I'm with Schleed. Feminism is a wide terminology. It covers man hating groups, it covers women hating groups. Most of it is mainstream though. And, they do make a lot of sense. Not all of them. Really, feminists are just humans. But what I see in mainstream feminism is not only focusing on rights for women. Schleed has a point that by now mainstream feminism would be better off defining themselves as a gender movement. Because that is what the goal is, nowadays. They look at things from a gender perspective. And, then see that, the way things are, women, or men, can be at a disadvantage. And they want to address that. Mainstream feminism as I know it is not focused on rights of women only.
Radical feminism? Sure, there are idiots to be found. And prominent ones too. Just like there are idiots that make it to be prominent politicians. Politicians claiming pregnancies after rape prove the rape wasn't real rape and such.
(Sorry, we had a politician like that in my country too, it jumped to mind)
And for things like childsupport being unfair, as Al pointed out. That is a bureaucratic system, probably once made to treat every man equal. After finding too many women without child-support. But, in creating this, the system became abusive in itself. By taking men as the target to get the money from. Is there no option of men taking care of the kids, and the women to pay alimony? And then by treating all men equal. Not all men are equal. There are men very willing to participate financially and physically in the upbringing of their kids. And there are men wanting to run away from that responsibility. Treating those two types of men equally is not fair. I see it as a bureaucratic failure.
Of course, a state collection system for alimony can be a good thing, if other options don't work. But, it should not be used by default.
Bureaucracy will make more failures, under the disguise of some freedom or right. A council not too far away from me wants to force single mothers who have not disclosed the name of the fathers to name them. Or they will lose part of their income. A plan to make this a default thing is going to be disastrous. It will help some men, who want to be part of the lives of their kids, but who are kept from their kids because of the whim of the mother. It happens. But, it will also put women and kids at risk, when the relationship was a very violent one. It is the default idea, complete with forced DNA testing they are thinking of, that makes it so dangerous. Tackling people by default ideas, telling it is good for the child, but in fact caring about money only, is not going to bring justice to anyone. This is not a feministic idea btw. It is a council, wanting to economise.
And Rage. Too many threads about how bad feminism is, and I just skip them. Only now and then, I decide to read one of them. And then I will probably react. But, may sigh and skip that option too.
