Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   "If a husband threatens to murder his wife with a gun, that's her problem, not the cops'." Was this from: A) Elliot Rodger's manifesto B) some MRA douche-blogger or C) "Reverend" Pat Robertson   (rawstory.com ) divider line 306
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

8241 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jun 2014 at 5:02 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-11 11:06:49 PM  

RoyBatty: LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Your statement is only sort of true and only sort of true if you restrict it to family courts since 1910, when family courts basically came into existence.

Before that, when custody issues came before the court, so called  patriarchal ideas about gender roles ruled in favor of the father for a very long time and then swung with the growing feminist movement to be in favor of the mother.

So in fact, in truth, you are actually completely wrong on the history and in your claim.

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

Now however, your statement is very truthy.

It is feminist groups, not fathers rights groups, who time and again lobby against shared custody and lobby to retain primary custody systems and other laws that favor the mother.

http://www.nomas.org/node/244
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1po78q/do_you_think_fe mi nists_should_support_a/


A very prominent 2nd wave feminist, Karen DeCrow died just this week. She was a strong proponent of shared custody.

But she was just about the last one. That was 1977.

https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21752-karen-decrow- la st-now-president-to-support-shared-parenting-dies

I gather from your comments here you think you know quite a bit about a father's rights movement, based on comments and posts you read on the net, but I actually don't think you've done much research. Many of your opinions seem shaped by cant, not by historical fact, reasoning, or reading into what the Father's Rights groups have to say.

I would greatly encourage you to place the national parents organization blog on your feed list.

https://www.nationalparentsorga ...


Yeah, don't have kids. Don't know much, or particularly care about divorced-father's rights. Think that anyone who claims that men have fewer rights than women, and need some sort of special protection is a complete idiot, and that anyone who claims biases in the system are the result of feminism must have been dropped on his head as a child.
 
2014-06-11 11:10:44 PM  
Sometimes I don't understand feminism.  One minute it's not okay to show a woman getting beaten up, because of violence against women in society, and the next minute it's not okay to *avoid* showing women getting beaten up, because it implies that you think that women are a weaker species who have no place getting in fights.
 
2014-06-11 11:12:09 PM  

timujin: Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.


I guess the question is whether you think "MRA douche-bloggers" is implying that ALL MRAs are douche-bloggers or whether it's merely referring to those MRAs who are also douche-bloggers.  If the former, then it's insulting every MRA in the world.  The term is a bit ambiguous, but it's possible to be offended by it without being an MRA douche-blogger yourself.
 
2014-06-11 11:13:35 PM  
img.fark.net

"Are you saying that men and women are identical?"
"Oh, no, of course not! Women are unique in every way."
"Now he's saying men and women  aren't equal!"
"No, no, no! It's the differences of which there are none that makes the sameness exceptional. Just tell me what to say!"
 
2014-06-11 11:16:35 PM  

RoyBatty: DrBenway: RoyBatty: With what we are given in the video, I think it boils down to what I laid out.

I frankly saw no reference to a video and took your checklist as something general and not referring to a specific example. Are you referring to the Robertson clip on the link? You appear to be reading a lot more into the very brief scenario they discuss and fleshing it out with a lot more details than what I heard. Is there another video you're referring to? I really don't see how you can take something so abbreviated and produce so much black-and-white absolute certainty about the circumstances from it.

Again, if there's another video or some other source you're referencing that has provided more detail, let me know.

Yes that's the video, but I think it's the other way around. I am stripping the scenario we are given from the various interpretations that were placed on it in this thread.

All we really know is:

Mother, father, two kids, repeated incidents where father is brandishing the gun and making threats with it.

I'm out of here (gym in 26 minutes.)


Well... that certainly simplifies things I suppose. Seems like a pretty good way to get it wrong though. That leaves out way too much information that would influence the making of a useful judgment, and I'm not seeing how you can go on so much and for so long with such surety, given so little to work with. There are various interpretations because there is so much missing information that would influence any sort of capable assessment of the situation. You would appear to have created some rigid evaluation of matters almost entirely out of whole cloth.

The possibility that a psychologically battered woman would not be capable of dealing with the situation is exactly that: a possibility. Suggesting that it is sexist to even consider such a possibility, or that it is seen as a default interpretation, is more than a little bit over the top, and doesn't lend itself to forming a positive impression of anything else you put forth. It is one of a number of variables that would influence the appropriate or most helpful action of the child.

I would have to reckon that weighing the many details and nuances that may or may not present themselves in any situation is sort of important in coming to useful, helpful solutions or courses of action. Maybe it's not the case, but you're giving a distinct impression that you don't see things that way.
 
2014-06-11 11:33:27 PM  

Fart_Machine: Came for the MRA butthurt. Left satisfied.


Don't leave. The cow still has milk to give.
 
2014-06-11 11:39:29 PM  
gamergirl23: Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.

I was kinda hoping the mom would declare first strike...
 
2014-06-11 11:40:44 PM  

aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be


That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.
 
2014-06-11 11:50:23 PM  
Men's Rights Advocates are a real group? I thought they were just manchildren whining about how they shouldn't have to pay their child support.
 
2014-06-11 11:53:17 PM  

Mikey1969: So for those claiming that subby is lying and that whole Pat can be a douche, but in this case he's a stand up guy, please enlighten the rest of us on what we're missing in this article.

Because I've read it through multiple times, and I still seem to hear him saying that the little girl should talk to Mommy, that she shouldn't get her daddy busted, and that her mom should be the only one to handle it.

Maybe it's a filter on RawStory like the April Fool's filter on here? All of Pat's illogical shiat is replaced by nuggets of wisdom on everyone else's browser? Or vice versa?


You could watch the video. It's right there in the link. This advice also goes to the "Hurr, durr, Raw Story is teh lame" people. If you think they're quoting out of context, prove it.
 
2014-06-12 12:26:04 AM  

ciberido: the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court"


Thanks for this link. It made me feel good about my situation. I'm confident after reading it that if we were to ever get divorced, it would go relatively smoothly and we'd be able to handle any post-divorce co-parenting without any major issues (I don't plan on divorce, but you never know).

And while I'm sure this applies to a great many people:

"In order for fathers to be considered equally worthy caregivers in the eyes of the court, they must first be equal caregivers within the home"

...I'm not going to start helicoptering the shiat out of my kid. Rather than asking Dad to step it up, for some couples asking Mom to step down a little would be a better way to reach that 'equal caregiver' status.

I guess I just can't fathom who these absent fathers are, or what they'd rather be doing than raising their kids.

"Using an evolutionary defense to discourage fathers from bonding with and nurturing their children just creates unnecessarily absent fathers."

Seriously who the fark are these people? "The Patriarchy" discourages fathers from bonding? Who exactly is discouraging this? And what kind of father would actually listen to that shiat?
 
2014-06-12 12:31:59 AM  

fusillade762: Mikey1969: So for those claiming that subby is lying and that whole Pat can be a douche, but in this case he's a stand up guy, please enlighten the rest of us on what we're missing in this article.

Because I've read it through multiple times, and I still seem to hear him saying that the little girl should talk to Mommy, that she shouldn't get her daddy busted, and that her mom should be the only one to handle it.

Maybe it's a filter on RawStory like the April Fool's filter on here? All of Pat's illogical shiat is replaced by nuggets of wisdom on everyone else's browser? Or vice versa?

You could watch the video. It's right there in the link. This advice also goes to the "Hurr, durr, Raw Story is teh lame" people. If you think they're quoting out of context, prove it.


They're all direct quotes... Can't watch the video because I'm on my phone, and this "Sign In" thing on the website is annoying. I get an authentication window popup over and over. It's scroll, hit 'Cancel', scroll a little more, hit 'Cancel' again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Now, if he didn't say those things, that's one thing, but if he did say them, but I'm supposed to forgive him because he said them in his best Pat Robertson voice, that's not going to happen.

But as it stands, he said that it's up to a battered woman and not an observer to call the cops. It's blame the victim mentality, and it displays a total misunderstanding for the actual issue, yet he feels qualified to hand out advice on the air about it.
 
2014-06-12 12:41:59 AM  

ciberido: So there would be no need for a "MRA movement" if domestic violence and child custody were all that the "men's rights movement" was about --- you could just become a feminist.


Doesn't this go against your assertion upthread that feminism doesn't claim a monopoly on gender issues? I love how you say they could 'just' be feminist, like it's easier that way. Maybe they want to discuss what directly affects them without having to sit down and stfu and go through the motions of every other stupid thing on the agenda first like how advertising affect peoples self esteem and how all of modern society is one big rape monster.

Actually, probably not. MRAs complain about the same dumb media stereotype bullshiat. It's so damn stupid. Everyone is stupid.
 
2014-06-12 12:59:22 AM  

Fafai: ciberido: Whereas, with MRAs, so far as I know nobody every tells a guy, "Hey, you must be an MRA!" or "What are you, some kind of MRA?"

First "guys cant pee while hard" and now this. Just stop. You have no idea.


Do you have some kind of reading disorder that makes "so far as I know" a complete enigma?

Or are you just really, really angry at feminists today?

I freely admit that there are things I don't know.  I try to be honest about when my knowledge is limited, or I am speculating without certainty.  I don't know why you think I should "just stop," but the answer is no, and you may consider yourself invited to enjoy conjugal relations with a cactus for demanding it.
 
2014-06-12 01:12:05 AM  

rocky_howard: One of my favorite things about feminists is how they go on and on about the importance of language and how if we say something like "mankind" it's discriminatory because it's not mentioning women, yet the moment you point out that if they're about equal rights why are they called feminists in the first place you get a spiel about how it's not the same and how you don't get what feminism is all about.

Well, if language matters, then feminism is wrong. It also implies men have all the rights. (Yes, men have more rights, but that doesn't mean they have all the rights. Women have rights over men too).


You misunderstand. It's about norms and othering. Our language sets maleness as the norm, with femaleness as the other. A term like feminism does not change this.
 
2014-06-12 01:14:23 AM  

ciberido: you may consider yourself invited to enjoy conjugal relations with a cactus


i.imgur.com

Accepted!
 
2014-06-12 01:15:25 AM  

aagrajag: Dusk-You-n-Me: There was an MRA joke in the headline

MRA BEACON ACTIVATED

ALL MRAS REPORT TO THREAD TO DEFEND THE MOST HELPLESS AMONGST US - MEN

I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?


Because MRA is considered a hate group. Advocating equality for men is not the same thing as MRA. MRA is specifically about hating women, and focuses little on true inequities males face (limitations to their free expression, clothing, profession, parenthood/custody, etc placed on them due to gender roles and stereotypes). You won't hear many MRAs advocating a man's right to have sex with another man, or two wear a dress, or be a nurse or kindergarten teacher. They don't really care about men's equality, it's just a veil for their hate.
 
2014-06-12 01:23:35 AM  

ennuie: aagrajag: Dusk-You-n-Me: There was an MRA joke in the headline

MRA BEACON ACTIVATED

ALL MRAS REPORT TO THREAD TO DEFEND THE MOST HELPLESS AMONGST US - MEN

I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?

Because MRA is considered a hate group. Advocating equality for men is not the same thing as MRA. MRA is specifically about hating women, and focuses little on true inequities males face (limitations to their free expression, clothing, profession, parenthood/custody, etc placed on them due to gender roles and stereotypes). You won't hear many MRAs advocating a man's right to have sex with another man, or two wear a dress, or be a nurse or kindergarten teacher. They don't really care about men's equality, it's just a veil for their hate.


I support all of those things. I'm a flaming liberal, an as such I have empathy for many different groups of people.

I'd ask what I should call myself, but I already know what the answer will be.
 
2014-06-12 01:32:31 AM  

aagrajag: I already know what the answer will be.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-12 01:35:39 AM  

ciberido: aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be

That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.


Perhaps you should re-read my post; I mentioned several:

-there are almost no resources available for men suffering domestic violence. Note that this also makes it *extremely* difficult for a father to bring his child out of a situation with an abusive mother

-google for the percentage of men who are homeless versus women

-male suicides versus female

-highly unequal treatment by criminal courts: you are better off walking into criminal court as a black woman than as a white man. In the US, that means something.

-significant scholarship and preferential placements are available for female students (particularly in STEM fields), whereas almost none are earmarked for men in fields in which they are underrepresented, education, namely.

-women already outnumber men in most universities, and the gap is growing, yet almost no resources are being allocated to remedy this.

- the attitudes toward intimate violence are revolting. Do a google (sorry, on mobile) for an experiment in which a couple recorded peoples reactions to a man striking a woman and a woman striking a man: the former was stopped almost immediately, while people cheered on the latter.

That's a start.
 
2014-06-12 01:37:22 AM  

Fafai: aagrajag: I already know what the answer will be.


I don't get it. Why is that Monopoly set pink?
 
2014-06-12 02:00:23 AM  

ciberido: No. But the pathetically-obvious straw-man you've just built DOES make you sound like a whiny crybaby.


Right. People called me whiny, and I asked where I was whining. Of those people, not one could take me up on repeated invitations and show me a place where I whined. And here you are, calling me whiny again.

Yet I'm building the straw man..... riiiiiiiiiggggggghhhttt.

I'm not a 19 year old dickhead MRA, and calling me a whiner doesn't do anything constructive except mark you at as tired and unoriginal. If you want to keep playing that card, feel free, but I know you can do better: I berieve in you!

I don't think anyone outside of your imagination denies that some of the points MRAs make are legitimate concerns. Domestic abuse and child custody are two areas where there are biases in the court system (and in law enforcement) that need to be addressed. But, even with that, there are two major problems. First, these are the very positions on which the MRAs and most feminists agree. So there would be no need for a "MRA movement" if domestic violence and child custody were all that the "men's rights movement" was about --- you could just become a feminist.

Second, the majority of what "men's rights" seem to be about are aversion and distrust of women, or a desire to preserve as much as possible the inequalities and injustices that feminists are trying to fight. So the few good points they have are buried under a toxic brew of resentment, hostility, and a selfish desire to preserve injustice, which makes all claims to be FOR justice seem like risible hypocrisy.

In short, put your house in order, get rid of the toxic resentment and childish complaints about how evil women are, and then people will start to take the men's rights movement seriously.


To address your last point first: there are, I think we would all agree, disgusting examples of radical feminism that want nothing more than to use feminist theory to browbeat men. Does this discredit the entire feminist movement, or invalidate the (completely legitimate) concerns that the wider feminist movement has about gender inequality?

No. So why does it work this way for MRAs? The point that everyone seems to ignore is that the shiathead MRA websites are overwhelmingly populated by angsty and angry 18-25 year olds. This is not a condition unique to men: if you are going to hear some really, really stupid feminist "theory" come out of a woman's mouth, it's a good bet she's college age. That is the age for stupid pseudo-intellectualism.

So yes, the MRAs are visible, they're angry, and they're misogynistic dicks. Big deal: there are lots of stereotypically angry and unreasonable feminist everywhere you look on the internet. People, as a group, are nasty, mean and vicious. But somehow a few shiathead MRAs are representative of all men that take an interest in gender equality without kowtowing to feminist theory, while radfems are just radfems and not representative.

Perhaps feminist should look to their own housework?

Moving backwards through your post as to why there needs to be a specific consciousness of men's issues separate from feminism, a men's movement if you will, and why feminism is inadequate for addressing issues specific to men aagrajag said it very well:

aagrajag: I don't expect feminists to fight men's battles or tear down their own privileges. They advocate for their injustices; we advocate for ours.


In theory: yes, feminism is nominally about equality, and therefore it idealistically addresses men's concerns as well.

In practice, feminism is about addressing and rectifying social disadvantages that women face, and as a movement it has little inclination or desire to take on advocacy for issues unique to men.

I'm talking here beyond the common experience that any man who believes in gender equality and interacts with feminist have had - that of being told to sit down and shut up because men didn't get a vote in feminism.

I'm talking about specific issues, that feminist theory SHOULD address as a matter of routine if 3rd wave feminism were actually dedicated to equality.

Take the issue of body image. Feminist have for decades fought to raise awareness of unrealistic images of female bodies, and the role that social image plays in promoting eating disorders. Entire volumes of feminist theory, over a period of decades, have been written about the female body and it's image in patriarchal society. One classic in the field, Susan Bordo's unbearable weight (1993) concerns itself with "feminism, western culture, and the body". This is one of the texts that was critical in putting anorexia and bulimia on the map as a serious gender issue that women face.

Notice: "the body." Ungendered. Yet Bordo focuses exclusively on women's bodies in Unbearable Weight, with not a single critical analysis of men's bodies. In fact, Bordo didn't even think to critically analyze men's bodies until over SIX YEARS later, in 1999, and even then she focuses almost exclusively on men's bodies from the perspective of female desire, female relationships to their father's bodies, their impact on her developing sense of femininity etc. Other famous feminist texts on the body like The Beauty Myth and Adios, Barbie also paid no attention to men's bodies, except through their relationship to the primary object of study: the woman's body.

Well, guess what? It turns out that men actually have just as bad - and arguably worse - body image disorders as women. These disorders, however, are differently oriented from women's and went entirely unrecognized by the feminist movement for decades. Men's body dysmorphia - and it is only in the past 3 years that this was recognized as an issue at all, since research has largely been focused on the women's disorders of bulimia and anorexia - fixates on being big and muscular, something that has been popularly termed "bigorexia." It is the feeling that men have that they can never be big enough, never be muscular enough; that they are always too small.

Men exhibiting bigorexia show a "shockingly high rate of use of anabolic steroids" (In this case, 46% of men diagnosed had used steroids), something that is more destructive than all but the worst binge/purge cycles. The early research that had been done shows that body dysmorphia is equally prevalent in men as it is in women. Body dysmorphia is strongly linked to depression and mood disturbances, and men are twice as likely as women to suffer from mood disorders, suggesting that in certain groups like body builders, men actually might have far higher rates of severe body dysmorphia and unhealthy lifestyles than comparable groups of women.

How many men do you know that obsessively go to the gym, that focus on "gains" and getting bigger? How many weight rooms have you seen filled to bursting with huge ass men lifting weights in large groups? How socially acceptable is it for men to eat unhealthy diets of 6000-8000 calories per day and 80-100% protein for months at a time, in an effort to meet an unrealistic standard of male muscle mass, body weight, and lean muscle composition? How many men like this are out there, obsessively trying to gain muscle mass? How many women's sports allow athletes to use heavy duty weight loss drugs, versus sports like the UFC where TRTs have become so prevalent as a way of gaining mass that they have become unremarkable and largely unremarked upon?

A lot. It's been there, in plain sight, for years. The hell of it is that the current academic and scientific awareness of body dysmorphia in men is being driven by psychiatry and medicine, NOT by feminist social theory. Feminist social theory has been focusing on critical analysis of "the body" for over 60 years, but it has focused on almost exclusively on female bodies - and when it did focus on men's bodies, it was always through the lens of how men's bodies related to women's bodies as the oppressor, the patriarch, the father, the rapist, and the object of desire - not how men's bodies related with and to themselves and other men's bodies.

Sixty years of developing critical theories of the body, and feminist theory completely overlooked male body dysmorphia. They're still overlooking it, for the most part, and popular feminism has picked it up not at all. At most there is a tentative awareness that men too face unrealistic standards, but the consensus seems to be that men's standards drive them towards being healthy, while women's standards drive them to being unhealthy, so men's unrealistic standards aren't as important as women's. The answer is almost always the same as the one you gave me: "well if we fix the patriarchy we'll fix this too, so be a feminist."

Great plan, I'm sure it will really help to raise awareness that this is an issue now more than ever before, and that steps can and need to be taken NOW to help mitigate harm among a burgeoning population of men with psychological body disorders.

There are examples of feminist completely overlooking male issues scattered throughout the past 6 decades of feminist herstory: HIV & AIDS, for example, did not become a 'feminist' issue until the early to mid-2000s, when women finally caught up to men as 50% of the worldwide HIV+ population. Only then was there was a big push to "feminize" AIDs and make it a 'feminist' issue. During the 80's and 90's, when hundreds of thousands of gay men were dying of AIDs and few women were affected, feminism had little to say or contribute. Feminist theory could have cared less, actually, and the burgeoning AIDs epidemic was left almost entirely to the nascent movement of queer theory to force into the popular consciousness.

So that is why I think your argument of "feminism addresses men's problems too, so shut up and be a feminist" is ridiculous. Because herstorically speaking, the evidence is quite clear - feminism prioritizes women's issues because it is FEMINism, and addressing the issues that men specifically face is considered secondary to women's issues, if men's issues issues are recognized at all.

Critical theory and feminism are nothing but lenses through which you view the world. No one social theory will ever capture all of the truth, all of the perspectives.

I think it is interesting that so many self-described 'feminist' are completely unwilling to listen to someone who does not first pay homage to feminism as the One True Philosophy and the Only True Perspective.

More equality for me does not mean less equality for you - something both feminists and MRAs overlook all too often - and regardless of whether we subscribe to identical social theories we can all work together to evolve and get the fark off this planet.

/hell that was a novel
//fark is not my blog
///off to bed
 
2014-06-12 02:02:44 AM  

Fafai: aagrajag: I already know what the answer will be.

[i.imgur.com image 300x263]


moar funny pictures before bed...

i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-12 02:03:26 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-12 02:16:42 AM  

aagrajag: But it's the casual dismissal of other genuine concerns that so aggrieves me: grotequely out-of-proportion rates of drop-outs, homelessness, imprisonment, workplace deaths and injuries, biased family law and courts, non-existent resources for male victims of domestic violence... none of these things affect me directly, but they hurt others.


There's a book you might want to read.  Don't take umbrage at the title: it's called "The End of Men: And the Rise of Women," not it's not the misandrist screed one might suspect from the name.  The author actually writes with a good bit of concern and compassion for some of the things happening to men in modern American society.

I know you probably don't want to hear "patriarchy hurts men, too," but it does, and believe it or not, a lot of feminists DO care about how men are harmed by society's norms and expectations.
 
2014-06-12 02:54:21 AM  

cryinoutloud: jst3p: On this note some are coming around. I have 50/50 custody in Colorado and I didn't have to fight for it, the court are more accepting of recent research that shows that kids can thrive in a situation where they have two homes if it is done properly. Logistics can be tricky and getting along with the ex can be trying but it can work.

i know your story, and I bet you know at least some of mine, but I have never seen a situation where one of the parents got full custody, no matter how many claims there were of domestic violence or drug abuse. This went out years ago. In any divorce that i've been aware of for most of my life, custody is split. And I've done a few rounds (years) in family court. If the parents move apart, usually one parent gets the kids for the school year, then the other gets them during the summer. If they live close to each other, the old "Wednesday night and every other weekend" applies for the non-custodial parent. This is the standard write-up for a custody order, I saw it from every lawyer I ever met, and it didn't vary much. The idea is that the kids need to be in one home during the school week, it's better for them.

But here's the thing: you aren't required to stick with the custody order to the letter, if you can work something else out. That is just the minimum required. If you're still on speaking terms with the ex, you all can work out anything you want. Swap the kids every single school night, if you can deal with each other. In fact, if you can trick your ex into giving you more and more time, you can then petition the courts to let you have that custody officially. Jst3p might know a little about that one.

Now, probably a man will have trouble getting primary custody still, but think about it, guys--before you split, who took care of the kids most of the time? It may have been you--maybe your ex-wife is a coke fiend who lives down at the bar--but in most instances, it was the wife dealing with the kids. ...


Your mileage may vary (considerably) depending upon the jurisdiction involved.  Some states as a matter of public policy award joint physical custody only if both parents consent to the arrangement but award joint legal custody to avoid problems of parental consent while the child is in the care of the non custodial parent.  There are a number of jurisdictions that do presume that joint custody (legal and physical) is in the best interests of the child, absent evidence that a parent is unfit and poses a risk of harm to the child through neglect, domestic violence, drug use, etc.  But your urging parents to put the kids first and do as much as you can to make peace and cooperate with your ex is totally sound advice in the overwhelming majority of cases.  Your ex may have been a lousy spouse but that doesn't automatically make them a bad parent.  In the long run, swallowing your pride and hurt and refusing to battle with your ex pays off.
 
2014-06-12 03:10:09 AM  

Mikey1969: fusillade762: Mikey1969: So for those claiming that subby is lying and that whole Pat can be a douche, but in this case he's a stand up guy, please enlighten the rest of us on what we're missing in this article.

Because I've read it through multiple times, and I still seem to hear him saying that the little girl should talk to Mommy, that she shouldn't get her daddy busted, and that her mom should be the only one to handle it.

Maybe it's a filter on RawStory like the April Fool's filter on here? All of Pat's illogical shiat is replaced by nuggets of wisdom on everyone else's browser? Or vice versa?

You could watch the video. It's right there in the link. This advice also goes to the "Hurr, durr, Raw Story is teh lame" people. If you think they're quoting out of context, prove it.

They're all direct quotes... Can't watch the video because I'm on my phone, and this "Sign In" thing on the website is annoying. I get an authentication window popup over and over. It's scroll, hit 'Cancel', scroll a little more, hit 'Cancel' again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Now, if he didn't say those things, that's one thing, but if he did say them, but I'm supposed to forgive him because he said them in his best Pat Robertson voice, that's not going to happen.

But as it stands, he said that it's up to a battered woman and not an observer to call the cops. It's blame the victim mentality, and it displays a total misunderstanding for the actual issue, yet he feels qualified to hand out advice on the air about it.


That's my understanding as well.  If the kid is worried about getting Dad arrested or afraid of retaliation (both of which are common and reasonable fears for kids in this situation) and Mom hasn't gotten Daddy some help or gotten the rest of the family the hell out of there until he does after repeated instances of him brandishing a gun,  there's little chance the kid will convince her to act.  Talking to some other trusted adult is the best option- a teacher,  an aunt, uncle  grandparent, or someone from the YWCA or a domestic abuse hotline.  Let them call the cops and/or talk to Mom and get her to make an escape plan.  If Dad gets help, great!  But the kids and Mom shouldn't have to wait in the danger zone until he does.  I know you know this, but thought it was worth mentioning if it gets to someone who might need it.  I'm sorry there wasn't someone who could help was there for you when you and your Mom needed it.
 
2014-06-12 03:13:12 AM  

Mikey1969: fusillade762: At least now I know how to get a Fark insta-green: just put "MRA" in the headline.

What the hell IS MRA anyway?

Michigan Rape Attorney? MaxioRectalAbrasions? Mars Rovers Anonymous? Mom's Rockin' Applesauce?


Men's Right Advocate.

What exactly that means depends on who you ask.  Urban Dictionary is not kind.  Most feminists have a pretty low opinion.   Geek Feminism Wiki is succinct but unfavorable.  Wikipedia is more neutral, though some people argue it isn't.   Rational Wiki's article is probably more critical than your average MRA would consider fair.

I'd love to link some MRA websites' own definition, in the interest of fairness, but I don't know which ones are considered representative.  Maybe this Australian website is worth a look, but again, I make no claims that it's representative of, or fair to, the men's rights movement as a whole.

You'll have to wait for another post, or do some searching of your own, to get both sides of the story.  I can't present both sides equally.
 
2014-06-12 03:17:28 AM  

moeburn: Well if there's one thing I've learned about civil rights, it's that they tend to act as a pendulum.


That's just about the least true thing I've read or heard said about civil rights today, and that includes every post in this thread before you.

Civil rights isn't a zero-sum game wherein team A loses a point every time team B gains one.

Then again, the misconception that civil rights IS a zero-sum game goes a long way to explaining the MRA, as well as complaints about "reverse racism" and so on.  So maybe you've hit on something after all.
 
2014-06-12 04:33:17 AM  

aagrajag: ciberido: aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be

That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.

Perhaps you should re-read my post; I mentioned several:


And perhaps you should re-read my post.  I asked specifically about injustices  not being addressed.  Is it your contention that everything you listed is being completely ignored by everyone except the MRA?


aagrajag: -significant scholarship and preferential placements are available for female students (particularly in STEM fields), whereas almost none are earmarked for men in fields in which they are underrepresented, education, namely.

-women already outnumber men in most universities, and the gap is growing, yet almost no resources are being allocated to remedy this.


Let me get this straight.  On the one hand, you're complaining that more scholarships and preferential placements are awarded to female students, and that's bad; but in the very next breath you're complaining that "almost no resources are being allocated to remedy" the gap between male and female students in  universities?  So which is it?  Should  scholarships and preferential placements be awarded to assist minority (in this case, male) or disadvantaged students, or not?
 
2014-06-12 05:09:33 AM  

ciberido: aagrajag: ciberido: aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be

That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.

Perhaps you should re-read my post; I mentioned several:

And perhaps you should re-read my post.  I asked specifically about injustices  not being addressed.  Is it your contention that everything you listed is being completely ignored by everyone except the MRA?


aagrajag: -significant scholarship and preferential placements are available for female students (particularly in STEM fields), whereas almost none are earmarked for men in fields in which they are underrepresented, education, namely.

-women already outnumber men in most universities, and the gap is growing, yet almost no resources are being allocated to remedy this.

Let me get this straight.  On the one hand, you're complaining that more scholarships and preferential placements are awarded to female students, and that's bad; but in the very next breath you're complaining that "almost no resources are being allocated to remedy" the gap between male and female students in  universities?  So which is it?  Should  scholarships and preferential placements be awarded to assist minority (in this case, male) or disadvantaged students, or not?


There is no contradiction there:

I never said that giving aid to female students was bad; don't put words in my mouth.

What is bad is that male students are *not* being similarly helped in in which they are struggling or underrepresented.
 
2014-06-12 05:11:05 AM  

aagrajag: ciberido: aagrajag: ciberido: aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be

That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.

Perhaps you should re-read my post; I mentioned several:

And perhaps you should re-read my post.  I asked specifically about injustices  not being addressed.  Is it your contention that everything you listed is being completely ignored by everyone except the MRA?


aagrajag: -significant scholarship and preferential placements are available for female students (particularly in STEM fields), whereas almost none are earmarked for men in fields in which they are underrepresented, education, namely.

-women already outnumber men in most universities, and the gap is growing, yet almost no resources are being allocated to remedy this.

Let me get this straight.  On the one hand, you're complaining that more scholarships and preferential placements are awarded to female students, and that's bad; but in the very next breath you're complaining that "almost no resources are being allocated to remedy" the gap between male and female students in  universities?  So which is it?  Should  scholarships and preferential placements be awarded to assist minority (in this case, male) or disadvantaged students, or not?

There is no contradiction there:

I never said that giving aid to female students was bad; don't put words in my mouth.

What is bad is that male students are *not* being similarly helped in in which they are struggling or underrepresented.


That second "in" should be "areas".
 
2014-06-12 07:07:10 AM  

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Also, to MRAs, all feminists are Andrea Dworkin and a handful of other fringey loons hanging out in academia.


Painting with a broad brush is behavior befitting your handle.
 
2014-06-12 08:28:57 AM  

RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 612x144]

I don't understand why the Raw Story, about a year or two ago, decided to fire reporters and hire political bloggers with no journalism experience and claim they did reporting and then adopt Newsmax principles of journalism.

But um, Raw Story is no longer a credible source of journalism.


Raw Story has never been credible.  During the GW Bush administration, they would run stories every few days about how impeachment proceedings against the president were just days away...and of course we all know how that turned out.  It's left-wing fantasies and nothing more.

/Is left-wing
 
2014-06-12 08:45:29 AM  

cathode26: HideAndGoFarkYourself: freewill: HideAndGoFarkYourself: When you're staring at somebody waving a gun at your mother in anger, you call the police.  You don't HOPE that your dad decides not to kill your mom that day, then talk to your mom later and get her to call the police.  If mom was interested in the police being called, she'd have done it, or she's so terrified of her husband that she's not going to call regardless of how scared little Timmy is.  The time for a family discussion is after daddy gets out of rehab, or mommy gets a divorce.  It's a lot easier to counsel a kid that calling the police was the right thing, and that he ultimately may have saved a life, than it is to counsel a kid that his inaction was part of the reason his mommy got killed in front of him.

I was assuming that Robertson was not responding to a situation that was occurring in real-time. As in, I didn't think his father was pointing the gun at his mother while Robertson was giving the kid instructions, so it was not, in fact, an emergency at that very moment. I do agree that in the moment, calling 911 is the right thing to do.

Robertson was pretty clear with the kid that his father is going to kill his mother eventually and something has to be done.

tiamet4: Also, he should not be asking his mom to "talk to his dad about getting help".  He should be asking his mom to get him the hell out of this situation.

I can agree with this completely. If "help" is limited to asking him to please stop and see a therapist, then Robertson's answer is certainly wrong. LIke I said, I understand how it could be read that way, but I read it as "you need to tell her this isn't OK and to do something, she knows what that means".

When I hear "help" in the context of a violent psycho, I hear "Baker Act".

/ Alternately, "shoot him first, mom."

So, the lesson to the kid is that it's not his responsibility to report criminal behavior?  I agree, the mom SHOULD be the one reporting it.  That it's happened mo ...


No, mental midget, I read what he said, I heard what he said and his message is STILL wrong.  Your dumbness on the entire scenario is what is truly laughable.  The proper response would have been "What your father is doing is wrong, and you don't WANT to get your dad in trouble, but if that's what needs to happen to protect you and your mother, then that's not your fault, it's your father's fault for putting you in that situation.  Next time your dad pulls a gun in an argument with your mom, you need to call the police" Period.  End of answer.

You are a complete idiot if you can't realize that.  It's not about alternative solutions.  Alternative solutions don't mean shiat if mom has a hole in her head because dad was allowed to pull guns on her and wave them all around like he just don't care, and happens to pull the trigger...whether intentional or not.

Sometimes when you call into a show to ask somebody for advice, or for an alternate solution to a problem, the right solution is the one they don't want to do.  Sometimes you have to do something that seems wrong, but is actually right in the long run.  Plenty of kids have called the police on their parents and been just fine for it.  Plenty more have seen mom's head caved in by an angry father, and not been just fine afterwards.  Which one do you think is more likely to occur?  Wait, don't answer that, you're far too stupid to grasp common sense.
 
2014-06-12 08:48:16 AM  
Elegy: <snip>


damiaodias.typepad.com
 
2014-06-12 08:56:28 AM  
Just a responsible gun owner.  Nothing to see here.
 
2014-06-12 09:04:41 AM  

ciberido: "The End of Men: And the Rise of Women,"


When linking to a book most people go straight to the amazon page so that people can get a more detailed synopsis and also check out some user reviews. One look at that page gives me a clue as to why maybe you didn't do that with this one. There's a lot of criticism there about unoriginality, confirmation bias, anecdote-as-data, distorted facts and errors...

I don't usually lol, but this quote made me chortle out loud. I think it pretty much tells me all I need to know: "women are described in the most gushing diction as literally, "Katniss-like.""

Ha! Is that reviewer's use of 'literally' and quotation marks accurate? Is that really a direct quote? Oh man.
 
2014-06-12 09:46:51 AM  

RoyBatty: RoyBatty: An adult woman and a child witness a man threatening them with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

The man is no longer threatening the adult woman and the child with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

Who is abusing the child?
[ ] the man threatening the child and adult woman woman?
[ ] the adult woman who will not call the police to protect her child?
[ ] the farkers demanding the child call the police to protect the adult woman?

Follow up question:

If you believe a child should call the police to protect an adult woman from a man threatening both the adult woman and the child are you

[ ] Fighting the Patriarchy?
[ ] Reinforcing the Patriarchy?


Two people witness another threatening them with a gun.

I want both to call the police.  Either to call the police.  Anyone who thinks of it to call the police.  God to call the police.  The peeping tom who wanted to whack it to Mom changing to call the police.  I want every person who can reach it to gangbang the phone so hard it ends up on Maury trying to prove the paternity of your cellphone.

Whichever 'side' you think you're on, you're certifiably a nutjob.
 
2014-06-12 09:49:01 AM  

aagrajag: ciberido: aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be

That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.

Perhaps you should re-read my post; I mentioned several:

-there are almost no resources available for men suffering domestic violence. Note that this also makes it *extremely* difficult for a father to bring his child out of a situation with an abusive mother

-google for the percentage of men who are homeless versus women

-male suicides versus female

-highly unequal treatment by criminal courts: you are better off walking into criminal court as a black woman than as a white man. In the US, that means something.

-significant scholarship and preferential placements are available for female students (particularly in STEM fields), whereas almost none are earmarked for men in fields in which they are underrepresented, education, namely.

-women already outnumber men in most universities, and the gap is growing, yet almost no resources are being allocated to remedy this.

- the attitudes toward intimate violence are revolting. Do a google (sorry, on mobile) for an experiment in which a couple recorded peoples reactions to a man striking a woman and a woman striking a man: the former was stopped almost immediately, while people cheered on the latter.

That's a start.


These are all good points, but in regards to your last two:

-There are more women than men in universities. What is happening to the men who are not going to college? Are they un/underemployed? That's bad. Are they instead going into trades that don't require a college degree such as mechanic, electrician, plumber? Few women do that, which may explain the disparity. And those fields often pay well and there is no massive college tuition to repay.

-Domestic violence is a serious problem and both men and women should be held accountable. However, the video you recommend (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/27/mankind-men-domestic-viol en ce-video-abuse_n_5396154.html ) is not the best one to champion. It's heavily edited so there's no way to know if all the smiling/laughing is because of the F on M violence. Look at all the cut scenes, how the reactions are never in the same scene as the act.
 
2014-06-12 10:22:01 AM  

Theaetetus: You make false claims about what feminists are about: "Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality."
You then whine that feminists "make false claims about what Men's Rights are about".
You're whining about the same thing you did one sentence earlier.
That's hypocritical, regardless of whether Subby's headline is false.
Therefore, you're a hypocrite.


I'm glad you broke it down because it's not hypocritical because my statements are verifiably true. Being a female supremacist, you have a bias whereby no negative statement can be made about feminism without forcing feelings of cognitive dissonance.

In other words, what I said was true, your refusal to accept it as truth does not make me a hypocrite.


Obama's Reptiloid Master:
Oh no! Fire alarms. It's not like <A href="http://radicalcentristblog.wordpress.com/tag/montana-state-univ ersity/ ">MRAs don't abuse public systems to shut down rape awareness campaigns</a>. Or, you know, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/santa-barbara-shoot er-elli ot-rodger-police-report">killing people</a>.

As far as your link showing any such "abuse" -it doesn't. MRA's are allowed to spread awareness as are feminists. I wonder why many people see the feminist perspective on rape as a hysterical over-reaction?

dkzstslcvgwbc.cloudfront.net
 
2014-06-12 10:58:08 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Obama's Reptiloid Master:
Oh no! Fire alarms. It's not like <A href="http://radicalcentristblog.wordpress.com/tag/montana-state-univ ersity/ ">MRAs don't abuse public systems to shut down rape awareness campaigns</a>. Or, you know, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/santa-barbara-shoot er-elli ot-rodger-police-report">killing people</a>.

As far as your link showing any such "abuse" -it doesn't. MRA's are allowed to spread awareness as are feminists.


Seriously, Obama's Reptiloid Master just equated posting information freely with actively shutting down discussion through illegal activity. I think you're pretty out there with some messed up views, Because, and I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with you here. Of course, that doesn't happen with your originaI posts at face value, only when someone even dumber responds to you. I'm not a part of your cause, and I can't imagine you are helping your own cause any. But you expose extremists from the other side as well, so maybe it evens out. I don't know or care. But I do note from reading your interactions with posters that there are people who aren't quite consistent with how they judge the actions of one group to the next, especially regarding certain fallacies like the no true scotsman.

And "female supremacist" is a perfect term for Theaetetus. He once said it 'makes sense' that underage rape victims are made to pay child support to their abusers.

Elegy: People called me whiny, and I asked where I was whining. Of those people, not one could take me up on repeated invitations and show me a place where I whined.


Maybe not technically but you come off sounding like a whiner for sure with all the sarcastic "Men should just take it and shut up," stuff. That would be whining about what others expect of men. That doesn't help either. If you're trying to highlight the hypocrisy in these people's claims at tearing down gender norms there are probably better ways to do so than sarcastically imitating them. That does sound like whining.
 
2014-06-12 11:11:04 AM  

Fafai: ciberido: "The End of Men: And the Rise of Women,"


I just linked the amazon page to a friend who I know would like it, because she's always going on about the removal of men from society since men are so worthless and have run their course and have nothing of value to add. She's always talking about men with their pathetic animal sex drive and how they have no say in sexual matters now that women can provide for themselves. She talks about how men have no reproductive rights and enthusiastically awaits the days of synthetic sperm and all this. This person tells me she won't let me know her real thoughts on men and society because they are even more hardcore than what she tells me.

Her response to that link: "Yeah I started reading that last year but I never finished. The author has some extreme views I don't agree with."

/anecdote!
 
2014-06-12 12:35:52 PM  

cryinoutloud: But I am still saying that I have NEVER personally seen a court case where one parent got complete custody of a kid. Wait, I take that back--I knew a man who did. His ex came into court during the final hearing and accused him of sexually abusing their kid. Their 8-month old kid. She'd never mentioned it before. Judge told her to fark off and get out of his court, and gave him full custody.


I do know of one similar story: a divorcing couple had a (IIRC) two-year-old child, and the wife tried to get sole custody by claiming that her soon-to-be-ex-husband wasn't the child's biological father.  Sure enough, a DNA test revealed that she wasn't the father, and by extension that she had cheated on him.

I don't know the precise details of the ruling, but judge declared the wife unfit and awarded full custody to the husband.  And as far as I know, the baby-daddy never returned anyone's phone calls.
 
2014-06-12 12:37:01 PM  

anfrind: I do know of one similar story: a divorcing couple had a (IIRC) two-year-old child, and the wife tried to get sole custody by claiming that her soon-to-be-ex-husband wasn't the child's biological father.  Sure enough, a DNA test revealed that she he wasn't the father, and by extension that she had cheated on him.


Oops.
 
2014-06-12 01:37:09 PM  

Fafai: Maybe not technically but you come off sounding like a whiner for sure with all the sarcastic "Men should just take it and shut up," stuff. That would be whining about what others expect of men. That doesn't help either. If you're trying to highlight the hypocrisy in these people's claims at tearing down gender norms there are pr ...


More a sarcastic approach to the gendered expectation that men always be stoic and enduring. But really, why should it matter if I actually were whining? Are men not allowed to whine and vent occasionally? Women are - hell it is expected, to much feminist frustration. Expecting men to never whine is the opposite side of the gender dichotomy from dismissing everything women say as whining. Are we trying to move past patriarchal gendered roles or not?

Regardless, I'll alter my approach to the rather tired whining trope, because I know you are a reasonable person and trust your input. Perhaps something less directly confrontational and more humerous - I want to be provocative and stimulate discussion, not come off as a whiner.

Thanks for the feedback, fafai. Once again you've been a cool cat.

/or dog
//or whatever
 
2014-06-12 02:47:01 PM  

Elegy: why should it matter if I actually were whining?


Because whining is annoying regardless of who it's coming from. If you see it as a feminine gender expectation, I don't think the goal should be to reach a more equal status by emulating even the negative traits from the other side. Kind of like how women becoming rapists or reducing men's value to their physical attractiveness wouldn't be good either.

I understand to your mind you weren't actually whining, but trying to make a point. But in text-based conversation like this there isn't much room for tone or nuance. People will misread you. I save the sarcasm for cheap shots or for when the overall discussion has devolved into a flame war or whatever but I try to avoid it when trying to make a valid point.

/the correct answer is frog
//cool frog
 
2014-06-12 03:28:44 PM  

Starshines: No comment yet on how this is obviously a fake letter?  No child would write "As a child,..."  This is probably the abused wife writing from the child's perspective because she's so farked in the head that that's the only way to confront what's happening to her.

/oh yeah, dropping in a sexist "honey" or "sweets" into your comment just makes you look sad.


This is actually a very real, very horrible thought.

It means that if Daddy found the letter before "the child" could turn it in, then Daddy would get mad and beat up the person responsible for the letter for trying to get him in trouble.

You know, the kid.

I'm all for using tactics to escape, Mom, but it's your job to protect your kids- and that means not using them as human shields on your way out the door with them.
 
2014-06-12 03:41:57 PM  

Fafai: ciberido: "The End of Men: And the Rise of Women,"

When linking to a book most people go straight to the amazon page so that people can get a more detailed synopsis and also check out some user reviews. One look at that page gives me a clue as to why maybe you didn't do that with this one. There's a lot of criticism there about unoriginality, confirmation bias, anecdote-as-data, distorted facts and errors...



Really?  You think linking to the Amazon page instead of the Wikipedia page is both some kind of standard I violated and an intentional choice I made so as to hide reviews from whoever might read my post?

That's just farking sad.  I don't know what the everliving fark is wrong with you, but I'm tired of your persecution complex.

Go pay your cactus lady friend another conjugal visit.  I am done with your crap.
 
2014-06-12 03:50:04 PM  

Fafai: Elegy: why should it matter if I actually were whining?

Because whining is annoying regardless of who it's coming from. If you see it as a feminine gender expectation, I don't think the goal should be to reach a more equal status by emulating even the negative traits from the other side. Kind of like how women becoming rapists or reducing men's value to their physical attractiveness wouldn't be good either.

I understand to your mind you weren't actually whining, but trying to make a point. But in text-based conversation like this there isn't much room for tone or nuance. People will misread you. I save the sarcasm for cheap shots or for when the overall discussion has devolved into a flame war or whatever but I try to avoid it when trying to make a valid point.

/the correct answer is frog
//cool frog


As many people at FARK will attest, I honestly don't know what "whining" means. I'd love a simple clearcut definition.

On the net, I mostly encounter claims of "whining" similar  to how "concern troll", "mansplaining", "addle brained" is used. Usually as ways of dismissing an argument, or a person without addressing their arguments. Mostly an ad hominem attack. But that's mostly. As I said, I'd love a clearcut definition.

It does seem to be another way to silence men, and does used more to silence men when they speak of complaints that feminists or women demand be taken seriously.

It also seems to be used to silence people of different political beliefs.

I know when a dog whines, I know when a child whines, I don't really buy into "stop whining" style arguments on the net.
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report