Feminism

[BlueLancer]

 

On the subject of feminism, it seems ridiculous why these organisations still spend so much resources on female issues in western countries than ones abroad. Women in western countries live like males, and in some cases have more influence on things like parental custody than the father.

 

 

 

Women in 3rd world countries have no future, no rights, their clans and husbands tell them who to vote for, they have to live in fear, can't study or work properly... Concentrating on those issues would make feminist organisations look respectable. Now they make themselves look pathetic. Minor economic disparity (which is almost natural due to the salary loss occurring when an average woman will spend time with her child during the first few years of his/her life) is not an "issue" in the same context as chronic lack of employment, education and basic human rights.

 

 

 

We now even have "men's rights" movements to tackle greedy feminist organisations that instead of trying to push for gender equality, are all about giving women the higher position in society. That seems like a symptom instead of a natural reaction. These don't exist anywhere else, not even in other wealthy nations like Japan

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-worl ... d_feminism

 

 

 

Um...?

 

 

 

Maybe you didn't read the actual article you linked to, but it makes the exactly same point as in the post above I made, and postcolonialism exclusively refers to those 3rd word countries like Congo, Zimbabwe, etc. that were colonial possessions of host countries such as France and have now achieved independence:

 

 

 

Postcolonial feminism is critical of Western forms of feminism, notably radical feminism and liberal feminism and their universalization of female experience. Postcolonial feminists argue that cultures impacted by colonialism are often vastly different and should be treated as such.

 

 

 

Feminists in western countries have distorted values and views on gender equality. Postcolonial feminism makes the correct argument that not all women can be just lumped into one category and be treated as the same, completely ignoring cultural standards (such as the fact that a lot of the rural communities in those countries can't survive without someone taking care of livestock and children at home during the day).

 

 

 

Liberal feminism (as cited by that article) is exactly the dominant form of feminism occurring in Europe, US and Australia, which largely concentrates on smaller, irrelevant things like minor economic disparity, rather than human rights and the right to education, etc.

[Sly_Wizard]

If the only argument for feminism in its present form that people have is "woman get paid less than men", then I'd suggest you stop arguing, as there are about a bazillion double-standards that work in favor of women.

 

 

 

Like, really.

 

 

 

I'd rather get paid fairly than have people open doors for me to be honest.

 

 

 

And when did someone say that the pay is the only argument for feminism?

 

 

 

I'm not talking about holding the doors open for women. I'm talking about supporting programs from the 1920's/1930's which, more often than not, work out in favor of women, a heavily biased child support system which favors women (Even though a greater percentage of woman fail to pay child support than men), the double standard in "reproductive rights" and the outcry from women's rights groups (Such as NOW) whenever a man demands the same protections under the law that women receive.

 

 

 

Of course, said groups also ignore things like men having a higher suicide rate than women, or that 10% of rapists are women or even that women generally receive a better education than their male counterparts.

 

 

 

:wall:

[IGoddessI]

^^ Can I please have a source for those facts Wizard, I'd like to have a read through. Thanks :D

[Lenticular_J]

Man, people get so whiny. I guess I'm just a little bit too laid-back to care either way. Sure, give the girls money and equality. I'm not a woman, plus I'm a teenager. Of course, at my age, women are better off than men. Boobs are likely one of the ultimate advantages. Say what you want, it's true. Seducing a dude can get you about anything.

 

 

 

I have heard a lot of sexist jokes, though, and they're pretty funny.

[magekillr]

Blue, while I don't find it at all "trivial" or "irrational" to take a stand and demand that pay discrepancies are rectified, I do find it a bit odd that you'd say they're not directing their efforts towards those areas.

 

 

 

Feminists are doing more to move towards a view of feminism that includes the third world than people in other fields such as civil rights, if you read any feminist blogs or zines you'd know this, so it would strike me that feminism is actually one of the areas where this criticism applies less.

 

 

 

In the U.S., it is unfair to expect women to fulfill the role of "someone taking care of livestock and children at home during the day" because that does not present them with equal opportunity, which is what we are supposed to be boasting ourselves of.

 

 

 

a heavily biased child support system which favors women (Even though a greater percentage of woman fail to pay child support than men)

 

 

 

Cute. The next thing you're going to tell me is that divorce favors the woman as well. Divorce often is initiated by the female and hardly "costs" the man anymore than it costs the woman. Usually in terms of child support, it often sucks to be the woman (who often is also the default caregiver).

 

 

 

the double standard in "reproductive rights"

 

What double standard?

 

 

 

the outcry from women's rights groups (Such as NOW) whenever a man demands the same protections under the law that women receive.

 

 

 

Name some.

 

 

 

edit: Oh joy, I can't believe I missed this little gem:

 

 

 

If the only argument for feminism in its present form that people have is "woman get paid less than men", then I'd suggest you stop arguing, as there are about a bazillion double-standards that work in favor of women.

 

 

 

Here's something that goes far above "less pay", the most UNDER-REPORTED crime in the US, and probably the world, RAPE.

 

 

 

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16618

 

 

 

Many people feel it's being "falsely" reported, when it's being UNDER-REPORTED. Physical and mental abuse in relationships is also another, ahem, key point.

[Collective]

 

a heavily biased child support system which favors women (Even though a greater percentage of woman fail to pay child support than men)

 

 

 

Cute. The next thing you're going to tell me is that divorce favors the woman as well. Divorce often is initiated by the female and hardly "costs" the man anymore than it costs the woman. Usually in terms of child support, it often sucks to be the woman (who often is also the default caregiver).

 

"Cute"? Men who want to be involved in their childrens' lives are routinely denied access and your response is "cute"?

 

 

 

What a fantastic example of a feminist you are - belittling issues that affect men (and children, who have a right to a father) and responding to arguments by putting words in peoples' mouths. Way to bring respect to your cause.

[magekillr]

 

a heavily biased child support system which favors women (Even though a greater percentage of woman fail to pay child support than men)

 

 

 

Cute. The next thing you're going to tell me is that divorce favors the woman as well. Divorce often is initiated by the female and hardly "costs" the man anymore than it costs the woman. Usually in terms of child support, it often sucks to be the woman (who often is also the default caregiver).

 

"Cute"? Men who want to be involved in their childrens' lives are routinely denied access and your response is "cute"?

 

 

 

What a fantastic example of a feminist you are - belittling issues that affect men (and children, who have a right to a father) and responding to arguments by putting words in peoples' mouths. Way to bring respect to your cause.

 

 

 

I referred to it as a "cute" because it was a massive generalization, and in many circles it would be considered a myth. Not because I was belittling a man wanting to see his child. Sorry for not being clearer, but I thought it was quite clear when I referenced ANOTHER myth in the same post.

[Sly_Wizard]

^^ Can I please have a source for those facts Wizard, I'd like to have a read through. Thanks :D

 

 

 

Why alimony is stupid and should have been done away with decades ago

 

 

 

Women are 1/4th as likely to commit suicide as men

 

 

 

Who says women can't be deadbeats?

 

 

 

Women fare better than men in college

 

 

 

Women rape men, too

 

 

 

Edit: Okay. Now I think that's it :

[Collective]

I referred to it as a "cute" because it was a massive generalization, and in many circles it would be considered a myth. Not because I was belittling a man wanting to see his child. Sorry for not being clearer, but I thought it was quite clear when I referenced ANOTHER myth in the same post.

 

Perhaps in your "feminist blogs and zines" it would be considered a myth, but it is in fact a reality. The statistics speak for themselves, and screaming "myth!" doesn't change them.

[Sly_Wizard]

Cute. The next thing you're going to tell me is that divorce favors the woman as well. Divorce often is initiated by the female and hardly "costs" the man anymore than it costs the woman. Usually in terms of child support, it often sucks to be the woman (who often is also the default caregiver).

 

 

 

Yeah. Way to put words into my mouth. Wtg! :thumbsup:

 

 

 

What double standard?

 

 

 

Erm... The one where a man can't force a woman to be a mother to a child she doesn't want, but a woman can force a man to be a father (Or, at the very least, accountable) to a child he doesn't want.

 

 

 

Name some.

 

 

 

Dubay v. Wells, for starters.

 

 

 

edit: Oh joy, I can't believe I missed this little gem:

 

 

 

Here's something that goes far above "less pay", the most UNDER-REPORTED crime in the US, and probably the world, RAPE.

 

 

 

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16618

 

 

 

Many people feel it's being "falsely" reported, when it's being UNDER-REPORTED. Physical and mental abuse in relationships is also another, ahem, key point.

 

 

 

...Yes, because, only men are physically and mentally abusive and things like male rape/battery aren't underreported because of the negative stigma attached to them.

 

 

 

If you really believe that, then I should introduce you to my ex.

[magekillr]

I referred to it as a "cute" because it was a massive generalization, and in many circles it would be considered a myth. Not because I was belittling a man wanting to see his child. Sorry for not being clearer, but I thought it was quite clear when I referenced ANOTHER myth in the same post.

 

Perhaps in your "feminist blogs and zines" it would be considered a myth, but it is in fact a reality. The statistics speak for themselves, and screaming "myth!" doesn't change them.

 

 

 

It depends. I am largely unsympathetic given a vast majority of them either DON'T want visitation or want visitation as a means of control. Also, the site that you gave has a whole bunch of false as well as outdated statistics (and blatant misrepresentation in the child support section). You're right, screaming "myth" doesn't change them, so here's some facts of my own:

 

 

 

http://family.findlaw.com/child-support ... stats.html

 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf

 

http://www.resource4familylaw.com/topic ... stics.html

 

 

 

Yeah. Way to put words into my mouth. Wtg!

 

 

 

Way to address my concern.

 

 

 

Erm... The one where a man can't force a woman to be a mother to a child she doesn't want, but a woman can force a man to be a father (Or, at the very least, accountable) to a child he doesn't want.

 

 

 

 

When you are subjected to the stresses on both the body and mind that a pregnancy brings, then you can have "equal rights" when it comes to deciding what to do with your OWN body. If somehow pregnancies were dealt with in a neutral caregiver that both the male and female had no part of, then your argument would be legit.

 

 

 

Dubay v. Wells, for starters.

 

 

 

Yes, Dubay v. Wells is one of the most frequently cited cases by Men's rights activists. They think that a woman should either not have the right to abort if the father must pay child support or if she has the right to abort, then the father must have the right to abandon duty of care for the born child.

 

 

 

Its a piss-poor reasoning given the woman has no right to be free of duty of care to a born child. Even with adoption, if there is an active male parent involved---she has to get his consent. Otherwise she cannot adopt out. If he becomes the custodial parent of that child, she would be the one paying child support.

 

 

 

There is no right to be free of parental responsibility; this is what Dubay was going for.

 

 

 

For more reading:

 

 

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20071127.html

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060322.html

 

 

 

Yes, because, only men are physically and mentally abusive and things like male rape/battery aren't underreported because of the negative stigma attached to them.

 

 

 

Not at all. However, women ARE still not treated as well. Women still make up the vast majority of sexual abuse/assault cases. Women are still the vast majority of victims of domestic abuse. Male partners/relatives still make up for the largest chunk of perpetrators in the murders of pregnant women. Women still face much more sexual and pay discrimination than men overall do.

 

 

 

Murder, robbery, etc ARE all reported on a much higher rate than rape is. Rape is THE MOST underreported crime in the world, next only to domestic abuse. Not to mention that the conviction/prosecution rates are higher for other crimes than sexual assault/rape.

[Quoi_Tu]

Being a white male in the US, I can't readily relate to the majority of feminist issues. However, I think much more focus should be put on women rights in poor, developing countries where women are often treated at the same level as slaves. Places like rural Pakistan where women are made to work well into sunset while the men will stop before and rest and eat. Women in the US have it pretty nice compared to lower income countries.

[magekillr]

I should also address affirmative action, and why I feel that it is necessary. Despite what many people think, AA has worked very well to correct these disproportions in wages. Due both to the direct and indirect consequences of AA, minorities and women in the US are faring much better than their counterparts in other developed countries.

 

 

 

To those against AA, I ask you how else are we suppose to mend these societal injustices?

 

 

 

I think declassifying race is a terrible idea. Take France for example, minorities have major societal problems among them being that they have almost zero representation in their national government. Yet, no one can address these issues because for France race doesn't exist. Ignoring race, only ignores the problem.

 

 

 

AA cannot be replaced a purely socio-economic based system. I do agree that more emphasis needs to be placed on socio-economic backgrounds when applying AA but it cannot be just that. The problem isn't that there are poor people in America. The problem is that women and minorities disproportionally fall into this category.

 

 

 

AA is by no means perfect as it is intrinsically puts one individual ahead the next. However, when viewed in the context of this nation's past and even current injustices, AA is still vital social program

 

 

 

Some say it's 'counterproductive", but I'm not sure what they mean by "counterproductive".

 

 

 

Affirmative Action, and the Civil Rights Act of '64 in general, was meant to alleviate the poverty rates of African Americans; they were poor because they couldn't get into good jobs or good universities on account of their race. And in that regard, it did a fantastic job; just look at poverty rates before and after the act.

 

 

 

However, affirmative action was somewhat counterproductive in that it forces racism and racists to hide what they are. When a black person is denied a job, the interviewer can't say "I don't like what you look like". He instead has to make up some other excuse. Before, his racism would have been on the surface, and it could have been addressed as such. Now that the significant amounts of racism in this country is essentially buried, reforming and exposing racists becomes very difficult. This is why free speech is very important.

 

 

 

and in closing, to quote Thomas Nagel:

 

 

 

affirmative action is, in and of itself, an unjust measure. But the injustice of affirmative action is outweighed by the societal injustice, namely de facto segregation, that does indeed result from a free market economy (or a generally capitalistic market). If you have de facto segregation that leads to a significant socioeconomic disparity among races, the whole notion of "equal opportunity" becomes a myth.

 

 

 

Affirmative action is a realistic policy in that it is an acknowledgment of societal injustice. It is not "quotas", as even people like McCain think it is (as quotas were struck down by the Supreme Court). On the other hand, it is favoring a slightly less qualified individual over a slightly more qualified one because of an innate characteristic. That's what people have a problem with.

 

 

 

But make no mistake, no matter how much attention you put into the rights violation that is a philosophically intrinsic characteristic of affirmative action, it HAS worked. There are negative consequences to the institution, sure, but it has allowed minorities to gain more access into jobs/education institutions, period.

 

 

 

I still feel that in the context of the societal injustice that has resulted from our economy acting in synergy with racism, affirmative action must remain.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

I should also address affirmative action, and why I feel that it is necessary. Despite what many people think, AA has worked very well to correct these disproportions in wages. Due both to the direct and indirect consequences of AA, minorities and women in the US are faring much better than their counterparts in other developed countries.

 

 

 

To those against AA, I ask you how else are we suppose to mend these societal injustices?

 

 

 

I think declassifying race is a terrible idea. Take France for example, minorities have major societal problems among them being that they have almost zero representation in their national government. Yet, no one can address these issues because for France race doesn't exist. Ignoring race, only ignores the problem.

 

 

 

AA cannot be replaced a purely socio-economic based system. I do agree that more emphasis needs to be placed on socio-economic backgrounds when applying AA but it cannot be just that. The problem isn't that there are poor people in America. The problem is that women and minorities disproportionally fall into this category.

 

 

 

AA is by no means perfect as it is intrinsically puts one individual ahead the next. However, when viewed in the context of this nation's past and even current injustices, AA is still vital social program

 

 

 

Some say it's 'counterproductive", but I'm not sure what they mean by "counterproductive".

 

 

 

Affirmative Action, and the Civil Rights Act of '64 in general, was meant to alleviate the poverty rates of African Americans; they were poor because they couldn't get into good jobs or good universities on account of their race. And in that regard, it did a fantastic job; just look at poverty rates before and after the act.

 

 

 

However, affirmative action was somewhat counterproductive in that it forces racism and racists to hide what they are. When a black person is denied a job, the interviewer can't say "I don't like what you look like". He instead has to make up some other excuse. Before, his racism would have been on the surface, and it could have been addressed as such. Now that the significant amounts of racism in this country is essentially buried, reforming and exposing racists becomes very difficult. This is why free speech is very important.

 

 

 

and in closing, to quote Thomas Nagel:

 

 

 

affirmative action is, in and of itself, an unjust measure. But the injustice of affirmative action is outweighed by the societal injustice, namely de facto segregation, that does indeed result from a free market economy (or a generally capitalistic market). If you have de facto segregation that leads to a significant socioeconomic disparity among races, the whole notion of "equal opportunity" becomes a myth.

 

 

 

Affirmative action is a realistic policy in that it is an acknowledgment of societal injustice. It is not "quotas", as even people like McCain think it is (as quotas were struck down by the Supreme Court). On the other hand, it is favoring a slightly less qualified individual over a slightly more qualified one because of an innate characteristic. That's what people have a problem with.

 

 

 

But make no mistake, no matter how much attention you put into the rights violation that is a philosophically intrinsic characteristic of affirmative action, it HAS worked. There are negative consequences to the institution, sure, but it has allowed minorities to gain more access into jobs/education institutions, period.

 

 

 

I still feel that in the context of the societal injustice that has resulted from our economy acting in synergy with racism, affirmative action must remain.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I agree AA is at its core a good idea. My problem comes from it going to excess, if it is an even choice then I think the minority getting the selection(for whatever) is a good; however, a minorty person getting a say college acceptance to meet a quota when they are less qualified then a non minority person applying for the same thing. Note, I mean signifigantly more qualified, not white guy with 3.875 gpa losing to black guy with 3.870 gpa (assuming just gpa is basis for the sake of simplicity)

[magekillr]

Quotas were struck down by the SCOTUS, as I stated in my post.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of ... a_v._Bakke

[mmmcannibalism]

Quotas were struck down by the SCOTUS, as I stated in my post.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of ... a_v._Bakke

 

 

 

thats good to hear

[Collective]

It depends. I am largely unsympathetic given a vast majority of them either DON'T want visitation or want visitation as a means of control.

 

[citation needed]

 

 

 

 

Also, the site that you gave has a whole bunch of false as well as outdated statistics (and blatant misrepresentation in the child support section). You're right, screaming "myth" doesn't change them, so here's some facts of my own:

 

 

 

http://family.findlaw.com/child-support ... stats.html

 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf

 

http://www.resource4familylaw.com/topic ... stics.html

 

Your first link is just an overview of the second. The third doesn't seem to contradict anything I've posted or linked to. Of the statistics given in my post few were even covered by yours, never mind contradicted. Some of the claims I linked to were even supported, in particular that:

• 
   
  [*:90f625u4]Around 44.5% of those with no visitation rights still financially support their children
   
  [*:90f625u4]Approximately 5 out of every 6 custodial parents are mothers

 

 

 

The vast majority of the statistics I linked to are not covered by your response, including all of those related to the effect on children of not having a father.

[magekillr]

The vast majority of the statistics I linked to are not covered by your response, including all of those related to the effect on children of not having a father.

 

 

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, with not only this, but the other pieces of your statistics. Do you support gay adoption?

[Collective]

The vast majority of the statistics I linked to are not covered by your response, including all of those related to the effect on children of not having a father.

 

 

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Do you support gay adoption?

 

The psychological effects of not having a father figure in childhood are well-documented; kindly educate yourself. The psychological effects of losing a father figure mid-childhood are even worse. I'm afraid latin phrases are no more effective in disproving an argument than shouting "myth".

 

 

 

As for gay (and lesbian) adoption yes, I support both.

[magekillr]

The vast majority of the statistics I linked to are not covered by your response, including all of those related to the effect on children of not having a father.

 

 

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Do you support gay adoption?

 

The psychological effects of not having a father figure in childhood are well-documented; kindly educate yourself. The psychological effects of losing a father-figure mid-childhood are even worse. I'm afraid latin phrases are no more effective in disproving an argument than shouting "myth".

 

 

 

As for gay (and lesbian) adoption yes, I support both.

 

 

 

If you're for lesbian adoption, why aren't you making the same arguments that the adopted children need a father figure in order to "come out ok"? It'd be my understanding that you should be against gay adoption for this reason.

[Collective]

The vast majority of the statistics I linked to are not covered by your response, including all of those related to the effect on children of not having a father.

 

 

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Do you support gay adoption?

 

The psychological effects of not having a father figure in childhood are well-documented; kindly educate yourself. The psychological effects of losing a father-figure mid-childhood are even worse. I'm afraid latin phrases are no more effective in disproving an argument than shouting "myth".

 

 

 

As for gay (and lesbian) adoption yes, I support both.

 

 

 

If you're for lesbian adoption, why aren't you making the same arguments that they need a father figure in order to "come out ok"?

 

I'm not arguing that father figures are necessary, just that they're preferable. Adoptions take place in situations where children don't have suitable custodians at all, never mind the ideal ones (whatever those may be).

 

 

 

Anyway, since you seem to have a thing for straw men, here's one: Unlike you I'd be making the same points (in favour of mother figures) if the statistics on custody and visitation arrangements were reversed.

[magekillr]

They're most certainly not "preferable". What matters is love and attention. The reason there is a discrepancy for the seeming loss of "father figures" is not because they are a father figure, but because it's very difficult to juggle the various aspects of parenting and a job with just one person.

 

 

 

Why are they preferable? There's no differences between gay couples and straight couples, so it's obviously NOT because of the lacking of a "father-figure/mother-figure". Thusly why I responded with Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

 

 

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/1182 ... 90406.html

[Collective]

They're most certainly not "preferable". What matters is love and attention.

 

I was expecting a certain amount of idiocy and misandry from you by now, but you can sleep tonight proud in the knowledge that you've exceeded my expectations.

 

 

 

There has long been a consensus amongst experts that fathers play an important role in the development of children, to try and deny that is ridiculous arrogance from someone as criminally uninformed as yourself. You may as well deny that the Earth is round.

 

 

 

Fathers involvement and children's developmental outcomes (2007)

 

 

 

Even your own link states that "In a case-by-case evaluation, trained professionals can ensure that the child to be adopted or placed in foster care is moving into an environment with adequate role models of all types."

 

 

 

This will be my last response to you -- you have thoroughly exhausted my patience.

 

 

 

Feminism is in a lot of ways like fascism. Your average Fascist will disregard any scientific argument unless the conclusion supports his existing belief. The ideology comes first and the Fascist looks for anything to back it up, no matter how trivial, unreliable or discredited. Much like today's feminists and their ideology. Fascists attempt to rationalize their beliefs and portray them as truth by twisting the facts.

 

QFT, except that thankfully the majority of feminists aren't like you.

[magekillr]

*sigh*

 

 

 

This all started because Sly made a comment that somehow men are being discriminated against with respect to visitation and child custody. I called this "cute" because it's usually for good reasons that they are "discriminated" against (denied):

 

 

 

a. Usually it's a case of spousal abuse

 

b. Failure to pay child support (like with my own biological father)

 

c. Sometimes it's a simple matter of safety/custodial interference

 

d. The majority of the times though, men simply do not want any visitation rights as they feel that doing that would make them further liable for child support.

 

 

 

Apparently this led you to go and say why, despite ANY OF THESE THINGS, fathers should still be allowed visitation rights, in that "children need a father figure". This led me to falsely believe that you were arguing that children need a gender-male when it comes to child rearing, rather than a "male role model". For this false misrepresentation of your argument, I apologize.

 

 

 

So now this leads to a new argument: Why does the male role model have to be restricted to the biological father through visitation? And moreover, why does this support Sly's other argument which I'm sure would be, "Women are preferred in custody trials."

 

 

 

Women are preferred in these hearings because:

 

 

 

1. The father was never the primary care giver.

 

2. The father was never involved.

 

3. The father doesn't want custody.

 

4. The father has been abusive to the mother (and/or the child), deeming him an unsuitable parent.

 

 

 

I would tend to agree with those studies' results, but it does not argue that men should be given visitation because of those circumstances. THAT was my main argument.

 

 

 

and for one final edit, just for Sly as to why his claim was myth...

 

 

 

Less than 15-16% of women are non-custodial parents and within this 16% or so, about less than half are ordered to pay child support. So even if this entirety of 8% fails to pay (I believe the non-payment rate is around 40% of this number)---it's very tiny compared to the 46% fathers or so who pay nothing to very tiny fractions of the child support.

 

 

 

But I suppose it's easier for the MRAs to claim that a greater percent of women fail to pay the child support than men, and therefore child support is somehow biased against men.

[BlueLancer]

Feminists are doing more to move towards a view of feminism that includes the third world than people in other fields such as civil rights, if you read any feminist blogs or zines you'd know this, so it would strike me that feminism is actually one of the areas where this criticism applies less.

 

 

 

Those organisations (not that I know of any, but they probably do exist) that direct the majority of their resources towards helping women who really need more equality in third world countries are IMO as respectable as Red Cross or any aid organisation. In western countries they are usually only concerned with their own issues

 

 

 

 

I think declassifying race is a terrible idea. Take France for example, minorities have major societal problems among them being that they have almost zero representation in their national government. Yet, no one can address these issues because for France race doesn't exist. Ignoring race, only ignores the problem.

 

 

 

Asians have the lowest representation of all races in the 109th congress [1] (only 4 representatives, compare for example blacks: 42) and have had the highest median personal income of all ethnicities in the US for over a decade [2]. A lot of them also have a significant language barrier to cross especially if they are older when moving to the US from a poorer asian country. Discipline and strong family pressure for education even amongst less fortunate, suburban families can go a long way for many people