6 ms·

"we are kinda equal" Which gender legally gets the kids, house and alimony in +90% of divorces?

by M8 11y ago

bakhy 11y ago
We could start listing examples of injustices, each one of us could find them, and we would only get farther from finding any solution, or farther from just having a meaningful discussion. I am not negating that there are prejudice against men. I simply wish to point out the obvious - these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. It was not feminism that painted the picture of the man as incompetent parent. It is a very old tenet of patriarchy, that mothers are better parents. That men go around drinking, fighting, they are too aggressive, too incompetent at small housework... These things are really old. They are patriarchy.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  > these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. Is this the argument to make, though? It forces the assertion that "if not for patriarchy, these prejudices wouldn't exist." I'm not sure that that logically follows. > It was not feminism that painted the picture of the man as incompetent parent. It is a very old tenet of patriarchy, that mothers are better parents. That men go around drinking, fighting, they are too aggressive, too incompetent at small housework... These things are really old. They are patriarchy. You're certain this paragraph is true? Patriarchy holds a male at the head of the organizational unit under the belief that that person will do a better job managing that organization. This doesn't lead to "he's the head of the house but a useless parent." I'm fairly certain that that is a modern invention for comedy.
  - bakhy 11y ago
    > It forces the assertion that "if not for patriarchy, these prejudices wouldn't exist." Implications cannot be automatically reversed, as anyone visiting this site should know ;) I.e. "Patriarchy => prejudice X" does not automatically imply "!Patriarchy => !prejudice X". As for your explanation on patriarchy, it is simplistic. Probably all ideological systems that humans have ever followed have been rich with mythology, symbolism, and various ideals. Patriarchy, like any other human system of thought, is not merely such a cold, pseudo-rational conclusion. There are always ideals that come with a system, most importantly, in this case, the concept of the ideal man and woman. Basically, ask yourself, why was it thought that men would better "manage the organization"? What characteristics were idealized in men to make them fit this role? What is the ideal "man of the family"?
    - mattlutze 11y ago
      Well, I used the context of your assertion, I didn't assume it could be automatically reversed. > I am not negating that there are prejudice against men. I simply wish to point out the obvious - these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. The context of this statement implies the removal of patriarchy will affect these prejudices, and, as it makes no sense to argue for the removal of patriarchy if the effect would be negative (!patriarchy => n * (prejudice X) where n > 1), and since the assertion establishes a correlation between the two (n cannot be 1), we're led to assume you mean !patriarchy => n * (prejudice X) where n < 1. Patriarchy doesn't traditionally espouse the tenant of a useless father figure in the household. The distilled archetype being discussed is a modern comedy trope born of gender exploration from the last 40 years.
      - bakhy 11y ago
        Actually, patriarchy does espouse such a tenet. The household is meant for the woman, it is her responsibility, while a man is outside, working for the family. Even if they were not beneath him, an ideal man in patriarchy simply wouldn't be bothered with such menial tasks. This can only naturally produce such a trope. And, OTOH, women are very strongly associated with care and nurture for children, reinforcing the prejudice which causes the unjust treatment of men in custody cases.
        mattlutze 11y ago
        It feels like there's a lot of projection going on here.
        bakhy 11y ago
        Well, that's what I get... I try really hard to keep it civil, to address your comments honestly (even though I was tempted to ask you if you ever met any people, so disconnected from reality your ideas seemed), and in return I get this pathetic piece of ad hominem. Shame on you.
        11y ago
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  >These prejudice are a product of patriarchy. No. E.g. The aggressively anti-male prejudice baked into domestic violence law is entirely the work of feminists. There are many other similar prejudices now. So it's simply dishonest to pretend that feminism has had no influence on family law, education, or many other areas where boys and men are struggling.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > The aggressively anti-male prejudice baked into domestic violence law is entirely the work of feminists Ou don't think it has anything to do with the vast numbers of women killed by men? Very few men are murdered by their wives. While domestic abuse from women against men is important please don't make the mistake of saying the levels of severity of violence is the same.
    - belorn 11y ago
      A result of the weapon of choice in domestic abuse. Men favor fists, while women favor improvised weapons (the legal term as in sticks, stones, or whatever is reachable). Weapons in untrained hands do generally less damage than fists, so men in general cause more damage in fights. However, if the weapon do cause damage, that damage has a higher risk of being major. So which one is more server, a untrained knife wielding attacker or someone going for you with their fists. The legal system has one view, the statistics has one.
    - tomp 11y ago
      > While domestic abuse from women against men is important please don't make the mistake of saying the levels of severity of violence is the same. The parent wasn't. S/he said: > The aggressively anti-male prejudice baked into domestic violence law is entirely the work of feminists which is true regardless of the statistics; under the US rules (AFAIK), police must arrest someone as a result of a domestic violence call, and the guidance is that they must arrest the "primary aggressor", the person who is bigger, stronger, etc. - deemed more dangerous (i.e. the man), regardless of who's actually being violent. Even if men were attacking women in 90% of the cases, arresting men in 99% of the cases is sexist anti-male prejudice.
- BurningFrog 11y ago
  > I simply wish to point out the obvious - these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. Since no one can explain what "patriarchy" even is in a concrete way, this is very far from obvious.
  - bakhy 11y ago
    You're joking, right? :D
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Nope. The way feminist use Patriarchy reminds me of creationist (and IDers) use of God, miracles, and the supernatural.
    - BurningFrog 11y ago
      Honestly, if you held a gun to my head, I could not give you a definition of the word. I have looked for definitions, but they're very vague and contradictory. From usage, it seems to mean "a powerful and sinister force that oppresses women".
- ep103 11y ago
  > It was not feminism that painted the picture of the man as incompetent parent. No, but it is the reason that this is the modern trope men are reduced to in modern media. Matt Groening has gone on the record saying that the reason he created Homer and Bart as incompetent / lovable / stupid / trouble makers, and Lisa / Marge as competent, intelligent role models, is because at the time the series was coming out he felt that was a good way to avoid getting negative publicity for his new series from various feminist groups around the country. No one was going to protest a stupid male role model, or a trouble making male kid, but making the women the same way might, and making them the positive characters would win his show support from feminist groups. Most modern sitcoms follow this same format for the same reason.
  - bakhy 11y ago
    Wait, what are we even talking about here any more - are you saying men contemplate suicide because feminists make them feel bad about themselves? Because of sitcom tropes? Anyway, feminists fight for women. They are mostly women. They had a serious bunch of wrongs to right, more than just some unfavorable sitcom tropes. If they were not, during this fight, sufficiently sensitized to the problems of men, can you really blame them? Do you even realize how unjust and hypocritical such a judgement is? Had feminism followed such standards, it would have never achieved anything, and women would to this day be unable to vote, own property, etc etc. Men would do well to stand up for themselves in these matters, and not allow themselves to find scapegoats in feminism.
    - marrs 11y ago
      Anyway, feminists fight for women. And this is the problem I have with feminists. We should be fighting for each other, not against each other. We are all on this planet together and we all deserve equal rights and opportunities. The idea that we achieve this by having women fight for women's rights and men fight for men's rights is absurd. It might have been inevitable to begin with, but we're not living in the 60s any more, and if we don't move away from this adversarial position then of course people will start to feel threatened, retreat to fundamentalist positions, and react in the way you object to.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. A uesless hypothesis that isn't testable. Women treated worse? Patriarchy. Men treated worse? Patriarchy. Consider that if you go back far enough, men were considered the better parent. I'm sure Patriarchy is to blame for that even though it was to blame for men being considered the worse parent as well.
- facepalm 11y ago
  It couldn't have anything to do with women risking their lives for 9 months carrying the child to birth in their bellies? Or that they tend to breastfeed their children for months after birth, which men simply can not do?
  - bakhy 11y ago
    Sure, of course. It's probably both. But you do understand that men get discriminated in child custody trials even if the child is already well weened off the tit?
    - facepalm 11y ago
      The point is that the situation is not created by patriarchy, but by biology. That women tend to be the caregivers is simply an extension of the beginnings (pregnancy, higher investment in bringing the child to life). Personally I suspect that women being allowed to be the primary caregiver is actually a privilege they earn because their investment in having the children is so much higher. Feminism needs you to believe that being a stay-at-home mum is a horrible ordeal and a hallmark of oppression. The opposite is probably true, if you consider the average job. There may be jobs that are more fun than taking care of your own children, but most jobs aren't like that. Consider a stay-at-home dad. He would be a very expensive babysitter (half of the mother's income). Why should women accept that? Btw., I've heard that in custody trials men actually tend to come out quite well. But I think it has to be taken into consideration that fathers probably only go to court when they see a chance to win to begin with (mother is a crack whore or whatever). So that statistic alone is not telling much.

"we are kinda equal" Which gender legally gets the kids, house and alimony in +90% of divorces?

by M8 11y ago

"we are kinda equal" Which gender legally gets the kids, house and alimony in +90% of divorces?

bakhy 11y ago

We could start listing examples of injustices, each one of us could find them, and we would only get farther from finding any solution, or farther from just having a meaningful discussion. I am not negating that there are prejudice against men. I simply wish to point out the obvious - these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. It was not feminism that painted the picture of the man as incompetent parent. It is a very old tenet of patriarchy, that mothers are better parents. That men go around drinking, fighting, they are too aggressive, too incompetent at small housework... These things are really old. They are patriarchy.

mattlutze 11y ago
> these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. Is this the argument to make, though? It forces the assertion that "if not for patriarchy, these prejudices wouldn't exist." I'm not sure that that logically follows. > It was not feminism that painted the picture of the man as incompetent parent. It is a very old tenet of patriarchy, that mothers are better parents. That men go around drinking, fighting, they are too aggressive, too incompetent at small housework... These things are really old. They are patriarchy. You're certain this paragraph is true? Patriarchy holds a male at the head of the organizational unit under the belief that that person will do a better job managing that organization. This doesn't lead to "he's the head of the house but a useless parent." I'm fairly certain that that is a modern invention for comedy.
- bakhy 11y ago
  > It forces the assertion that "if not for patriarchy, these prejudices wouldn't exist." Implications cannot be automatically reversed, as anyone visiting this site should know ;) I.e. "Patriarchy => prejudice X" does not automatically imply "!Patriarchy => !prejudice X". As for your explanation on patriarchy, it is simplistic. Probably all ideological systems that humans have ever followed have been rich with mythology, symbolism, and various ideals. Patriarchy, like any other human system of thought, is not merely such a cold, pseudo-rational conclusion. There are always ideals that come with a system, most importantly, in this case, the concept of the ideal man and woman. Basically, ask yourself, why was it thought that men would better "manage the organization"? What characteristics were idealized in men to make them fit this role? What is the ideal "man of the family"?
  - mattlutze 11y ago
    Well, I used the context of your assertion, I didn't assume it could be automatically reversed. > I am not negating that there are prejudice against men. I simply wish to point out the obvious - these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. The context of this statement implies the removal of patriarchy will affect these prejudices, and, as it makes no sense to argue for the removal of patriarchy if the effect would be negative (!patriarchy => n * (prejudice X) where n > 1), and since the assertion establishes a correlation between the two (n cannot be 1), we're led to assume you mean !patriarchy => n * (prejudice X) where n < 1. Patriarchy doesn't traditionally espouse the tenant of a useless father figure in the household. The distilled archetype being discussed is a modern comedy trope born of gender exploration from the last 40 years.
    - bakhy 11y ago
      Actually, patriarchy does espouse such a tenet. The household is meant for the woman, it is her responsibility, while a man is outside, working for the family. Even if they were not beneath him, an ideal man in patriarchy simply wouldn't be bothered with such menial tasks. This can only naturally produce such a trope. And, OTOH, women are very strongly associated with care and nurture for children, reinforcing the prejudice which causes the unjust treatment of men in custody cases.
      - mattlutze 11y ago
        It feels like there's a lot of projection going on here.
        bakhy 11y ago
        Well, that's what I get... I try really hard to keep it civil, to address your comments honestly (even though I was tempted to ask you if you ever met any people, so disconnected from reality your ideas seemed), and in return I get this pathetic piece of ad hominem. Shame on you.
        11y ago
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
>These prejudice are a product of patriarchy. No. E.g. The aggressively anti-male prejudice baked into domestic violence law is entirely the work of feminists. There are many other similar prejudices now. So it's simply dishonest to pretend that feminism has had no influence on family law, education, or many other areas where boys and men are struggling.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > The aggressively anti-male prejudice baked into domestic violence law is entirely the work of feminists Ou don't think it has anything to do with the vast numbers of women killed by men? Very few men are murdered by their wives. While domestic abuse from women against men is important please don't make the mistake of saying the levels of severity of violence is the same.
  - belorn 11y ago
    A result of the weapon of choice in domestic abuse. Men favor fists, while women favor improvised weapons (the legal term as in sticks, stones, or whatever is reachable). Weapons in untrained hands do generally less damage than fists, so men in general cause more damage in fights. However, if the weapon do cause damage, that damage has a higher risk of being major. So which one is more server, a untrained knife wielding attacker or someone going for you with their fists. The legal system has one view, the statistics has one.
  - tomp 11y ago
    > While domestic abuse from women against men is important please don't make the mistake of saying the levels of severity of violence is the same. The parent wasn't. S/he said: > The aggressively anti-male prejudice baked into domestic violence law is entirely the work of feminists which is true regardless of the statistics; under the US rules (AFAIK), police must arrest someone as a result of a domestic violence call, and the guidance is that they must arrest the "primary aggressor", the person who is bigger, stronger, etc. - deemed more dangerous (i.e. the man), regardless of who's actually being violent. Even if men were attacking women in 90% of the cases, arresting men in 99% of the cases is sexist anti-male prejudice.
BurningFrog 11y ago
> I simply wish to point out the obvious - these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. Since no one can explain what "patriarchy" even is in a concrete way, this is very far from obvious.
- bakhy 11y ago
  You're joking, right? :D
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Nope. The way feminist use Patriarchy reminds me of creationist (and IDers) use of God, miracles, and the supernatural.
  - BurningFrog 11y ago
    Honestly, if you held a gun to my head, I could not give you a definition of the word. I have looked for definitions, but they're very vague and contradictory. From usage, it seems to mean "a powerful and sinister force that oppresses women".
ep103 11y ago
> It was not feminism that painted the picture of the man as incompetent parent. No, but it is the reason that this is the modern trope men are reduced to in modern media. Matt Groening has gone on the record saying that the reason he created Homer and Bart as incompetent / lovable / stupid / trouble makers, and Lisa / Marge as competent, intelligent role models, is because at the time the series was coming out he felt that was a good way to avoid getting negative publicity for his new series from various feminist groups around the country. No one was going to protest a stupid male role model, or a trouble making male kid, but making the women the same way might, and making them the positive characters would win his show support from feminist groups. Most modern sitcoms follow this same format for the same reason.
- bakhy 11y ago
  Wait, what are we even talking about here any more - are you saying men contemplate suicide because feminists make them feel bad about themselves? Because of sitcom tropes? Anyway, feminists fight for women. They are mostly women. They had a serious bunch of wrongs to right, more than just some unfavorable sitcom tropes. If they were not, during this fight, sufficiently sensitized to the problems of men, can you really blame them? Do you even realize how unjust and hypocritical such a judgement is? Had feminism followed such standards, it would have never achieved anything, and women would to this day be unable to vote, own property, etc etc. Men would do well to stand up for themselves in these matters, and not allow themselves to find scapegoats in feminism.
  - marrs 11y ago
    Anyway, feminists fight for women. And this is the problem I have with feminists. We should be fighting for each other, not against each other. We are all on this planet together and we all deserve equal rights and opportunities. The idea that we achieve this by having women fight for women's rights and men fight for men's rights is absurd. It might have been inevitable to begin with, but we're not living in the 60s any more, and if we don't move away from this adversarial position then of course people will start to feel threatened, retreat to fundamentalist positions, and react in the way you object to.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. A uesless hypothesis that isn't testable. Women treated worse? Patriarchy. Men treated worse? Patriarchy. Consider that if you go back far enough, men were considered the better parent. I'm sure Patriarchy is to blame for that even though it was to blame for men being considered the worse parent as well.
facepalm 11y ago
It couldn't have anything to do with women risking their lives for 9 months carrying the child to birth in their bellies? Or that they tend to breastfeed their children for months after birth, which men simply can not do?
- bakhy 11y ago
  Sure, of course. It's probably both. But you do understand that men get discriminated in child custody trials even if the child is already well weened off the tit?
  - facepalm 11y ago
    The point is that the situation is not created by patriarchy, but by biology. That women tend to be the caregivers is simply an extension of the beginnings (pregnancy, higher investment in bringing the child to life). Personally I suspect that women being allowed to be the primary caregiver is actually a privilege they earn because their investment in having the children is so much higher. Feminism needs you to believe that being a stay-at-home mum is a horrible ordeal and a hallmark of oppression. The opposite is probably true, if you consider the average job. There may be jobs that are more fun than taking care of your own children, but most jobs aren't like that. Consider a stay-at-home dad. He would be a very expensive babysitter (half of the mother's income). Why should women accept that? Btw., I've heard that in custody trials men actually tend to come out quite well. But I think it has to be taken into consideration that fathers probably only go to court when they see a chance to win to begin with (mother is a crack whore or whatever). So that statistic alone is not telling much.