Women are villains, men are saints

Drew Lee7 said:I honestly think this kind of literature is just trash and lacks any real substance.

Look, I feel like there could be plenty of middle ground here, even if they don't end up agreeing on everything. But hey, whatever...

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against feminists, but when someone calls something "unacceptable" and it isn't actual violence—just a different opinion or viewpoint—it basically proves my point: it implies that person feels primitive or backward just for thinking that way. And it’s not just talk anymore; we're seeing more and more legal stuff (or at least proposals that border on being totally absurd) popping up. One example is how you could practically end up behind bars just for sending a suggestive message. 🙄

The right to choose? Sure, absolutely. But look at how things actually work today. Does every woman really have that choice in practice? Let's say she wants to be both a scientist and a mother. She has to grind through undergrad, then grad school, then her PhD, all while fighting to keep her job... if she decides to have kids, she simply isn't playing on the same level as a woman who chooses not to.

But honestly, why does she even have to fight to keep her seat at the table? That’s the real kicker. Why is it still such a huge deal in our corporate culture whether a woman is planning a pregnancy during the hiring process, and why does that lead to automatic discrimination? Things work way differently in other places—places where paid parental leave is standard for both moms and dads, and where the hiring process isn't a minefield. Out there, being fired because you're pregnant is a rare scandal, whereas here, it feels like it happens all the damn time.

boldwalker12 said:Look, sure, you can have one woman venting that all guys are jerks—that happens on an individual level. But that’s not feminism. Do you actually know how or why the fight for equality even started? Do you have any clue what life was actually like for women before the movement kicked off?

Historically and sociologically speaking, modern feminism really found its footing alongside the Industrial Revolution. Once women started heading into factories and moving from small-scale manufacturing to assembly lines, the whole traditional setup just broke. That old-school division of labor basically became obsolete overnight.

So, the movements were definitely there, picking up steam in the late 19th century and especially during the first third of the 20th century—think about the suffragettes here in the United States.

And honestly, how would you even split the chores in a traditional rural community? Should the guy be rocking the baby and making lunch while the women are out mowing hay or chopping wood?

Look, I'm obviously not saying things have to stay that way today. In fact, I wouldn't want my wife stuck in the kitchen all day. 😂

And where exactly did I mention punishment? 😕

I'm against almost any kind of punishing kids. Whether it's physical or psychological, I'm not a fan. But again, that has zero to do with authority.

Drew Lee7 said:Historically and sociologically speaking, modern feminism really found its footing alongside the Industrial Revolution. Once women started heading into factories and moving from small-scale manufacturing to assembly lines, the whole traditional setup just broke. That old-school division of labor basically became obsolete overnight.

So, the movements were definitely there, picking up steam in the late 19th century and especially during the first third of the 20th century—think about the suffragettes here in the United States.

And honestly, how would you even split the chores in a traditional rural community? Should the guy be rocking the baby and making lunch while the women are out mowing hay or chopping wood?

Look, I'm obviously not saying things have to stay that way today. In fact, I wouldn't want my wife stuck in the kitchen all day. 😂

And where exactly did I mention punishment? 😕

I'm against almost any kind of punishing kids. Whether it's physical or psychological, I'm not a fan. But again, that has zero to do with authority.

But I was talking about that stereotypical, old-school brand of authority—the kind that actually relies on various methods of punishment to get things done. I grew up in a part of the country where gender discrimination is practically baked into the tradition, where being born male or female has always carried massive weight. In that world, "authority" meant emotional distance and cracking down on kids whenever they messed up. And let’s be real, most of the time, fathers weren't even particularly involved with their daughters. Sure, a huge chunk of those traditions have faded, but my parents' generation definitely felt that divide—the whole "men's work vs. women's work" thing, different rights, and totally different ways of raising boys versus girls from day one.

Here’s a real-life example: I know this woman whose father forbids her from working in a different city because he thinks "she wouldn't handle it since she's a woman, blah blah blah." This guy is a successful businessman, his son is also an entrepreneur and holds a major role in the family firm, yet she just accepts whatever crumbs they throw her way. She’s basically trapped. Of course, that’s her own damn choice, and honestly, it’s hard for me to wrap my head around because I’d probably bash my head through a wall before letting anyone tell me what to do. But I can see the logic behind it—this outdated mindset where a father feels he needs to "protect" his daughter from life by keeping her away from responsible jobs. And don't even get me started on the legacy aspect.
That’s just one instance.
Take my mom and her brother, for example. Growing up, he could get away with absolutely anything, even though my grandparents weren't trying to be jerks—that was just how things were back then. You know the vibe: the daughter stays home, but the boy is a boy, he'll figure it out, so we can be more lenient with him. Those traditional shackles don't just snap off easily. What can I say about all those families where you see one youngest son surrounded by four older sisters? Or seeing a woman in tears because her husband turns away during childbirth because he's disappointed it’s a girl? I even had a doctor tell me about this recently—someone being blamed because they supposedly "failed" to give him a son, even though science proves that isn't how it works. This isn't ancient history; these examples are still happening today. We can mock people for being idiots all we want, but the reality is—discrimination is still very much alive.

Look, I’d be an idiot if I claimed discrimination doesn't exist in today's world. It's really just a question of where you're looking. For a huge chunk of American history leading up to the mid-1900s, most of the country was struggling way more than people realize. We're talking about places like Appalachia, the rural coastlines, or even parts of Canada where people migrated from; basically, these were incredibly impoverished farming communities that have been through absolute hell historically. The only area that was somewhat better off—and god help us, this was actually more progressive toward women—was the Midwest. That’s the point I’m making. You can't take a region where people are barely scraping by, shaped by constant historical trauma, and use it to draw sweeping conclusions about everyone. Besides, those were mostly shepherd communities. Nomadic, basically. It’s common knowledge in history and ethnology that there's a massive distinction between nomadic and agrarian societies, where the former tended to be strictly patriarchal in the modern sense, while the latter weren't. Sure, authoritative patriarchy existed, and it still does, but it hasn't been the universal standard everywhere, despite how some people try to paint it. It’s just a byproduct of specific historical and social circumstances.

Andrew Mendoza10 said:I’m just wondering about one thing—why on earth do these women marry men like this? It’s hard to wrap my head around the idea that they didn't get a clear picture of who he was during the dating phase. If I weren't living in the States—if I were looking at these posts from somewhere else—I’d honestly think women were treated worse here than in some fundamentalist countries. I truly don't know a single soul who views women as inferior beings.

Do you really think being "clueless and blind" is a trait exclusive to women? There are plenty of guys out there making the same mistakes by marrying toxic people, snakes, or absolute monsters...

boldwalker12 said:I honestly don't see how awarding custody to mothers clashes with patriarchy. It's pretty clear that a woman's primary role—and ideally her *only* one—is motherhood. They brainwash us with those "declining birth rate" headlines just to remind us where a woman belongs, which by extension dictates where children belong. Also, it was only super recently that we started actually punishing those deadbeat dads who refuse to pay support. Generally speaking, the amounts most guys shell out for their kids are straight-up pathetic. And it's equally shameful how they treat kids from previous relationships, to the point where an ex-partner often ends up becoming an ex-parent too. Honestly, I’m genuinely shocked whenever I run into a good, dedicated father who doesn't patronize his kid or neglect them—someone who can actually change a diaper and deal with a kid screaming in the middle of the night instead of just being some decorative figure sitting in front of the TV acting like a big authority. It sounds ridiculous, but I automatically give those guys a gold star. And it's sad, because that shouldn't be a "plus"; it should be the bare minimum. There are way more irresponsible fathers than there are irresponsible mothers.

In a country that actively pushes the idea of women as housewives and mothers, talking about specific child support amounts is kind of a joke, considering most women don't even leave their husbands because they lack the financial means to do so. When women apply for jobs, they're still judged based on their plans for a private life, potential pregnancies, and so on. They’re still facing an insane amount of sexism. And all those ideas about "safe houses" or escaping? Those don't exist because those institutions are mostly useless; women could leave if they wanted to, but they can't. It's not true. They simply don't have the money. Plus, men still get hired for responsible positions most of the time; if an employer has to choose between a man and a woman with identical qualifications, they’re picking the guy every single time.
Forget child support and all that nonsense; we aren't in Sweden. Women here are lucky if they even get decent maternity leave and a chance to actually return to work.

Let's be clear... in my eyes, a man who fails to pay child support isn't a man at all; he's just a loser and a jerk... regardless of whether he was married to the mother or it was just a one-night stand.
Child support is the bare minimum you can do... though on the other hand, it is true that women are, by default, assigned the children.
A mother could be unemployed or struggling with addiction, yet she is still the one the child goes to. 🤷

boldwalker12 said:Oh, absolutely. We’ve got this endless flood of these "stars" who only made it into the spotlight because of sheer luck and their looks, yet everyone gives them all the credit—completely ignoring the disgusting, sexist mindset of a society where women basically have to choose between two roles: being a gold digger or a housewife. Anything else is just a struggle to survive. It's not guaranteed for her like it is for men. Her successes get swept under the rug. They’re always pushed to the sidelines.
It's not like someone like Ava Karabatić is inherently flawed; it’s because of all those insecure losers running the media who embarrass us daily with their garbage news. It’s easy to slip into thinking some random woman might actually be responsible for a crime when the culture is this toxic. For instance, look at how people reacted recently when some wannabe celebrity had a tragic accident—half the comments were basically "good riddance to that slut." These people don't even realize how pathetic they are, or that they’re the exact clientele fueling this kind of trashy content day in and day out.
And don't even get me started on the current trend among frustrated young guys—if a girl isn't handing herself over, she's automatically labeled a "gold digger." 😁

With all due respect... at my firm, there are plenty of women in high-level, responsible positions who earned everything through pure hard work, expertise, and dedication.
They could have taken the route of someone like Maya Morales 😵 but they didn't... they didn't choose to "break through" via 😵 physical appeal, but through intellect and effort... so I wouldn't simply take the argument about media influence and sexist mentalities at face value.

Steven Johnson3 said:How am I supposed to take this? Is it an insult or...

Oh, come on, it was clearly just a joke. 🙂

silentpilot6 said:Let's be clear... in my eyes, a man who fails to pay child support isn't a man at all; he's just a loser and a jerk... regardless of whether he was married to the mother or it was just a one-night stand.
Child support is the bare minimum you can do... though on the other hand, it is true that women are, by default, assigned the children.
A mother could be unemployed or struggling with addiction, yet she is still the one the child goes to. 🤷

It isn't about "women," it's about "mothers." Do you catch that subtle distinction?

To be even more precise: "biological mothers."

If I am a grandmother, an aunt, a sister, or a foster parent... I am still a woman, but will I receive preferential treatment during a custody hearing in those roles? Not a chance.

The issue isn't the gender of the people involved, but rather the role they occupy. The system recognizes us as women through a single lens—and it views us disproportionately through that one specific role, using it as a convenient excuse for everything else.

Andrew Mendoza10 said:Look, there was definitely a time when fighting for women's rights was necessary. That mission was accomplished—and honestly, the more useless those movements become, 🤷 the better. No amount of activism from any feminist is going to change the minds of a few stubborn, small-town folks. Maybe I just have a skewed perception of feminism, but I can't help blaming Vedrana Rudan for that; she acts as their unofficial spokesperson. If she’s the standard-bearer, then my reaction whenever I encounter a feminist will be 🙂. Let me be clear: I have nothing against independent women, nor do I believe a woman should just sit at home waiting for her husband to return from hunting bears 🤣

You wouldn't believe it, but a woman can take down a bear—not that anyone actually tries to fight one barehanded. People tend to view feminism solely through the lens of B.A.B.E., using Katie Couric as the only representative, and that’s just wrong. Feminism includes voices like Oprah Winfrey and Anderson Cooper too. Relying on a single person to define an entire movement is absurd.

goldenranger5 said:It isn't about "women," it's about "mothers." Do you catch that subtle distinction?

To be even more precise: "biological mothers."

If I am a grandmother, an aunt, a sister, or a foster parent... I am still a woman, but will I receive preferential treatment during a custody hearing in those roles? Not a chance.

The issue isn't the gender of the people involved, but rather the role they occupy. The system recognizes us as women through a single lens—and it views us disproportionately through that one specific role, using it as a convenient excuse for everything else.

Then why aren't kids assigned to "fathers" instead of just "men"? Do you notice the difference there?

I personally know of a case where custody was granted to a mother who was unemployed and struggling with mental health issues... so tell me again how she is "more qualified" than the father, who is steadily employed, mentally sound, and fought to have the children. 🤷

To those men claiming that kids are intentionally being handed over to their mothers, let me set the record straight. Not too long ago, a ten-year-old could already have a say in which parent they lived with; nowadays, that age has moved up to thirteen. Under current laws, a child is only assigned to the father if the mother is dealing with serious issues like addiction or severe mental illness.

silentpilot6 said:Then why aren't kids assigned to "fathers" instead of just "men"? Do you notice the difference there?

I personally know of a case where custody was granted to a mother who was unemployed and struggling with mental health issues... so tell me again how she is "more qualified" than the father, who is steadily employed, mentally sound, and fought to have the children. 🤷

It’s precisely because society still views the mom as the primary caregiver while the dad gets more freedom and way fewer responsibilities. Like I said before, we're just dealing with the leftovers of old-school patriarchal norms.

silentpilot6 said:Then why aren't kids assigned to "fathers" instead of just "men"? Do you notice the difference there?

I personally know of a case where custody was granted to a mother who was unemployed and struggling with mental health issues... so tell me again how she is "more qualified" than the father, who is steadily employed, mentally sound, and fought to have the children. 🤷

You missed the point entirely. If we completely removed women from the equation, yes, biological fathers would likely be prioritized over any other male relative or non-biological father regardless of their circumstances—but that’s not what we are debating, is it?

We are discussing why custody is assigned to mothers rather than fathers. Again, it comes down to the glorification of the maternal ROLE.

Not that I am claiming that is any better than the glorification of the paternal role (take, for instance, certain societies structured under Sharia law).

Quite the opposite; I am not asserting that someone's role—which is often just a collection of circumstances—makes them inherently qualified for anything, or more qualified than anyone else.

Simply put, suggesting that this twisted manifestation of patriarchal thought (heavily influenced by dominant religious structures) serves as proof that women aren't facing discrimination is illogical.

Women are more than just mothers. Once again, the distinction is glaringly obvious.

If you lived in a world that signaled your second-class citizenship through thousands of minor and major ways every single day, but kept insisting that AS LONG AS you eventually have kids and AS LONG AS you get divorced, things might somehow turn out rosy, it wouldn't seem quite so subtle.

goldenranger5 said:You missed the point entirely. If we completely removed women from the equation, yes, biological fathers would likely be prioritized over any other male relative or non-biological father regardless of their circumstances—but that’s not what we are debating, is it?

We are discussing why custody is assigned to mothers rather than fathers. Again, it comes down to the glorification of the maternal ROLE.

Not that I am claiming that is any better than the glorification of the paternal role (take, for instance, certain societies structured under Sharia law).

Quite the opposite; I am not asserting that someone's role—which is often just a collection of circumstances—makes them inherently qualified for anything, or more qualified than anyone else.

Simply put, suggesting that this twisted manifestation of patriarchal thought (heavily influenced by dominant religious structures) serves as proof that women aren't facing discrimination is illogical.

Women are more than just mothers. Once again, the distinction is glaringly obvious.

If you lived in a world that signaled your second-class citizenship through thousands of minor and major ways every single day, but kept insisting that AS LONG AS you eventually have kids and AS LONG AS you get divorced, things might somehow turn out rosy, it wouldn't seem quite so subtle.

It looks like you didn't read my post.

Steven Johnson3 said:It looks like you didn't read my post.

I did read it, but I’m struggling to see how that connects to what I actually said. I’m not disputing the fact that children are often handed to mothers at the expense of fathers simply because they are mothers—regardless of their individual circumstances.

My issue is with treating this trend as some sort of massive win for women. Not every woman fits the mold of "divorced mother," for instance. Some are grandmothers, some are aunts, and some were once those very children themselves.

This isn't a victory for anyone. Legal disputes should be settled based on the specific facts of a case, not just following "standard practice." And let's be clear: this isn't a triumph of the feminist movement. It is, rather, a byproduct of a patriarchal view regarding maternal roles combined with systemic inertia and indifference. Is that clearer? I have a nagging feeling I'm repeating myself, and if I start quoting my own previous posts, we'll have a real problem.

We really need to draw a line between the struggles women face because our legal system is broken and the issues caused by outdated cultural norms.
Some employers just hand out pink slips the second they find out a woman is pregnant. Is that a deep-seated tradition issue, or is it a total failure of our legal protections?
Women carry the brunt of the voting power, so why aren't they picking leaders who actually know how to fix a dysfunctional government?
Take Sweden, for example—most of their politicians are women. Does anyone there tell them who they’re allowed to vote for? No.

Then you have people who marry into families where her role is pre-determined to be the "cook," and then they turn around and blame society. Her family, his family, and he himself all support this little setup where she stays in the kitchen—so why is the rest of the world being held responsible for that mess?

What do you think?
A guy with a bunch of women is just seen as a player—it’s celebrated.
But a woman with multiple men? She's immediately labeled a slut. Disgusting.
That isn't how nature intended things to be; it's how organized religion shaped society to keep people under control through belief systems.

goldenranger5 said:I did read it, but I’m struggling to see how that connects to what I actually said. I’m not disputing the fact that children are often handed to mothers at the expense of fathers simply because they are mothers—regardless of their individual circumstances.

My issue is with treating this trend as some sort of massive win for women. Not every woman fits the mold of "divorced mother," for instance. Some are grandmothers, some are aunts, and some were once those very children themselves.

This isn't a victory for anyone. Legal disputes should be settled based on the specific facts of a case, not just following "standard practice." And let's be clear: this isn't a triumph of the feminist movement. It is, rather, a byproduct of a patriarchal view regarding maternal roles combined with systemic inertia and indifference. Is that clearer? I have a nagging feeling I'm repeating myself, and if I start quoting my own previous posts, we'll have a real problem.

Maybe you didn't mention that kids are intentionally assigned to mothers. I just wrote that as a quick heads-up so we wouldn't be left in the dark.

boldwalker12 said:It’s precisely because society still views the mom as the primary caregiver while the dad gets more freedom and way fewer responsibilities. Like I said before, we're just dealing with the leftovers of old-school patriarchal norms.

Give me a break... 😂

Hold on, I might choke on this... 😂 😂 😂

PS Does the fact that the principle of maternity is reserved strictly for mothers mean that fathers have more leeway and fewer responsibilities?

"The perpetrator can only be the mother. If another person commits the act, but the mother instigates or assists them during childbirth or immediately after birth while suffering from postpartum complications, she will be considered an accomplice, and the other person will be charged with murder."