Men oppressed by not being allowed to bitch about ladies in public restrooms

PKFAE: I am less conflicted, now that I see some of what caused it. Somehow they let a lot of anti-choice women (who have caused Komen to, more quietly than this, pull back from really working on finding cures for breast cancer; because of anti-choice concerns).

But I do think this will hurt the cause of fighting breast cancer, and yes, I think rewarding bad behavior is bad, and letting them have a fig-leaf to cover their shameful behavior is not on. It’s why I told people to sign petitions. It’s why I told them my future money is going elsewhere.

At this point, until they clear the board, it’s staying elsewhere.

I wonder if there are extremely geeky circles where this approach might work.

I know I enjoy a guy explaining in mind-numbingly boring detail about that sort of thing during romantic dates.

talacris: No. First, the guy saying that, is an anti-feminist.

Second, that men are compared favorable to animals, and women aren’t, isn’t misandry, it’s misogyny. And the associations are far from exclusively sexual:

Eagle-eyed.
Strong as an ox
Stubborn as a mule,
Gentle as a lamb
The heart of lion
Sly like a fox
Cunning as a weasel
Wise as an owl
Dresses like a peacock
Dog in the manger
A bellowing bull

None of those is specifically sexual.

And none of it is misandry,

Christ, I’m getting tired of the constant claims of misandry as if it’s a common thing.

That is, men are less civilized than women are more like what animals are thought to be. And that is misandry

Not only is this a poorly charted sentence, men’s sexuality is generally considered a positive.

. I think i have seen somebody write here about men who can’t control themselves in the presence of women with more or less skimpy clothing

That’s the narrative htat underlies victim blaming. It’s part of what makes it so ridiculously hard to prosecute for rape, even if the evidence is that the guy did it, and it was rape. It benefits men substantially more than it hurts them.

Seriously, I am tired of this shit. Most of the ‘downsides’ that hit some men *still* benefit them collectively; that’s why they’re the privileged class.

Ami, is that you? 😛

At this point, until they clear the board, it’s staying elsewhere.

That is why I have such trouble deciding between rewarding Ford for not taking the bailout money when not needed and from punishing them for supporting such a gawdawful program that has decided on hurting women to appease others who enjoy hurting women.

Gender neutral?

No. It would be if the connotations were the same, but saying a woman is as strong as an Ox isn’t a compliment.

Nor is the fact that one can’t really find gender specific slurs… even the “sexualised” metaphors for men are laudatory.

But calling a woman a minx, isn’t, nor a bitch, nor a sow, nor a cow. Some insults (e.g. pig) are neutral, but they aren’t anywhere near as common.

Compare the sense behind, Stag Party, and Hen Party.

So keep fucking that chicken.

Exactly. And that is misandry.

Oh, trolling, not stupid. Okay then

I see, well then, we shall give it what it wants.

What chance does a father have of justice in such courts? What about cases where the mother does not have the strength of character to resist the temptation of money and power?

1. Pretty good, assuming he has an attorney. My parents’ attorneys worked together to push that custody agreement through, because it was what each of their clients wanted.

2. I asked my mother this question verbatim. Her response: laughter. Followed by “money and power had nothing to do with it. We were out to give you the best possible shot at life.”

(Actually, the judge didn’t want to give my mother “full physical [custody].” He – yes, he – wanted to give my father weekends, holidays, and summers, and give them both joint legal custody.)

As for “strength of character,” see my previous point: in order for shared custody to work, both parents have to be committed to doing what is best for the kid. If either parent isn’t committed to that, for “weakness of character” or any other reason, equal joint custody isn’t going to be in the best interests of the child.

Many of your fellow boobz brigadiers deny that there is prejudice in the family court system. Your example shows that this is not true.

I have yet to see anyone here say there is no prejudice in the family court system, in either direction, but I do skim sometimes so maybe I missed something. I certainly wouldn’t say there is no prejudice in family courts – I’ve been in them, ffs – but I would say that it’s not all “women get everything, men get shat on” as you so often say.

More important than the fact of prejudice in the family court system is the QUANTITY of prejudice in the family court system. Presumption of full physical to the mother runs so deep, all the way to the bone, that it is virtually impossible for a father to hope for justice or fairness.

Now you’re overstating your case. You’re also misconstruing the actual family law statutes in most states, which require custody decisions to be made in the best interests of the child. There are a couple dozen factors that play into deciding what the “best interests of the child” are, but one of them is which parent has done most of the actual work of parenting to date (the “primary caregiver”). For young children especially, this person is statistically more often the mother than the father.

Incidentally, one of my Personal Feminist Tenets is that evaluating what is in the best interests of the child needs to be de-coupled from our societal assumptions that women are inherently better parents. This might result, statistically, in more women still getting custody than men, since women are more often the primary caregivers. Or it might not – changing our assumptions might also change our views about which parent ought to be primary caregiver. Either way, a person’s ability to be a good parent has fuckall to do with which genitalia are hanging out in their pants, and we need to stop pretending that it does.

(Anecdote: my father was my primary caregiver for the first two years of my life, while my mother made all the money. They both got a lot of shit for that, but being feminists, they believed that they should divide the work of living according to who was best suited to and/or preferred what tasks, not according to which sex “traditionally” did a certain thing.)

Given that our children are, by far, the most important aspect of our lives, how can you deny that the prejudice faced by men is far, far, far, far greater than anything that women have ever experienced? When have mothers had to face systematic and virtually automatic loss of their children? In what society, in what time?

Just to cite a single example: in England, until the passage of the 1883 Married Women’s Property Act, a woman automatically lost custody of her children if she and their father divorced. This wasn’t a “presumption of which was the better caretaker” or a “best interests of the child” situation; this was a “you divorced their father and the children belong to him, not you, so you cannot legally ever see them again” situation. Women could not have custody of their children if they divorced the child’s father – unless Dad voluntarily abandoned them with her. (Even then, he technically still had legal custody, and he could get back physical custody whenever he wanted, just by showing up and taking the kids away.)

Voting rights? What a joke. What a total joke. Do you think there is one non-custodial father in America who would not give up his lifetime voting rights for just one more precious weekend with his children?

I’m confused. What did voting rights have to do with it again?

Also, I asked a friend of mine who is a non-custodial father in America if he would give up his right to vote for one weekend with his kids. He said “screw that.” So yes, there is at least one. I realize you’re probably overstating your case for dramatic effect, rather than for factual reference, but you’re not helping yourself by doing so. 😉

Finally, I’m still curious: that’s at least twice now you’ve specified this is about shared physical custody. Do you think legal custody should be shared as well?

I have yet to see anyone here say there is no prejudice in the family court system, in either direction, but I do skim sometimes so maybe I missed something. I certainly wouldn’t say there is no prejudice in family courts – I’ve been in them, ffs – but I would say that it’s not all “women get everything, men get shat on” as you so often say.

Heh. That’d be me. I tend to point out the rather difficult point that men win 50% of contested custody cases, which doesn’t actually engender me to an assumption that the courts are biased towards mothers (at least, in matters of custody). Bearing in mind that women tend to provide the majority of child rearing cases, I suspect there’s a (light) bias towards dads when cases actually roll around.

Mind, financially this says nothing.

Rutee, you need to specify that statistic. When men “win custody”, what exactly do you mean- you mean primary custody? Or simply visiting rights? I would sure as hell hope that men win at least 50% of “visiting rights” cases, but it doesn’t speak to the fact that women are still awarded primary custody the vast majority of the time- even if contested.