how having two working parents takes away from needed time with the kids. I believe was clear in making my point. So, I agree to disagree.

 

Now, yes, once the kids are school aged - of course pursuing other interests or working part-time is and has been cool with me.

 

But, working a 9 to 5, juggling kids and a husband is impossible. Something usually falls to the side, and it is not the job. The kids get fast food and/or Mac & Cheese, the husbands get no or little sex. Also, the kids get raised by nannies, day care, and/or the schools. No nanny, teacher or person getting paid minimum wage (both who have a room full of other kids to tend to besides yours) can replace a mother.

 

What of the woman's dreams? Do you really think that a woman's job is solely to prepare food for her kids, and indulge in her husband's sexual desires?

[jay1983]

If two parents are in the work force to "make ends meet" how is that the fault of feminism? Two grown adults wanting not to be destitute is hardly a negative...

 

 

 

 

Revisionist history is alive and well I see.

 

Because now the price of living is so high that we almost always need 2 working parents. Housing and cost of living was raised because landlords simply because people can pay.

 

 

Revisionist history is alive and well I see.

So what I said isn't true?

Edited October 28, 2014 by jay1983

[thefooloftheyear]

Blind worship? I'm speaking towards strength of character of an individual, not their politics. It's possible to disagree with a person yet still respect them.

 

 

So...OWmYEyeball says.its ok to get shyt on and publicly humiliated by your spouse, just so long as there is another agenda....

 

Ill have to remember that the next time I wander off on to an angry womens thread in the Infidelity or OW/OM sub forum....

 

Its this type of "situational" behavior among women that throw their argument down the toilet...Either you are in or you are out...

 

TFY

[Gloria25]

What of the woman's dreams? Do you really think that a woman's job is solely to prepare food for her kids, and indulge in her husband's sexual desires?

 

I don't think it's a woman's "job" and/or "dream" to be some sort of sex slave or maid....

 

Look, Feminism was about "choice"...In life, when you chose one path, you win/lose certain things.

 

If you "choose" to have kids and a husband, then make time for them. If you and/or your husband are working and barely making it - then don't have kids.

 

If you can't find time for a man, then stick to FB/FWBs or ONS, or masturbate.

[Gloria25]

If two parents are in the work force to "make ends meet" how is that the fault of feminism? Two grown adults wanting not to be destitute is hardly a negative...

 

Revisionist history is alive and well I see.

 

Feminism "does" have a role in this because a woman who "choses" to stay home is ridiculed by the Feminist movement. Shoot, even some of the responses to this tread confirm that's the beliefs of Feminists. Some responders to this thread said 'Feminism gave me more options than marrying and having kids, I could get a job'.

 

And, sorry, but IMO, there's not much of two "grown adults" making "adult" decisions now a days. People aren't planning, they aren't being practical. They are just having sex and when the baby comes, they try to make it work cuz 'Love conquers all, right?'

 

Destitute?

 

While I agree that the economy is sucking and our cost of living isn't getting any cheaper, when I talk to different people I see where they can cut costs. Now, they won't have a big and/or new car every few years and they may not be living in the flashiest hood, but they make it work.

 

Cut coupons, watch your budget, stop eating out every day. Small changes can make big differences.

 

But again, if you and/or your SO are barely making ends meet - then don't have kids. If you want kids so bad, go volunteer and do Big Brothers/Sisters, hug babies in premature wards in the hospitals, get foster kids.

[camillalev]

If a woman is a true feminist, then she won't demand special privelages or have an attitude of entitlement. Most feminists, it seems, are defined by these things. Ironic.

 

Funny, did you happen to read the entire thread? There are plenty of posts on balanced equality here. Better chances for custody rights for men, maternity leave, etc. I don't think wanting balanced rights is the same as "demanding special privilege".

[jay1983]

Funny, did you happen to read the entire thread? There are plenty of posts on balanced equality here. Better chances for custody rights for men, maternity leave, etc. I don't think wanting balanced rights is the same as "demanding special privilege".

 

I don't that's what he's talking about.

[camillalev]

Yup, women are having to help men with bills, work full time, still come home to kids and chores.

 

Funny, you maintain that all feminists hate mothers and all things motherhood, yet you have selectively ignored my many posts about the many amazing women I know who have chosen a path of motherhood. Some are friends, some are dear friends. I personally love going to their homes and playing with their little ones.

 

Also, many of the women are also feminists.

[OwMyEyeball]

So...OWmYEyeball says.its ok to get shyt on and publicly humiliated by your spouse, just so long as there is another agenda....

 

Ill have to remember that the next time I wander off on to an angry womens thread in the Infidelity or OW/OM sub forum....

 

Its this type of "situational" behavior among women that throw their argument down the toilet...Either you are in or you are out...

 

TFY

That's your interpretation, but neither my words nor intent.

 

To not stray from the central argument that's sparked this sub-thread: Strength of character (or being "strong") is placing reasoned purpose ahead of emotional reaction. The better capable a person is at maintaining equanimity during times of peril, the stronger their character. Many people cave in the face of infidelity. I can't imagine how much more difficult that would be if it became not just public knowledge, but an international front page centerpiece spanning years of media scrutiny and debate.

[Gloria25]

Funny, you maintain that all feminists hate mothers and all things motherhood, yet you have selectively ignored my many posts about the many amazing women I know who have chosen a path of motherhood. Some are friends, some are dear friends. I personally love going to their homes and playing with their little ones.

 

Also, many of the women are also feminists.

 

I don't know what goes on in your friends home. I don't know your friends. I speak in general how Feminists look down on SAHM/SAHW.

 

One time o'l Hillary Clinton was quick to say something like 'baking cookies' is something she doesn't have time for cuz she's got better things to do.

 

I had a teacher in college talk about how she turns off her phone at work, cuz she's more preoccupied with class rather than what her 'special needs child' would need and it could wait. So, she rather be a teacher than at home with her child. Lovely...

[Lernaean_Hydra]

I'm not gonna go over again how having two working parents takes away from needed time with the kids. I believe was clear in making my point. So, I agree to disagree.

 

Now, yes, once the kids are school aged - of course pursuing other interests or working part-time is and has been cool with me.

 

But, working a 9 to 5, juggling kids and a husband is impossible.

 

Something usually falls to the side, and it is not the job. The kids get fast food and/or Mac & Cheese, the husbands get no or little sex. Also, the kids get raised by nannies, day care, and/or the schools. No nanny, teacher or person getting paid minimum wage (both who have a room full of other kids to tend to besides yours) can replace a mother.

 

Many people have told me "my parents were both working full time and I turned out to be just fine". What they don't understand is that a child tends to compromise with a situation and get used to it. A child will never complain for something they miss that they have no clue about. If the kid grows up with both parents working, this is what they will adjust to. Nobody in the world though will convince me that it's not optimal for a parent (mostly a mother) to be there with her kid and spend both quality and quantity time with it.

 

Rather than go around in circles with the two of you I'll just say this and leave off.

 

I know a damn good bit of so-called 'stay at home moms' who throw their kids in daycare, Pre-K, summer camp, karate, swim class, soccer, fencing, etc you name it just to get them out of their hair and out of that home they're supposedly staying at home for with the best of them. They do it just as much, if not more so than any working mother I have ever known.

 

Childrearing, while difficult and often thankless is not the absolute full time job many make it out to be. As your kids grow older and enter into prepubescence and adolescence they will not only spend more time away from home due to school but numerous other activities - and rightfully so, it's healthy.

 

I'm sorry but I'm just struggling to see the necessity for a woman to spend her days at home from ages 0-18. Saying nothing of the fact that few women are having 4, 5 and 6+ kids anymore which means women are supposedly spending all this time at home in order to "raise" their what, one or two children? Who spend half their time either out of the house or on social media?

 

I would never knock a woman for her choice to stay at home but I feel thoroughly insulted when those who make that choice act as if their way is the best possible choice. I also feel like my intelligence is being insulted when I hear women say they stay home because they "need" to "be there" for their children. "I don't want to work", while perhaps not the most flattering phase is at least a lot more honest.

[camillalev]

Ok, then why is there a need to take the "Women's Movement" to the Presidency.

 

I thought women and girls in the US were no longer "repressed"?

 

Women can get jobs, have abortions, vote, own things...what more "rights" are missing here?

 

BTW, the topics she raised (i.e. the economy, minimum wage) are not "women's issues" they are issues for this country in general.

 

Then, she talks about women who need help internationally. Well, besides using this as a ploy to get votes, what has she actually done for women over the world?

 

Mother Teresa, Angelina Jolie and others have done more for women internationally than Hillary Clinton. And, they didn't need a office or job in politics to make it happen.

 

 

Actually, the ability to get an abortion is getting much more difficult in some states(ie Texas). Not to mention some companies opting out if birth control coverage for their employees. For low income women it will become that much more difficult to obtain birth control. Not to mention that certain republican has stated that if they take the senate their #1 mission would be to ban abortion. They have done a pretty good job so far closing down clinics for ridiculous no health related issues.

 

Also, even if we lives in a world where feminism did not exist and women were forced to be a family caretaker, poverty would still exist. Poor two parent homes exist. Please done forget there is still such a thing as racism in this country, unless you believe racism doesn't exist here either.

 

I'm curious, do you believe feminists are responsible for the economic downturn in 2008?

[serial muse]

It played a big part by forcing both parents into the workforce just to make ends meat. Now just like Gloria said, "who's raising the kids?"

I've read many of your comments that women have been oppressed for centuries. There was never any law preventing women from working whatever job they wanted. The reason most were nurses and cooks is because most jobs men had were blue color. Or women couldn't vote. Men couldn't vote either, only wealthy land owners could vote.

 

 

I'm sorry I most have missed that, who are they again?

 

How on God's green earth did feminism "force" both parents into the workforce????

 

That is completely wrongheaded. Doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

As for the revisionist history - you haven't read a damn thing I've written on the topic, clearly, since I haven't written that. Also, you're flat-out wrong. Read a history book, one actually written by a historian, not a blogger. Tx.

[jay1983]

Rather than go around in circles with the two of you I'll just say this and leave off.

 

 

Yeah, thanks for ignoring me.

[serial muse]

All I hope is that those people who started off reading and posting in this thread talking about how feminists are trying to limit choices are seeing how wrong they were.

 

Get it now, folks? These are the people trying to tell women how they "ought" to be. And they are NOT feminists.

[camillalev]

I don't know what goes on in your friends home. I don't know your friends. I speak in general how Feminists look down on SAHM/SAHW.

 

One time o'l Hillary Clinton was quick to say something like 'baking cookies' is something she doesn't have time for cuz she's got better things to do.

 

I had a teacher in college talk about how she turns off her phone at work, cuz she's more preoccupied with class rather than what her 'special needs child' would need and it could wait. So, she rather be a teacher than at home with her child. Lovely...

 

Interesting, how you are selective in what you would like to hear. I suppose now you will carry on with "all feminists are mother haters and bashers". Despite many posts in this thread. Some people who posted here are mothers themselves and are feminist. But you might say "I don't know if they're really mothers"

 

I'm sorry you have not chosen to be a little more open minded :/

 

Personally I don't judge mothers, I mean I was raised by one. If someone in my group of friends has a child we are nothing but celebratory. I also love being and aunt to my bother and sisters kids! Sorry you believe me to be some kind of mom/family hater.

[jay1983]

How on God's green earth did feminism "force" both parents into the workforce????

 

That is completely wrongheaded. Doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

As for the revisionist history - you haven't read a damn thing I've written on the topic, clearly, since I haven't written that. Also, you're flat-out wrong. Read a history book, one actually written by a historian, not a blogger. Tx.

Please read the thread before you reply.

 

Because now the price of living is so high that we almost always need 2 working parents. Housing and cost of living was raised because landlords simply because people can pay.

So what I said isn't true?

[serial muse]

Please read the thread before you reply.

 

I read it. It still doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

 

This:

 

Because now the price of living is so high that we almost always need 2 working parents. Housing and cost of living was raised because landlords simply because people can pay.

So what I said isn't true?

 

has nothing to do with feminism. That is complete nonsense.

 

Please read history before you reply.

[jay1983]

I read it. It still doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

 

This:

 

 

 

has nothing to do with feminism. That is complete nonsense.

 

Please read history before you reply.

 

The result of feminism, not the intention. I keep repeating myself. Hey seial muse, you think maybe, just maybe you're wrong? Has that ever that ever crossed your mind?