Strength and Honor: Triumphing over Feminism

[Mink57]

Actually, more men than women are now reporting physical violence in an intimate relationship. I'll explain in a bit.

I learned something. The FBI has a data search tool you can use to look up crime statistics. So I looked up simple assault over the last two years. A little over 41 percent of simple assault victims are male.

View attachment 50786
View attachment 50785



There was a lot of missing context so I kept going.

Here's a quote from a peer reviewed article I found in the National Library of Medicine's website.

"The women’s movement brought initial attention to the problem of partner violence directed at women and to the need for funding to address that problem.6 Much of the initial research on IPV was conducted with severely abused women and supported the assumption that IPV is primarily perpetrated by men against women. Data is mounting, however, that suggests that IPV is often perpetrated by both men and women against their partner.7,8,9 It is also becoming recognized that perpetration of IPV by both partners within a relationship is fairly common. This phenomenon has been described with terms such as mutual violence, symmetrical violence, or reciprocal violence. Here we use the terms reciprocal and nonreciprocal to indicate IPV that is perpetrated by both partners (reciprocal) or 1 partner only (nonreciprocal) in a given relationship. Reciprocity of IPV does not necessarily mean that the frequency or the severity of the violence is equal or similar between partners.

Several studies have found that much of partner violence is reciprocal. For example, in their national studies of family violence, Straus et al. found that in about half of the cases, violence was reciprocal.10 Similar results were found in the National Survey of Families and Households.8 Studies reviewed by Gray and Foshee11 found that among violent adolescent relationships, the percentage of relationships in which there was reciprocal partner violence ranged from 45% to 72%. A recent meta-analysis found that a woman’s perpetration of violence was the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence.12"

Here is a quote I found from the CDC's 2017 report on intimate partner violence.

[In the CDC’s 2017 report on Intimate Partner Violence, it showed that men are more likely to be physically abused in there lifetime, and also in the last year.

“42% of women, and 42.3% of men report experiencing any physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. This includes being slapped, pushed, shoved, being hit with a fist or something hard , kicked, hurt by having hair pulled, slammed against something, hurt by choking or suffocating, beaten, burned on purpose, or had a knife or gun. In the last 12 months 4.5% of women, and 5.5% of men report any physical violence by an intimate partner.”]

Good job doing your research, Wynona!

I wonder how many resources there are for men who experience domestic violence? Also, in cases where there is domestic violence in a relationship, how much of that is caused by patriarchy? Or are there other things involved like drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness, etc?

Again, I'm glad you brought this up. In thinking about this thread last night, I kept digging into the psychology of ALL of what's being discussed here. I came to realize that it's not really about Feminism...or Patriarchy, but what lies underneath. The driving force, if you will.

It's been said in many circles that Pride is the 'father of all other sins'. And I believe that's correct.

Pride causes a thirst for power...a desire to be 'superior'...a sense of entitlement. Whether it's from one person or a group of people who think the same way, it can promote chaos.

Is the REAL enemy feminism? Patriarchy? Pride?

 

[Wrangler]

Winner of custody 16percent men, 80 percent women. I seriously wonder how old is that statistic?

<sigh> The statistic is current, up-to-date. Just because it is trending toward parity in the last year, do you think it counter-acts the last century of sexism against men? What kind of statistic is it you seek to count only the instances that downplay how men are victims of sexism?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

<sigh> The statistic is current, up-to-date. Just because it is trending toward parity in the last year, do you think it counter-acts the last century of sexism against men? What kind of statistic is it you seek to count only the instances that downplay how men are victims of sexism?

All I’m saying is things are changing.

 

[Mink57]

Winner of custody 16percent men, 80 percent women. I seriously wonder how old is that statistic? I see way more joint custody today. WAY more 50/50. Joint custody is the norm now. What I’ve seen is the best outcome in courts where two are fighting over custody; is to be given joint custody. Someone I know brought in a live in boyfriend and he received full custody of the child that was not his in the break up.

You're right. I was a paralegal for many years, and I can tell you from experience that judges don't like custody cases. They want the custody arrangements to be decided BEFORE the parties get to court. Plus, the custody arrangement is only a 'blueprint' for IF the couple can't agree. It's a MINIMUM ruling. The couple can ALWAYS go outside of the agreement (which is encouraged). The agreement is a fall-back IF the couple can't agree. I know so many people want to adhere to the "schedule" because they figure, "That's what the court says." But that's not the truth. BOTH people can go by the schedule...or not. As long as they both AGREE.

There is a thing called who has possession of the child at the time, when there is no custody order in place. This goes for women And men. And grandparents. The days of women being the favored first choice to receive custody…I feel pretty confident that is a thing of the past. Long gone. Courts are getting away from that.

They are. Hope you realize that there was a point in time when the FATHER was favored in custody issues because the mother AND children were seen as 'property' of the father. Not exactly a good reason to automatically grant custody to the father. And yet, that's what happened.

Around two decades ago my oldest sister was told grandparents have no rights when she wanted to see her grandson after a divorce. Yes, the father was cut out way back then when those statistics were probably accurate. Joint custody was not even heard of back then.

Two decades ago? Yeah, it was. But it was state dependent. California was pretty much the frontrunner as far as joint custody goes. Other states followed suit, but not all at once.

The mom cut off all communication between the father and his side of the family. I don’t know the whole story except the mother moved in with a new man, that wanted it to be a clean slate where he would be the father. That was years ago. Today even grandparents have rights. Especially with drug addictions rampant and how a lot of grandparents are raising their grandchildren. It’s no longer automatically anything.

Right. In this day and age, courts pay attention to what's in the "best interest of the child." And there's a whole set of criteria to make that determination.

I think you would be shocked. I’m not trying to scare you but I’m not sure you are aware that the courts today will look at financial accountability of who is the better parent to provide financial stability to the children. Stay at home mothers who don’t have a job, don’t have a cell phone or a car of their own …I do think the courts are leaning more to who is better equipped financially to provide for the children the necessity of tending to those needs. Whether it be the father, the mother, the grandparents, or even a live in boyfriend or girl friend. Yesterday harps on mothers as the main provider. The first choice. I think you will see (if not today, later) as it progresses that that is long gone. We can look at old facts, but that doesn’t make it true. Courts look at it from a living in this world and thriving and women in what they consider old school domestic roles…I don’t think you realize yet that IS NOT a main focus in courts today for who is more suitable. Courts look at the cost of things. Who can do college? Who can put food on the table. Who can clothe the children. Who is better to pay for the things children will need in todays world. Do you honestly think they (courts) today care one bit for the model woman presented in the bible who stays home and cleans the house? I’m not trying to be blunt but I’ve seen it so many times in courts so I seriously doubt that it’s true the woman is the favorable first choice any longer.

You ARE exactly right. The only time the courts may consider granting custody to the mother 'automatically' is if the court is adhering to the 'tender years doctrine.' If the mother has nursed/is nursing the child and divorce looms overhead, the court may view her nursing as something that's necessary, and has been going on since the child's birth. Courts like status quo. They don't want to rock the boat. Stability is favored.

If you would look at it…you are fighting to show how valuable a mother, a woman’s role is in the home saying that role has been lost. The courts view it from a worldly perspective. What makes you think they still favor the woman or her role as a homemaker, care giver of the children? It’s who does better at thriving in the world and has those things courts find essential. You may not believe it, maybe I am wrong, but you can’t have a court system where it’s losing any and all need for stay at home mothers, and still think that same court system favors them(the woman) 80 percent of the time. It’s not even a gender role thing but grandparents, live in others…it’s a who is better suited financial thing.

The financial setting is only ONE aspect of what's in the 'best interest of the child.' Once again, the court won't automatically grant custody to the parent who makes the most money. The "best interest" has much more to deal with than money.

This is one reason women run full force in to the workplace to show they can also financially be a breadwinner, otherwise the courts ask …how will you provide a roof over your children’s heads? where is your car to take them back and forth to school? Do you even have a cell phone to get calls from job interviews. What have you done the past decade? It doesn’t fly to say I cooked and cleaned and kept my children so my husband could work. The courts may say “that is nice” but I see your husband is very stable financially. He can answer yes to all the questions I asked you. Here enters joint custody. She (a homemaker) will most often share joint custody because the courts do take into consideration who is the sole financial provider.

Yes and no. This is where temporary alimony can come into play. Even if a woman was a SAHM for that past 7 years, she may have given up a career to BE a SAHM. It might take her a few years to get back up to speed regarding working goes. In other words, the court might deem her to be the 'more qualified parent' in EVERY issue EXCEPT finances, and recognize that she needs a few years to get back on her feet.

These days, permanent alimony is the exception; not the rule.

The courts do what they can to want BOTH parties to agree on most aspects of divorce BEFORE the petition even crosses the judge's desk.

 

[Biblepaige]

Hey, Welcome back!

Where did I go?

How has feminism achieved this in its results?

Let's take economics. Can a man have the same access to governnent welfare programs and food stamps as a woman? Are women with children not preferred in that system over males?

Or social: If a man wanted to opt out of the traditional expectation that he work to support himself, can he do so and still have the same dating options amongst women?

Will people still treat this man with respect and civility? Or is he expected to work whether he feels like it or not?

Let us know when you've made a study of Feminism.

 

[Wynona]

Winner of custody 16percent men, 80 percent women. I seriously wonder how old is that statistic? I see way more joint custody today. WAY more 50/50. Joint custody is the norm now. What I’ve seen is the best outcome in courts where two are fighting over custody; is to be given joint custody. Someone I know brought in a live in boyfriend and he received full custody of the child that was not his in the break up.

There is a thing called who has possession of the child at the time, when there is no custody order in place. This goes for women And men. And grandparents. The days of women being the favored first choice to receive custody…I feel pretty confident that is a thing of the past. Long gone. Courts are getting away from that.

Around two decades ago my oldest sister was told grandparents have no rights when she wanted to see her grandson after a divorce. Yes, the father was cut out way back then when those statistics were probably accurate. Joint custody was not even heard of back then. The mom cut off all communication between the father and his side of the family. I don’t know the whole story except the mother moved in with a new man, that wanted it to be a clean slate where he would be the father. That was years ago. Today even grandparents have rights. Especially with drug addictions rampant and how a lot of grandparents are raising their grandchildren. It’s no longer automatically anything.

I think you would be shocked. I’m not trying to scare you but I’m not sure you are aware that the courts today will look at financial accountability of who is the better parent to provide financial stability to the children. Stay at home mothers who don’t have a job, don’t have a cell phone or a car of their own …I do think the courts are leaning more to who is better equipped financially to provide for the children the necessity of tending to those needs. Whether it be the father, the mother, the grandparents, or even a live in boyfriend or girl friend. Yesterday harps on mothers as the main provider. The first choice. I think you will see (if not today, later) as it progresses that that is long gone. We can look at old facts, but that doesn’t make it true. Courts look at it from a living in this world and thriving and women in what they consider old school domestic roles…I don’t think you realize yet that IS NOT a main focus in courts today for who is more suitable. Courts look at the cost of things. Who can do college? Who can put food on the table. Who can clothe the children. Who is better to pay for the things children will need in todays world. Do you honestly think they (courts) today care one bit for the model woman presented in the bible who stays home and cleans the house? I’m not trying to be blunt but I’ve seen it so many times in courts so I seriously doubt that it’s true the woman is the favorable first choice any longer. If you would look at it…you are fighting to show how valuable a mother, a woman’s role is in the home saying that role has been lost. The courts view it from a worldly perspective. What makes you think they still favor the woman or her role as a homemaker, care giver of the children? It’s who does better at thriving in the world and has those things courts find essential. You may not believe it, maybe I am wrong, but you can’t have a court system where it’s losing any and all need for stay at home mothers, and still think that same court system favors them(the woman) 80 percent of the time. It’s not even a gender role thing but grandparents, live in others…it’s a who is better suited financial thing. This is one reason women run full force in to the workplace to show they can also financially be a breadwinner, otherwise the courts ask …how will you provide a roof over your children’s heads? where is your car to take them back and forth to school? Do you even have a cell phone to get calls from job interviews. What have you done the past decade? It doesn’t fly to say I cooked and cleaned and kept my children so my husband could work. The courts may say “that is nice” but I see your husband is very stable financially. He can answer yes to all the questions I asked you. Here enters joint custody. She (a homemaker) will most often share joint custody because the courts do take into consideration who is the sole financial provider.

I would need evidence to be convinced that the family courts award custody more evenly today based on who can provide better.

Ill also look into it myself. Just not now. I feel like garbage in body today.

 

[Wynona]

Where did I go?

Let us know when you've made a study of Feminism.

Sure. Want a list of books? I have studied. Any more questions?

 

[Mink57]

<sigh> The statistic is current, up-to-date.

Actually, no it's not. The current stat is that about 65% of women get custody. But of course...someone like YOU thinks it's automatic.
...which isn't even close to true. But hey...you want to be a victim and you want men to be victims. Fine by me. Just get your facts straight first!

Just because it is trending toward parity in the last year, do you think it counter-acts the last century of sexism against men?

Are you for real? Sexism against MEN in the last century? What about sexism against WOMEN in the centuries BEFORE that? Sorry dude...but you can't dismiss ALL of the sexism against women prior, just because you don't LIKE the fallout!

What kind of statistic is it you seek to count only the instances that downplay how men are victims of sexism?

LOLOL!!! Talk about victimhood!!!

 

[Biblepaige]

Sure. Want a list of books?

Proceed.

I have studied. Any more questions?

A list of books means nothing. A person has to study the books with an open mind so to learn from the material offered in the books.

All you have done in your thread is condemn women for being what you do not approve.

Which is not an example of someone who holds an education in Feminism.

 

[Wrangler]

All I’m saying is things are changing.

Yea, things are changing - for the worse!

All you're saying is something less than acknowledgement and sympathy for the plight of men. When facts are presented showing how men have the short end of the stick in society, it's always "Yabut."

When "women's issues" are presented there is no equivocation and might I say, using their line on themselves, sex discrimination is a human rights matter for women have father's brother's and sons who are victimized by our sexist society. Where are the angry feminists, marching in the streets to demand justice and equality for men now? Equality is the goal, except for when it isn't.

 

[Mink57]

I would need evidence to be convinced that the family courts award custody more evenly today based on who can provide better.

It's not that the courts award "evenly" but that they TRY to award both fairly and logically.

Let's use your own situation as an example. You have a baby girl and a child on the way. (If I haven't already said so, CONGRATS on that! A new blessing to come into the world soon! ) Even though your hubby is the breadwinner, he wouldn't automatically be granted custody ONLY because he makes the money.

There's something like a 13 'prong' set of criteria for the court to use in order to determine who gets custody. Like I mentioned earlier, courts LIKE status quo. If YOU have been the primary caregiver for your daughter since your daughter's birth, the court will take that into consideration. The court will also consider that since you had a job before, you could probably be able to get a job again, and support your child(ren)...WITH your husband's help.

Wow. I could do a whole thread on what the courts expect that might be an eye opener for many.

Ill also look into it myself. Just not now. I feel like garbage in body today.

Awww. Sorry, Wynona. Hope you feel better soon.

 

[Wrangler]

Statistical calculator might prove illustrative.

Female Delusion Calculator

What are the chances to find the man of your dreams? - Live search on US survey data.

igotstandardsbro.com

 

[Mink57]

This is a good list of what MOST courts consider before awarding custody of children. It's not as cut-and-dry as so many would like to think.

• The age of the children
• Each parents’ wishes
• The history of each parent’s relationship with the child(ren), positive or negative
• Each parent’s ability to communicate with the other parent on child-related issues
• Whether the parents still have a good relationship with each other at the time of the hearing
• The quality of the relationship between the children and both parents
• Whether each parent is mentally and physically fit to care for children
• The mental and physical health of the children
• How willing each parent is to facilitate the children’s relationship with the other parent
• Which parent has been providing the majority of physical care for the children before the divorce/separation
• Each parent’s historical participation in child-related activities, such as medical appointments, sports, and educational activities
• Whether each parent can provide a stable, loving environment for the children
• The distance between the two parents’ homes
• Each parent’s work schedule, to the extent it impacts the amount of time the parent can spend with the children
• The living accommodations at each parents’ home, including whether one parent resides in the home where the children were raised
• If the parents can adequately provide for the children's physical needs, emotional wellness, and medical care
• How much the children would need to adjust their lives at home, at school, and in the community
• The wishes of the children, if they are old enough to state their reasoning
• If there is evidence of either parent committing domestic violence, abuse, or neglect
• A history of substance abuse, criminal activity, or mental health concerns involving either parent

So, it's not just a question of gender or how much money one person makes.

To award custody "evenly" would be ludicrous.

 

[Wynona]

Proceed.

A list of books means nothing. A person has to study the books with an open mind so to learn from the material offered in the books.

All you have done in your thread is condemn women for being what you do not approve.

Which is not an example of someone who holds an education in Feminism.

So the only way I could be educated about feminism is to agree with it?

Also, condemn is not what Ive done.

My message has been consistent: no matter how good feminism sounds, the results of biblical patriarchy are better.

That is not condemnation. It's having a different wordview. Not the same thing. I have never insulted feminist women or shamed them. I just believe they are wrong.

 

[Wynona]

It's not that the courts award "evenly" but that they TRY to award both fairly and logically.

Let's use your own situation as an example. You have a baby girl and a child on the way. (If I haven't already said so, CONGRATS on that! A new blessing to come into the world soon! ) Even though your hubby is the breadwinner, he wouldn't automatically be granted custody ONLY because he makes the money.

There's something like a 13 'prong' set of criteria for the court to use in order to determine who gets custody. Like I mentioned earlier, courts LIKE status quo. If YOU have been the primary caregiver for your daughter since your daughter's birth, the court will take that into consideration. The court will also consider that since you had a job before, you could probably be able to get a job again, and support your child(ren)...WITH your husband's help.

Wow. I could do a whole thread on what the courts expect that might be an eye opener for many.

Awww. Sorry, Wynona. Hope you feel better soon.

Earlier @VictoryinJesus said the better provider would be preferred. That would make sense but many mothers are still awarded custody because even if they didn't have good careers, they can still get on government asistance to provide for the children up for custody.

Im open to more knowledge on the issue.

Also thank you. I feel a bit better today.

 

[Wynona]

Personally, I don't think shaming or condemning feminists is productive or moral.

I myself can remember a time when all I wanted to hear was that my choices were right for me and valid for my own sake.

I wanted to divorce my husband and labelled him as abusive because I could justify it by modern standards of abuse.

I dated another man to my great regret later. I had to make a change after that.

A lot of the feminists of the past worked extewmely hard and had a sense of activism and purpose that required grear personal sacrifice. A lot of modern feminists don't have this going for them.

We throw around words like condemn so easily. But that's now being used as a way to shut people with different views down as if simply disagreeing with a way of thinking is shaming others or condemning them harshly and it's really not.

II expect myself to handle those who disagree with me with civility, and intelligence . Surely feminists are mentally strong enough to do the same and not just use being offended as an argument. It's not.

 

[Wrangler]

I don't think shaming or condemning feminists is productive or moral.

Yet, it's all the rage for feminists to shame and condemn those who don't accept this evil ideology.

 

[Wynona]

Here are my top reasons why biblical patriarchy produces better results than feminism

( no matter what the intentions of the movement are, how nice it sounds, or how it may be taken with offense by those who made alternate choices. )

1. It's biblical.

The Bible's standard has been great for the technological, scientific, moral, and cultural advancement of entire nations including my own United States. Nations and cultures do not all produce the same success. Some ways of living and culture norms lend themselves to better outcomes than others.

2. Men need purpose to thrive.
Biblical patriarchy gives them a positive, sacrificial purpose that uses their natural biological strengths for the good of everyone.

3. It's good for women's health.

Men get a boost in testosterone daily, starting in the morning. The monthly hormonal cycle women go through is not as suited for the modern work environment. The stress of a career affects women differently than men. We are more unhealthy, overweight, and high strung due to careers that take us away from home so much.

Women can obviously choose this regardless out of desire or need but we ought to be informed about this.

Most birth control and abortion practices that feminists advocate for cause physical and psychological trauma that can't be undone afterward.

I gained a lot of weight in my college, working, and separating years. Being at home made it a lot easier to eat healthier, exercise, drink water, and just focus on my overall health in general from not having to balance being a breadwinner or bringing in an income.

4. It's good for women's mental health.

I manifested a lot of psychiatric issues in my multiple college attempts. Not saying thats all college women. But I was only there to appease the expectations of my family. This would continue into my years working and separating from my husband.

The same year I decided to fully invest in being a wife and quitting my job, I stopped showing symptoms. No sleeplessness, hallucinations, or mania. None. I lowered my medication and began to thrive again.

5. It is a financially viable lifestyle regardless of income level.

When I quit my job, my husband hardly made any cash from the cab driving he did. We survived by living within our means, a reasonable rent and quickly learning to save money with the new lifestyle. I learned to use the position of staying home to help us save on living costs like food and gas. Now, we save on childcare costs. And I genuinely enjoyed my new duties even though I had no clue what I was doing in the beginning.

Since the cab job, my husband tripled his income and at 29, is making great money relative to U.S men in his same age bracket.

6. Children thrive from their mother's consistent and attentive presence with them, especially in the early years.

The idea that children do equally well regardless of whether the mother is present, attentive, and consistent may make moms feel better about certain choices, but it's false. This is a decision that should be made based on facts. If a mother can't be home with the children, daycare is not the only option. Can a family member be a consistent caretaker? Can childcare be shared? Can a Mom pool resources with other family or Moms to share a consistent babysitter?

Daycare is a need for some but there are clear downsides that need to be factored out. Is it worth it? In some cases, its just not.

7. Marriages following biblical principles see a lot of good results over time.

By not power struggling with my husband and learning to be submissive, our trust toward each other was restored even with an affair. This trust allows me a great deal of influence over our lives without me needing to argue and push for it.

Being completely honest: it just gets better with time.

8. Respected men who are helped at home perform better in their careers in time.

How can any family live off one income? When the biblically assigned spouse responsible for that income has more energy to put back into work and advancing because there's no arguing, there's a meal, the babes are cared for, its clean, and the wife is relaxed and happy.

God's ways are perfect.

He commands wives to be submissive, to keep their homes well, to love their husbands and children, and have meek and quiet spirits. Any ideology that undermines that is not serving women at all. Living out God's ways look different from person to person but they always yield a rich and abundant reward.

 

[Wynona]

Yet, it's all the rage for feminists to shame and condemn those who don't accept this evil ideology.

True. But my standard is Jesus. I don't want to match that energy.

 

[Wrangler]

A list of books means nothing. A person has to study the books with an open mind so to learn from the material offered in the books.

All you have done in your thread is condemn women for being what you do not approve.

Which is not an example of someone who holds an education in Feminism.

Circular Reasoning. An "open mind" is an anti-concept for never coming to a conclusion. One should have an active mind. Done. These books seep communism along the lines of sex. I am simultaneously well educated in all variants of Cultural Marxism AND reject them all.

The idea that one can only be educated about something if they agree with it is shown false by feminists not embracing the merits of the Patriarchy.