Support NeoGAF

[IHaveCandy]

I wasn't doing the "they're pro-fetus but not pro-baby" thing. The policies I was describing would almost certainly reduce the abortion rate. Many pro-lifers think of themselves as caring enormously about all these dying babies, and even think of themselves as 'fighting' for life, but they aren't willing to make real sacrifices of other things they value (such as keeping the unworthy in poverty) to produce a world with less abortion. They prefer theater. Because they're really just playing, even if they have deceived themselves.

It sounds like you are though. You're saying they care so much about saving the lives of fetuses, but don't care about helping those that may need help. And you're saying that it is some kind of logical/moral inconsistency. That doesn't really hold up though. They could just think that fetuses deserve the right to live as much as you or I do, but that they aren't responsible to ensure that you are helped by them make it in life.

If I saved a homeless man's life, I certainly wouldn't feel that it is my obligation to ensure his life is bettered by me continuing to help him.

 

[Devolution]

i think a big reason feminism is so popular is that it absolves women of guilt and responsibility, and gives them a scapegoat in the 'patriarchy.' people like being told, "it's not your fault." people don't like being told "we have met the enemy, and he is us." everybody is at fault for society's failings.

The fuck? No seriously, really? This has to be the dumbest fucking thing I've read all night. How would women's shitty place in society throughout history and up till now be their fault?

 

[IHaveCandy]

The fuck? No seriously, really?

We're on to you!

 

[travisbickle]

i think a big reason feminism is so popular is that it absolves women of guilt and responsibility, and gives them a scapegoat in the 'patriarchy.' people like being told, "it's not your fault." people don't like being told "we have met the enemy, and he is us." everybody is at fault for society's failings.

Can you give us one example of the guilt women should feel?

 

[BobbyRobby]

The fuck? No seriously, really? This has to be the dumbest fucking thing I've read all night. How would women's shitty place in society throughout history and up till now be their fault?

i'm just saying it's a reason for the ideology's popularity, because they seem so reluctant to rebrand themselves. i did not say their place in society is their fault. don't get upset over something you inferred.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Can you give us one example of the guilt women should feel?

Absolves them the guilt from not shaving their legs?

 

[Gustav]

This just exemplifies the problem. People using the internet as their barometer for social justice. Social justice is busy doing things outside the internet.

Just take a look at the videos posted here. Shouting down people with profanity, interrupting meetings by starting fire alarms, basically drowning out other positions and ideas is a violation of freedom of speech. That's extreme. That's what fascist regimes do.

 

[Devolution]

i'm just saying it's a reason for the ideology's popularity. i did not say their place in society is their fault. don't get upset over somethign you inferred.

Yeah feminism isn't popular because it strives to support the value of women as people and stop the devaluing of the feminine, it's just because women want to be coddled. Fuck this.

 

[Gotchaye]

It sounds like you are though. You're saying they care so much about saving the lives of fetuses, but don't care about helping those that may need help. And you're saying that it is some kind of logical/moral inconsistency. That doesn't really hold up though. They could just think that fetuses deserve the right to live as much as you or I do, but that they aren't responsible to ensure that you are helped by them make it in life.

If I saved a homeless man's life, I certainly wouldn't feel that it is my obligation to ensure his life is bettered by me continuing to help him.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

Pro-lifers will frequently say that they care enormously about preventing abortion. They often say that it is a moral calamity on the scale of the Holocaust and that it justifies extreme action. Yet they strongly object to policies that would reduce the abortion rate.

Poor people have more abortions. That's just a fact. There's every reason to think that a massive anti-poverty program would reduce the abortion rate. Again, I'm not saying that the appeal to pro-lifers should be that it makes people's lives better - in my last post I even mentioned keeping the unworthy in poverty as something they might actually value. The appeal is that such a policy would lead to fewer abortions. Other policies are more straightforward, like massive welfare payments per child and large bounties paid to birth mothers who put children up for adoption. Pay women to give birth and fewer women will choose abortion.

I can't make sense of where you're coming from unless you're saying that pro-lifers both think that abortion is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust and yet are not obliged to do anything about it. I covered that possibility earlier when I said that they might be moral monsters. I don't think they're quite that evil, though.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Yeah feminism isn't popular because it strives to support the value of women as people and stop the devaluing of the feminine, it's just because women want to be coddled. Fuck this.

aight. if it makes you feel any better i'd say the same about MRAs. it's natural for people to want a team.

 

[maharg]

So an extreme equalist would... fight for the rights of females to the exclusion of all other groups?

I'm sorry if I couldn't quite capture the correct terminology, but I'd hope you could properly infer the point I was making, rather than hammering home on a semantic misunderstanding.



And this isn't the 'extreme' I was talking about either. And given that any social justice movement can be derided in this fashion, it doesn't make much sense to not name something out of fear of this kind of extremism.


The point is simple - feminism to a lay person can be easily misconstrued as a misandrist movement, whereas equalism is a term that better highlights the goals that the feminism movement is attempting to achieve (or at least the logical extrapolation of the goals of feminism is attempting to achieve).

The idea that it is impossible to rebrand a movement strikes me as asinine; especially when we're discussing this in the context of "Mens Rights Advocacy" which is just a successful rebranding of misogyny.

I didn't know that no one used the term misogynist anymore. Good thing to know I suppose.

I don't even know what you're saying here. Feminism isn't misconstrued as misandric because the name has 'fem' in it. This is, quite frankly, a bizarre assertion. It's misconstrued as misandric because there's been a concerted effort to brand it as such by its opponents, and to a lesser extent because there's some radical politics mixed in, particularly in the second wave. These things don't go away if you change the name.

Calling feminism misandric is no different from calling the CRM of the 50s-70s racist. Which people did and still do. You fight the douchebags, you don't do what they tell you.

 

[IHaveCandy]

I'm not sure what you're saying.

Pro-lifers will frequently say that they care enormously about preventing abortion. They often say that it is a moral calamity on the scale of the Holocaust and that it justifies extreme action. Yet they strongly object to policies that would reduce the abortion rate.

Poor people have more abortions. That's just a fact. There's every reason to think that a massive anti-poverty program would reduce the abortion rate. Again, I'm not saying that the appeal to pro-lifers should be that it makes people's lives better - in my last post I even mentioned keeping the unworthy in poverty as something they might actually value. The appeal is that such a policy would lead to fewer abortions. Other policies are more straightforward, like massive welfare payments per child and large bounties paid to birth mothers who put children up for adoption.

I can't make sense of where you're coming from unless you're saying that pro-lifers both think that abortion is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust and yet are not obliged to do anything about it. I covered that possibility earlier when I said that they might be moral monsters. I don't think they're quite that evil, though.

Well pro-lifers are not taking a utilitarian approach to the issue. They aren't saying "Lets pick the best political policy to make abortions go as low as possible." They're saying "Abortions should not be legal. Ban them. They must not be allowed". Other things like contraceptives being against their views likely are due to religious views, like we talked about before.

 

[Gotchaye]

Well pro-lifers are not taking a utilitarian approach to the issue. They aren't saying "Lets pick the best political policy to make abortions go as low as possible." They're saying "Abortions should not be legal. Ban them. They must not be allowed". Other things like contraceptives being against their views likely are due to religious views, like we talked about before.

Right, and this is absurd. I feel like I'm repeating myself now, but I specifically addressed this. Either they're moral monsters or they don't really believe the things they're saying.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Right, and this is absurd. I feel like I'm repeating myself now, but I specifically addressed this. Either they're moral monsters or they don't really believe the things they're saying.

Well I will certainly agree with you that basing your morality around bronze-age thinking is stupid.

 

[maharg]

No, never mind. I don't want to get into this.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Except, legal or not, there has never ever ever been a zero rate of abortion in the history of mankind. And not only does making it illegal not even significantly reduce the rates of it, it also *kills people* by making it extremely dangerous.

I don't think illegalizing abortions raise the number of abortions. I think trying to suppress other options like contraceptives or allowing poverty to grow increases abortions.



TOO LATE!

 

[Devolution]

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.

These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

 

[Moxx19]

You do know what a patriarchy is, right? The US is one. Women do not even have equal rights in the United States. In 2013.

And that doesn't even get into the societal side of it, women literally are not viewed as equals in our laws. Our legislative body does not reflect the actual demographics of the nation.[/QUOTE]

Why do you assume these inequalities are the result of a hypothetical theory? There is no proof that the patriarchy was ever a real employed system, it is a theoretical model nothing more.

The entire body of feminist dogma relies on the patriarchal model being assumed as an absolute truth. It goes a little something like this:

"The patriarchy is a system designed to uphold men above and oppress women for men's expressed benefit. While some men can be sometimes harmed by this system, it is predominantly used to benefit men"

The problem with this theory at its core is that it makes a great many assumptions about both, the men of the time; and men today.

It assumes that the men at the top that ran society do so for the benefit of men. Just because society was ran by men the way it was back then this does not mean that society was run FOR men.

Feminists conveniently ignore the many other issues that plagued society which dictated the way of life, and the roles that these circumstances enforced on society.

Workplace rights were non existent for both genders. Combined with the lack of modern technology, the extreme manual labour lead to health problems and lower life expectancies. Workers were not paid by the hours that they did, but by the amount of work that was done. From a logical standpoint, the male, as the physically stronger of the two sexes would go out to earn as much money as he could to provide. The woman would stay at home and mother the children because the next generation needed to be raised.

Voting rights were only given to men in return for conscription. If you were expected to die for your country's vague political ideologies, then you should have a say in the kind of country you were fighting for. Yet, a year or two later, women were handed the same voting rights rights without being forced to fight and die . Not that I think they should have.

Yep, our entire society was run by men who want to look down from an ivory tower and had daily meetings on how best to oppress women this week. The fact that whenever the "patriarchy" is called out as the bullshit that it is, the default response from people is: "See, patriarchy hurts men too" makes my blood boil.

I don't live in the US, so I'd like to know, what rights in 2013 do men have that women don't?

EDIT: Quote screwed up, referred post is in bold.

 

[IHaveCandy]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

Well that is a different point from the one being debated. I would imagine pro-lifers feel no responsibility for people making what they consider poor judgement.

 

[GrandHarrier]

Out of curiosity, is there actually documented instances of feminist groups lobbying for, or introducing bills to equalize custody / remove alimony? Or assistance for boys who are lagging behind in school / college like was done to assist girls?

 

[legend166]

I don't know about White people but you can't honestly believe Christians aren't persecuted in some parts of the world.

I'm pretty sure worldwide Christians are the most persecuted religious group.

 

[Zaptruder]

I didn't know that no one used the term misogynist anymore. Good thing to know I suppose.

I don't even know what you're saying here. Feminism isn't misconstrued as misandric because the name has 'fem' in it. This is, quite frankly, a bizarre assertion. It's misconstrued as misandric because there's been a concerted effort to brand it as such by its opponents, and to a lesser extent because there's some radical politics mixed in, particularly in the second wave. These things don't go away if you change the name.

Calling feminism misandric is no different from calling the CRM of the 50s-70s racist. Which people did and still do. You fight the douchebags, you don't do what they tell you.

You exist in a rarefied echo chamber if you believe people on average properly understand the ins and outs of the feminism movement, beyond what a patchy and intuitive understanding generated from the name of the movement and the things that have been said about it in passing... would grant them.

Feminism has noble goals - but it does little to invite the self interest of people with congruent goals.

If feminism *is* still just about the idea and goal of finding equality of roles and opportunity *for women*... then it could do better to repurpose the movement for a greater inclusiveness that can help to capture the people that misunderstand MRA as an equal and opposite of feminism.

 

[Slavik81]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

You know, until I saw this and started looking through amendments 11 to 27, I didn't really notice how much of a patchwork the US constitution is. It looks like the Declaration of the Rights of Man really one-upped you guys.

 

[Tacitus_]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80

It's all bullshit anyway because the loudest voices belong to the nutters in both movements.

 

[rocketknight]

Why do you assume these inequalities are the result of a hypothetical theory? There is no proof that the patriarchy was ever a real employed system, it is a theoretical model nothing more.

The entire body of feminist dogma relies on the patriarchal model being assumed as an absolute truth. It goes a little something like this:

"The patriarchy is a system designed to uphold men above and oppress women for men's expressed benefit. While some men can be sometimes harmed by this system, it is predominantly used to benefit men"

The problem with this theory at its core is that it makes a great many assumptions about both, the men of the time; and men today.

It assumes that the men at the top that ran society do so for the benefit of men. Just because society was ran by men the way it was back then this does not mean that society was run FOR men.

Feminists conveniently ignore the many other issues that plagued society which dictated the way of life, and the roles that these circumstances enforced on society.

Workplace rights were non existent for both genders. Combined with the lack of modern technology, the extreme manual labour lead to health problems and lower life expectancies. Workers were not paid by the hours that they did, but by the amount of work that was done. From a logical standpoint, the male, as the physically stronger of the two sexes would go out to earn as much money as he could to provide. The woman would stay at home and mother the children because the next generation needed to be raised.

Voting rights were only given to men in return for conscription. If you were expected to die for your country's vague political ideologies, then you should have a say in the kind of country you were fighting for. Yet, a year or two later, women were handed the same voting rights rights without being forced to fight and die . Not that I think they should have.

Yep, our entire society was run by men who want to look down from an ivory tower and had daily meetings on how best to oppress women this week. The fact that whenever the "patriarchy" is called out as the bullshit that it is, the default response from people is: "See, patriarchy hurts men too" makes my blood boil.

I don't live in the US, so I'd like to know, what rights in 2013 do men have that women don't?

This is some pretty ridiculous handwaving. Feminism makes no claims as to the intentions of the patriarchy (and it's hard to emphasize enough that it's not some evil cabal of dudes but rather an insidious inertia), and "voting rights were only extended to men in return for conscription" is absolutely bonkers.

You exist in a rarefied echo chamber if you believe people on average properly understand the ins and outs of the feminism movement, beyond what a patchy and intuitive understanding generated from the name of the movement and the things that have been said about it in passing... would grant them.

Feminism has noble goals - but it does little to invite the self interest of people with congruent goals.

If feminism *is* still just about the idea and goal of finding equality of roles and opportunity *for women*... then it could do better to repurpose the movement for a greater inclusiveness that can help to capture the people that misunderstand MRA as an equal and opposite of feminism.

So, like, this? Yeah. We're on it. Welcome!

 

[Shake Appeal]

Mindboggling thread.

 

[Mort]

Like it or not, naming the gender equality movement after women and the oppressive system they want to change after men, the immediate reaction and perception from any layperson, bystander or from someone's first contact with the ideology is that the ideology is pro-women and anti-men.

One thing I've never understood about the feminism movement is their reaction to how the keywords of their movement are gendered. 2nd wave Feminists fought for political correctness. I mean real political correctness, changing the language to be gender inclusive; mankind to humanity, policeman to police officer, fireman to firefighter ect. Not the "Oh someone is angry at me, here comes the PC police" bullshit.

They did so under the basis that gendering the words towards men biases people's perception of that role and prevents women from possibly seeing themselves in that role.

And they were right.

Gendering the feminism movement towards women and against men, like it or not, is a big part of the problem and the misconception. I mean yeah, anyone who does some research will understand the misconception. Anyone who did research on "policemen" and "mankind" would have realized those were misconceptions as well. The first female police officer in the United States was hired in 1910. That doesn't mean the terms weren't unnecessarily gendered and shouldn't have been changed.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Like it or not, naming the gender equality movement after women and the oppressive system they want to change after men, the immediate reaction and perception from any layperson, bystander or from someone's first contact with the ideology is that the ideology is pro-women and anti-men.

One thing I've never understood about the feminism movement is their reaction to how the keywords of their movement are gendered. 2nd wave Feminists fought for political correctness. I mean real political correctness, changing the language to be gender inclusive; mankind to humanity, policeman to police officer, fireman to firefighter ect. Not the "Oh someone is angry at me, here comes the PC police" bullshit.

They did so under the basis that gendering the words towards men biases people's perception of that roll and prevents women from possibly seeing themselves in that role.

And they were right.

Gendering the feminism movement towards women and against men, like it or not, is a big part of the problem and the misconception. I mean yeah, anyone who does some research will understand the misconception. Anyone who did research on "policemen" and "mankind" would have realized those were misconceptions as well. The first female police officer in the United States was hired in 1910. That doesn't mean the terms weren't unnecessarily gendered and shouldn't have been changed.

thats a good point.

 

[Mort]

thats a good point.

For the record, I'm a feminist.

What exactly would an extreme equalist look like?

 

[Vagabundo]

This is basically what the Men's Rights Movement should be about.

And I think what many of the MRA guys forget is that many women support patriarchy as well.

 

[travisbickle]

The entire body of feminist dogma relies on the patriarchal model being assumed as an absolute truth. It goes a little something like this:

"The patriarchy is a system designed to uphold men above and oppress women for men's expressed benefit. While some men can be sometimes harmed by this system, it is predominantly used to benefit men"

The problem with this theory at its core is that it makes a great many assumptions about both, the men of the time; and men today.

It assumes that the men at the top that ran society do so for the benefit of men. Just because society was ran by men the way it was back then this does not mean that society was run FOR men.

This is not patriarchy!!!

From a logical standpoint, the male, as the physically stronger of the two sexes would go out to earn as much money as he could to provide. The woman would stay at home and mother the children because the next generation needed to be raised.

This is patriarchy.

Patriarchy is a society led by the father-figure within the household, which has been extended to a father authority figure outside of the household. The very reason patriarchy exists is because our society took on the very successful system you describe: maternal mother and resource-collecting father.

Current theories are based around the fact patriarchy should have finally died after the "death of the father-led nuclear family" and the post-modern society we now live in. But it carries on because psychologically we all want a senior authority figure, usually male, to tell us what to do: see dictators gaining power for reference.

 

[Moxx19]

This is not patriarchy!!!




This is patriarchy.

Patriarchy is a society led by the father-figure within the household, which has been extended to a father authority figure outside of the household. The very reason patriarchy exists is because our society took on the very successful system you describe: maternal mother and resource-collecting father.

Current theories are based around the fact patriarchy should have finally died after the "death of the father-led nuclear family" and the post-modern society we now live in. But it carries on because psychologically we all want a senior authority figure, usually male, to tell us what to do: see dictators gaining power for reference.

That is the definition of the word, yes. I am addressing the feminist theory patriarchy. Which is the hypothetical people in this thread were referring to.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Men are largely responsible for the problems Men face in society. We cannot blame the increasing equality of women.

Except for the most important part. Men get screwed over custody over children.

 

[Bleepey]

Out of curiosity, is there actually documented instances of feminist groups lobbying for, or introducing bills to equalize custody / remove alimony? Or assistance for boys who are lagging behind in school / college like was done to assist girls?

Some feminists marched alongside men against conscription. Other than that, I dunno.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Failure of Feminism.

Pretty much accurate.

 

[Artemisia]

Failure of Feminism.

Pretty much accurate.

Isn't that the guy who relentlessly harassed, insulted, and shamed a rape victim?

Anyway, it is not feminism's contention that all inequality between the genders favors men. Feminism makes it pretty clear that patriarchy can cause problems for men as well as women. He tried though.

 

[marrec]

Except for the most important part. Men get screwed over custody over children.

That's a product of our old gender views, not feminism.

Men aren't considered caregivers in the traditional family set up. They are meant to go forth and make money by working while women are meant to stay home with children. Of course, given these archetypes, women would traditionally win custody battles because it's assumed that they are more suited to take on the role as a sole custodian of a child's welfare. If, as men, we could start to change the viewpoint of men as primary caregivers in traditional relationships then I guarantee the custodial laws would follow suit.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Sorry I had to cut out like that. Internet went down about 2:15 AM and just now came back up. Called it in but I got an answering service telling me to call back at 6 AM. Let me ask you, what is the point of an answering service that simply tells you to call back after they open?

Anyway, I wasn't awake at 6 AM but when I got up at 7 AM it was fixed. Someone else in the neighborhood must have called it in at 6.

Anyway, to challenge this idea that men run society to detriment of women. I have this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8bDS-Z3gmg&list=FL6bT_VXeMBK_kJu44A2WFRQ

 

[jorma]

Isn't that the guy who relentlessly harassed, insulted, and shamed a rape victim?

Anyway, it is not feminism's contention that all inequality between the genders favors men. Feminism makes it pretty clear that patriarchy can cause problems for men as well as women. He tried though.

What did he try, exactly?

 

[Moxx19]

Sorry I had to cut out like that. Internet went down about 2:15 AM and just now came back up. Called it in but I got an answering service telling me to call back at 6 AM. Let me ask you, what is the point of an answering service that simply tells you to call back after they open?

Anyway, I wasn't awake at 6 AM but when I got up at 7 AM it was fixed. Someone else in the neighborhood must have called it in at 6.

Anyway, to challenge this idea that men run society to detriment of women. I have this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8bDS-Z3gmg&list=FL6bT_VXeMBK_kJu44A2WFRQ

"Drowns goldfish" LMFAO

 

[NovemberMike]

That's a product of our old gender views, not feminism.

Men aren't considered caregivers in the traditional family set up. They are meant to go forth and make money by working while women are meant to stay home with children. Of course, given these archetypes, women would traditionally win custody battles because it's assumed that they are more suited to take on the role as a sole custodian of a child's welfare. If, as men, we could start to change the viewpoint of men as primary caregivers in traditional relationships then I guarantee the custodial laws would follow suit.

It's kind of funny how people don't know their history on this. The traditional gender role was that men would care for the children, often by hiring a nanny. In the case of a divorce or separation, the children would stay with the father. One of the first feminist victories, the Tender Years Doctrine, reversed this and made the mother the default caregiver.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

It's kind of funny how people don't know their history on this. The traditional gender role was that men would care for the children, often by hiring a nanny. In the case of a divorce or separation, the children would stay with the father. One of the first feminist victories, the Tender Years Doctrine, reversed this and made the mother the default caregiver.

In North Korea children of divorce go to the husband's family, the wife has no right to them. That's a real patriarchy, a system that actually benefits men in some way

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

It's kind of funny how people don't know their history on this. The traditional gender role was that men would care for the children, often by hiring a nanny. In the case of a divorce or separation, the children would stay with the father. One of the first feminist victories, the Tender Years Doctrine, reversed this and made the mother the default caregiver.

Wait! Are you saying that feminists fought FOR the current inequality towards men in the family courts?

 

[GrandHarrier]

Wait! Are you saying that feminists fought FOR the current inequality towards men in the family courts?

It's technically been abolished, but women win something like 80% of all custody battles.

 

[marrec]

It's kind of funny how people don't know their history on this. The traditional gender role was that men would care for the children, often by hiring a nanny. In the case of a divorce or separation, the children would stay with the father. One of the first feminist victories, the Tender Years Doctrine, reversed this and made the mother the default caregiver.

Invoking the Tender Years Doctrine in this case without the historical context behind it is disingenuous at best. The Custody of Infants Act was in response to gross misconduct of a patriarchal society, not a presumption that men raise children but instead a presumption that women were allowed absolutely nothing in the case of divorce including any access to children.

It was still presumed that women were primary caregivers, they just weren't allowed custody of children. When the men DID get custody (as they would, every time, before the Custody of Infants Act) they would hire other women to care for the children therefore reinforcing the idea that men were not primary caregivers. The major difference between now and the early 1800s is that women have a right to petition for custody of children, and since men have been reinforcing the idea of their non-caregiver status for hundreds of years, it's not surprising that women gain custody more often.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

It's technically been abolished, but women win something like 80% of all custody battles.

...but the feminists told me that Patriarchy was to blame for that and they were fighting it. They never mentioned this Tender Years Doctrine before.

This is something new to research, I never heard of this before. I'll bet most feminists weren't even aware of this. Failure of the sisterhood knowledge vault?

 

[marrec]

...but the feminists told me that Patriarchy was to blame for that and they were fighting it. They never mentioned this Tender Years Doctrine before.

This is something new to research, I never heard of this before.

Please, do research on it and read about Caroline Norton and the mechanics of divorce at the time. The Tender Years Doctrine is, once again, not a product of feminism. The Custody of Infants Act passed in 1839 is, but only allowed women to petition for custody of children and only then until the age of 7. The presumption of custody was brought about by Judges (majority men, hmmm).

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Please, do research on it and read about Caroline Norton and the mechanics of divorce at the time. The Tender Years Doctrine is, once again, not a product of feminism. The Custody of Infants Act passed in 1839 is, but only allowed women to petition for custody of children and only then until the age of 7. The presumption of custody was brought about by Judges (majority men, hmmm).

Ok, tell me if this is accurate?

Historically the English Family Law gave custody of the children to the father, in case of divorce. Until the nineteenth century the women had few individual rights, most of their rights being derived through their fathers or husbands. In the early nineteenth century, Mrs. Caroline Norton, a prominent British society beauty, feminist, social reforment author, and journalist, began to campaign for the right of women to have custody of their children. Norton, who had undergone a divorce and been deprived of her children, worked with the politicians of those times and eventually was able to convince the British Parliament to enact legislation to protect mothers' rights. The result was the Custody of Infants Act 1839, which gave some discretion to the judge in a child custody case and established a presumption of maternal custody for children under the age of seven years.[1] In 1873 the Parliament extended the presumption of maternal custody until a child reached sixteen years of age.[2] This doctrine spread then in majority of the states of the world as England was controlling a wide empire. By the end of the 20th century this doctrine was abolished in the majority of the states of USA and Europe.

It looks to me like this feminist lady fought for women to win default custody until the age of 7, later extended to 16. Is that not the system we have today? Aren't mothers presumed to be the primary guardian in the event of a divorce (ie, if the custody is not contested, it belongs to the mother by default). More:

Critics of the family court system, and in particular father's rights groups, contend that although the tender years doctrine has formally been replaced by the best interests of the child rule, the older doctrine is still, in practice, the means by which child custody is primarily determined in family courts nationwide. Statistics such as those from the U.S. Census Bureau [4] indicate that family courts still demonstrate an overwhelming preference to place the children of a divorce in the custody of the mother. A study of FACT Canada association shows the mothers is awarded the sole custody or the primary residence in more than 80% of the cases.[5] The situation is not much different in EU countries, for example in Romania the mother is granted custody in over 84.5% of the cases.[6]

Critics maintain that the father must prove the mother to be an unfit parent before he is awarded primary custody, while the mother need not prove the father unfit in order to win custody herself, and that this is contrary to the equal protection clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine

Is this not the case?

 

[marrec]

Ok, tell me if this is accurate?

Ms. Norton was a great figure in feminism and societal reform, no one is questioning that.

The presumption of custody was not established by the law however, it simply allowed women to petition for custody up to the age of seven. The presumption was established by the courts of the time. None of the original language of the bill included a presumption of custody but instead INSISTED that the general welfare of the child be taken into account first and foremost.

It looks to me like this feminist lady fought for women to win default custody until the age of 7, later extended to 16. Is that not the system we have today? Aren't mothers presumed to be the primary guardian in the event of a divorce (ie, if the custody is not contested, it belongs to the mother by default). More:

She simply fought for the right to petition child custody, not for presumption. The system we have today is based not on feminist ideals, but archetypal gender roles that happen to allow a women to petition for the custody of their children.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Ms. Norton was a great figure in feminism and societal reform, no one is questioning that.

The presumption of custody was not established by the law however, it simply allowed women to petition for custody up to the age of seven. The presumption was established by the courts of the time. None of the original language of the bill included a presumption of custody but instead INSISTED that the general welfare of the child be taken into account first and foremost.

So there was no default position of maternal custody held by the courts?

She simply fought for the right to petition child custody, not for presumption. The system we have today is based not on feminist ideals, but archetypal gender roles that happen to allow a women to petition for the custody of their children.

So, do you have evidence of this because it looks like she was responsible for the Custody of Infants Act 1839 which does as you say AND I quote:

established a presumption of maternal custody for children under the age of seven years.