Feminism is looking into the first two at least. Guardianship mostly falls to women because divorced men want to continue working as they usually earn more and don’t want to impact their career. If women and men were paid equal and had equal career paths then that factor would not play a role and the parents could split guardianship either equally as well or in a way that is best for the child.
The second one as well, if women and men with equal education had equal opportunities then there would not be any need to make sure women are ahead education wise. But currently a woman has to be much more educated to be considered for a role so education has to be adjusted accordingly.
I’m not defending anything, if things were going the way I’d like them to it wouldn’t be necessary, but unless equality is achieved things will continue the way they are. And with the way some people are fighting equality even though it would benefit them just as well, it’s gonna be a long time.
If women have so much more education than men, and this is injustice, why do we still get paid so fucking much less?
Fixing problems dometimes requires pressuring systems in weird ways.
Also; im sure more young men would get degrees if they didnt spend all their time jacking off to andrew tate and then performatively drop out after 6 months to get a billion dollars in start up funding. Was before andrew tate, and geography bias, but i knew like a dozen guys my age who did this. So I’m not sure tgese statistics mean what you think they do.
I don’t know where you read that I want a gender gap because that’s the opposite of what I want. I want equality for anyone, no matter their gender or anything else. That is also the goal of feminism. Things are the way they currently are exactly because people do not fight for equality. If they did there would not be a gender gap.
1st: if you removed the words women and men you’d still have a good argument, except now we’re allowing less earning fathers to care for thier sons and daughters and have that not be a larger hurdle to achieve, you know… equality
Allowing the judge to view the family without gender skewing their view… equality
I don’t follow. Most guardianship decisions are made without a judge involved. A judge is involved when the parents cannot come to an agreement between themselves. The way things are now many fathers are foregoing raising their children because from a financial standpoint it would be nonsense. If a father earns double that what the mother earns it is financially unwise to split guardianship 50/50 and finance plays an incredibly big role in raising children as money enables your child to pursue better education etc.
My bulletpoint is about guardianship laws, how when there is a guardianship dispute the default is always on the mother, even when it makes no sense financially or for the psychological health of the child
Yes but we both want the same thing I think, equal opportunity to raise ones children independent of ones gender. And feminism would help move that goal closer, so I don’t understand what you are trying to argue. The default should be 50/50, that’s equality.
Feminism is looking into the first two at least. Guardianship mostly falls to women because divorced men want to continue working as they usually earn more and don’t want to impact their career. If women and men were paid equal and had equal career paths then that factor would not play a role and the parents could split guardianship either equally as well or in a way that is best for the child.
The second one as well, if women and men with equal education had equal opportunities then there would not be any need to make sure women are ahead education wise. But currently a woman has to be much more educated to be considered for a role so education has to be adjusted accordingly.
2nd: That’s indeed a problem in the job market, but to defend the failure of the education sector’s over focus on women, is the wrong hill to die on
I’m not defending anything, if things were going the way I’d like them to it wouldn’t be necessary, but unless equality is achieved things will continue the way they are. And with the way some people are fighting equality even though it would benefit them just as well, it’s gonna be a long time.
So you’d prefer widening the gender gap that prefers women, as long as there are other gender gaps that skew to the other side.
This type of thought process is exactly why people don’t refer to themselves as feminists
If women have so much more education than men, and this is injustice, why do we still get paid so fucking much less?
Fixing problems dometimes requires pressuring systems in weird ways.
Also; im sure more young men would get degrees if they didnt spend all their time jacking off to andrew tate and then performatively drop out after 6 months to get a billion dollars in start up funding. Was before andrew tate, and geography bias, but i knew like a dozen guys my age who did this. So I’m not sure tgese statistics mean what you think they do.
I don’t know where you read that I want a gender gap because that’s the opposite of what I want. I want equality for anyone, no matter their gender or anything else. That is also the goal of feminism. Things are the way they currently are exactly because people do not fight for equality. If they did there would not be a gender gap.
1st: if you removed the words women and men you’d still have a good argument, except now we’re allowing less earning fathers to care for thier sons and daughters and have that not be a larger hurdle to achieve, you know… equality
Allowing the judge to view the family without gender skewing their view… equality
I don’t follow. Most guardianship decisions are made without a judge involved. A judge is involved when the parents cannot come to an agreement between themselves. The way things are now many fathers are foregoing raising their children because from a financial standpoint it would be nonsense. If a father earns double that what the mother earns it is financially unwise to split guardianship 50/50 and finance plays an incredibly big role in raising children as money enables your child to pursue better education etc.
My bulletpoint is about guardianship laws, how when there is a guardianship dispute the default is always on the mother, even when it makes no sense financially or for the psychological health of the child
Yes but we both want the same thing I think, equal opportunity to raise ones children independent of ones gender. And feminism would help move that goal closer, so I don’t understand what you are trying to argue. The default should be 50/50, that’s equality.
I call that gender equality you call it feminism, but yeah we’re on the same page.