Ginmar is on a roll - this time, she speaks about Child Support

[callistra]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/475190.html

I found this article fascinating. Ginmar really does seem to look deep into the situation and then make points that I can see but never find the words for.

Oh, and for interest, her latest udate is some photos and descriptions of Iraq.

Comments

Male perspective.

[laughingimp.livejournal.com]

The tone of Ginmar's posts generally seems to be, "All men are evil. And if you disagree with me, you are building a case out of a handful of exceptions." Nevertheless, for a while I really tried to read them anyway, because while her tone makes me wantt o strangel her, her talking points were mostly right. R$ape is terrible. It is committed almost exclusively my men, against women, and there is a push in society to objectify, categorize, and dismiss women.

However, there is this undercurrent that ijmplies that all men are rapists, all men are oppressive, and all men are liars. This is where I start losing my patience. (The long "you're a rapist" checklist was a good example of this.)

This one about child support and visitation? Ginmar is so far off-base that I can't come up with words for it. In particular, this one drives me crazy:

3. "Women get treated with kid gloves by the courts."
The courts are male-dominated and those men tend to be conservative. Next?

I agree that the American court system is male-dominated. And certainly, especially in cases of rape (Gin's favorite topic), the woman all too often gets treated like she deserved it.

However, if the court is dominated by men, they are men who feel that women ought to be at home, rearing children. As such, custody of children automatically goes to the mother unless she forfeits it or the father can prove that she's unfit. Great. What if neither parent is unfit, they just hate each other? He loses. (This has been slowly changing since the days when my parents got divorced--see my comment, and her subsequent dismissal of it--but it's changing because of the very same father's rights advocates she's attacking in her post.)

Ginmar's dismissal of this unfair treatment of fathers shows that her all-encompassing hatred of men overshadows any reasonable discourse that might happen in her LiveJournal.

Re: Male perspective.

[babalon-93.livejournal.com]

I think your comment is a fair one. Just because men can be horrible manipulative bastards in relationship break-ups doesn't automatically mean that women aren't. And when we are talking about break-ups between two people who are still emotionally intertwined and hurting, power struggles are to be expected. And when you have a power struggle and one party has substantially less power (and in a patriarchal capitalistic society you know that is most likely going to be the woman) then I'm not surprised to see them use whatever power they have - and unfortunately that is kids and visitation.

However, if the court is dominated by men, they are men who feel that women ought to be at home, rearing children.
Yes. It's ironic that it is the same sexist attitude that promotes rape and violence against women turns here against men. Everybody loses.

[laughingimp.livejournal.com]

Exactly my point--men can be terrible, but women can, too. Ginmar's belief seems to be that women are blameless, and men are responsible for all the evils in the world. While this is in keeping with Andrea Dworkin's teachings, I think Dworkin is just as sexist as the men she rails against, and by extension, so is Ginmar.

[callistra.livejournal.com]

Every time I post about Ginmar, you and shrydar bring up that "not all men are like that." Yes, that's true. But there are specific problems Ginmar is talking about, and they are the problems that she wants to discuss. You can't have a little note on every opinion saying "Yes, I know, XX% of men are OK though."

And what's wrong with being a little angry and sexist? Every one else seems to be allowed to get away with it. Why does she have to include *every one* in her diatribes when for so long, women weren't included in men's diatribes?

I don't think Ginmar believes that men are responsible for all evils in the world. (Although, I haven't met her. I might be wrong. :-) I do, however, believe that she has specific evils she has targeted that she wants to address. Tough if she excludes the good men who do help. They are doing what humans who care should be doing. Do they deserve medals for being nice people? When do I get mine?

[babalon-93.livejournal.com]

I agree with most of this too - saying "some men are good" is a little like saying "I had an aunt who smoked heavily and she lived until she was 98" as a reason not to give up smoking. Of course there are exceptions, but that doesn't change the fact that there is over whelming evidence of the majority trend. Just because one aunt didn't die from lung cancer doesn't mean we should all take up smoking and give away cancer research entirely. Likewise, just because some men are socially aware doesn't mean it is time to stop scrutinising the patriarchy. I can see why Ginmar gets irritated with people bringing this up as an argument.

Why does she have to include *every one* in her diatribes when for so long, women weren't included in men's diatribes?
Yep, even if she *is* sexist, it wouldn't even begin to tip the scales. People seem to jump on perceived sexism so much faster if it comes from a woman (which is sexist in itself really).

Tough if she excludes the good men who do help. They are doing what humans who care should be doing. Do they deserve medals for being nice people? When do I get mine?
This one is a bit problematic for me though. While I don't think we need to be patting people on the back for fulfilling their basic social responsibilities, I don't think it is fair to level the abuse evenly at those who are doing the right thing. Just like I don't think it is okay to say all women are sluts and bitches it is also not okay to say all men are misogynist oppressors. I'm not saying that this is what Ginmar is saying, in fact I'm pretty sure she isn't(and interpreting it as so is perhaps more veiled sexism, i.e. if a woman is tough and out spoken she is a man hating ball breaker), but just that I can see how it must be frustrating for those who are doing the right thing to feel continually slapped down.

[callistra.livejournal.com]

All good comments. I think it's wonderful, the comments every one puts down. I always get food for thought from everything every one says!

:-)

I just said that to chesh and thought I had better let every one else know too, that I enjoy our discussions and debates. I probably annoy some of you by now!!
:-)

[laughingimp.livejournal.com]

You can't have a little note on every opinion saying "Yes, I know, XX% of men are OK though."

Granted, but Ginmar goes past not acknowledging XX%. She implies that there is no XX%, that all men are rapists, that we all oppress women to maintain our superiority, that there is this vast conspiracy among all men to make sure things stay the way they were in the 1950s. When she calls me a rapist, I get angry.

And what's wrong with being a little angry and sexist? Every one else seems to be allowed to get away with it.

Everyone? I get away with being sexist too?

[callistra.livejournal.com]

I get away with being sexist too?

Only if you admire my new bra and boobies while you do it!!
*grin*