English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The above is quote from a feminist I have engaged via email. Here it is in it's fuller context (to save the claims i'm taking it out of context).

"Firstly men don't ALWAYS have to pay and women don't ALWAYS get custody. These are things that we 'think' always happen when actually they don't. Family courts are specialist courts set up to focus on children's wellbeing and they work quite well in this country. Cases are heard and tried on a case by case basis and what happens is that factors which contribute to gender identities mean that men and women are more likely (because of how they are brought up and who they are) to have certain outcomes in terms of custody or whatever. It's no coincidence that the family court is the only place where women appear to have the upper hand (in terms of custody etc)......it's extremely important for this sexist society for women to remain the key childcarers!"
One moment she says "it's not happening" then she says "it must happen".
Equality? ;o)

2007-10-12 01:58:50 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Gender Studies

GSX: You clearly can't read - I'm asking about how does this claim apply any level of equality... the 'holy grail' of feminism.
If you can't read it, I'd suggest a return to school :o)

2007-10-12 02:10:58 · update #1

tehabwa - there's a difference between looking at feminism ( apolitical movement - renown for hypocrisy) and men (a sex)... if you can't see that, you perhaps need to comprehend that 'men' and 'women' are seperate entities from 'feminism'

2007-10-12 12:14:15 · update #2

19 answers

It does not make any sense at all. She is not focused on presenting her argument and is scattered all over the place and does not seem to be able to articulate what it is she is trying to say. I can't make heads or tails out of anything she said but it does seem that the last sentence is implying that female favorability in family court is some how justified becasue men are sexist every where else...blah...blah...blah

2007-10-12 17:14:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I'm bored so I'll answer all your "questions" here with realistic answers: - Woman bore you thus contributing to society. Duh. - N/A. - Mom is a pretty darn freaking important role. Ever heard the phrase "Behind every great man is a great woman"? That's not always true but it often is. Look at POTUSs who had good wives who supported them well. - Already answered. - Already answered. - You don't have to pay for a date. You just don't show you're a provider and caring if you don't. - You mean like a wife who cooks for you and takes care of you? - Who ever said "engaging in combat" was ok? Dumb drunks. - Because combat is for men only, deal with it, it's part of what you are. - Most women don't want to be equal only when it's convenient, most are happy with being equal on things that actually make sense like how hard someone works and results. People like feminists and you are on the same level in that you don't want others to be equal, or if you do you want it to be so that it hinders someone else. You and feminists have much in common.

2016-05-22 01:37:39 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

From what I gather she is saying that the present patriarchal values of our society are what enforces the current standards and situations. Feminists believe that equality should be in place so men are encouraged to take a more active role in child rearing. The present roles and expectations are reinforced to both men and women from childhood. That is why gender is a social contruct to a great extent.
Happy's claim that before feminism custody went to the father is complete and utter nonsense. Any person that clones and imitates others has very little credibility to begin with.
Despite progress over the past two decades, employed women continue to do between 70 and 80 percent of all housework including most of the repetitive chores, laboring from dawn to dusk and beyond.” (O’Reilly & Abbey, 2000).

But your question ties in nicely with the one I had yesterday.

2007-10-12 04:36:24 · answer #3 · answered by Deirdre O 7 · 2 2

The point she is making is that it suits this sexist society for women to remain the main childcarers, because then they are not in the workforce.

There is an imbalance in the family court system and I have experienced it. However, rather than this being the fault of women alone, it is actually the society which perpetuates the women=kids men=work formula. So when men and women split up of course it seems 'natural' for women to care for the kids...after all its what they have been doing all along so why stop?

I'm not saying I agree cos I don't. My husband cares for my son as well as I do, and brings him things I cannot as a woman. The point for me which always seems to be missing is this. Women and men are intrinsically different. It takes one of each to make a baby. And to my mind both dads and mums bring equally important but DIFFERENT things to their children. People get so caught up in fighting about who is more important. That has been created by society. Courts are, after all, a reflection of what society views as appropriate. Laws for the courts are made by politicians. Politicians are voted for by the people and heavily swayed by popular/media opinion. If we really want to find a reason, we need to look inwards first.

The bitching just wont help.

2007-10-12 02:20:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8 2

Well, personally I think a parents should get joint custody and have the child raised by both parents. Though; since courts don't like this idea of 'sharing'; if my mom and dad ever went to court over me, and I was placed with my mom, I'd seriously think about running away. My mom is the pain of the pain in the back end. And worse.

2007-10-12 11:35:14 · answer #5 · answered by Aurum 5 · 2 1

I think she is trying to turn the custody argument on its head and say that women are in reality the victims of a patriarchical society making them domestic slaves, rather than a simple prejudice against men being able to take care of kids its reinforcing the ideology that womens place is at home.
Is it not necessisary to point inequalities in order to rectify them?

2007-10-12 03:22:30 · answer #6 · answered by Aidan 5 · 2 0

Uh, you haven't asked a question, but I'll assume you're asking for responses.

What of it?

Yes, there's a contradiction, yes, it's wrong to assume of every couple that the women is the best person to have custody, yes this is the tendency of the courts (and society in general), and yes, that's wrong.

So now you're going to conclude the above is what all feminists think?

I've seen men on this site advocate rape; should I conclude that's what YOU think?

2007-10-12 09:06:56 · answer #7 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 2 2

If one moment she says it's not happening then all of a sudden she turns around and says the opposite I don't see any equality in that; all I see is a woman who was under so much pressure to change her mind that she finally did. Then in the first breath she says in this sexist society only the moms are the caregivers and deserve that role alone, well she certainly didn't deviate from her belief cause that is a sexist thing to say.
Do you know what I like, when both parents find a way to share custody, where they are both involved with the divorced parents getting their crap together for the sake of the child, even if they couldn't get along in their relationship, of course that's asking abit too much at times.

2007-10-12 02:41:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5 4

though women play a key role in childcare it's important to emphasis the role men play as well. I as a woman myself see a bias towards men not only in the courts but also in jobs and opportunities as well. I find that most feminist are self-centered, self pit tying people. They need to look at other points of view and not be so close minded.

2007-10-12 02:12:56 · answer #9 · answered by grace 3 · 11 1

What do the views of one woman have to do with feminism? You guys keep assuming that the actions/words of a few mean that they must be the same as the actions/words of the many.

For example, just because people like Fred Phelps exist, doesn't mean all Christians are evil.

2007-10-12 04:34:12 · answer #10 · answered by G 6 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers