What I mean is that I have noticed that even some of the less whacked-out self-identified MRAs still have this bizarre deep-seated resentment of feminists and even women in general that I honestly find a little creepy.
I think that I have heard of Elam. I believe that the Southern Poverty Law Centre have mentioned him, which is basically never a good sign.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
Ah, I see now.
Most of the MRAs I've seen on Genderratic and tumblr don't hate feminists personally unless they're particularly violent and insensitive. The way they explain it, it's more like a feeling of frustration that feminism hasn't solved all of the gender issues that many feminists claim it will, doesn't appear to have plans to, and yet many people still think that men's issues do not need to be addressed. This leads them to believe that feminism is a deeply flawed movement that lets its radicals have too much influence.
This feeling tends to be much stronger if the person is a rape or abuse victim that has been rudely dismissed in the past.
Maybe this doesn't apply to MRAs in a general sense, but it's pretty accurate for the ones I've seen.
RE: Radicals and loonies (specifically the ones i have met in my time on Tumblr): Now, I do follow a few social issues related blogs, and in my experience ones that are run by people who are really serious and do this sort of thing for a living are all very good. Outside of that group I have ended up following at least 2 "feminist" blogs that turned out to have really shitty opinions, which led to me quickly unfollowing them.
On the other hand, pretty much every MRA related blog i've followed has had definite misogynistic opinions that would show up sooner or later.
^^ And yet the vast majority of feminists would not dismiss a victim of physical or sexual abuse based on their gender. While I can understand the frustration, the blame does not lie with feminism as a movement or an idea, but with the individuals that would be so callous as to dismiss them. Such people should be ashamed of themselves.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
Sredni: I personally agree with that, even though the people I'm referring to would not. However, I have seen more than a few tumblr feminists who did dismiss abuse victims based on their gender. A choice quote that I remember off the top of my head was: "If he was hard, then he obviously consented to it." That's basically the male victim equivalent of saying: "If she enjoyed it, it's not rape."
This kind of thing often goes unnoticed, though. And even when it is, sometimes others make excuses for them. Feminists probably should make a more active effort to call out this sort of behavior and make it known that it's unacceptable.
Naney: I'm really starting to think we're looking in different places. I haven't seen any homophobia as of yet; quite the opposite. However, I have little reason to doubt you here, so I shall consider myself fortunate.
Sredni: I personally agree with that, even though the people I'm referring to would not. However, I have seen more than a few tumblr feminists who did dismiss abuse victims based on their gender. A choice quote that I remember off the top of my head was: "If he was hard, then he obviously consented to it." That's basically the male victim equivalent of saying: "If she enjoyed it, it's not rape."
This kind of thing often goes unnoticed, though. And even when it is, sometimes others make excuses for them. Feminists probably should make a more active effort to call out this sort of behavior and make it known that it's unacceptable.
Tumblr SJWs and wannabe rad-fems are not one in the same with the majority of feminists. They are self-righteous dickweasels and should be punched in the face.
Naney: I'm really starting to think we're looking in different places. I haven't seen any homophobia as of yet; quite the opposite. However, I have little reason to doubt you here, so I shall consider myself fortunate.
You have no idea, mang. Also transphobia. Gotta love that...
This kind of thing often goes unnoticed, though. And even when it is, sometimes others make excuses for them. Feminists probably should make a more active effort to call out this sort of behavior and make it known that it's unacceptable.
pretty much every tome i've seen that sorta thing it has been in the context of a screencap being reblogged with a big ol THAT IS NOT FUCKING OK YOU PIECE OF SHIT
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
pretty much every tome i've seen that sorta thing it has been in the context of a screencap being reblogged with a big ol THAT IS NOT FUCKING OK YOU PIECE OF SHIT
This is from people who identify as feminists, right? If so, that is awesome and that should be encouraged.
Also, I should note that I don't mean to say this never happens. The feminist blogs I lurk on call out this sort of behavior a lot, actually.
Also, re: transphobia: I shall consider myself VERY fortunate. Somehow, I've seen more horror stories about transphobic radfems than actual transphobia.
I remember a story about the Salvation Army letting a transfem die outside of one of their womens' shelters.
That's how I heard about it on tumblr, at least. The real story, according to Google, is that they wouldn't let her stay in their women's facilities, and there was no other show in town, so she had to roam the streets or renounce her identity.
They aren't. But then, most sane people don't take transphobic MRA nutters seriously, either. It does nothing to diminish either's wretchedness.
The problem lies in how much relative influence each has within their respective spheres. Feminist thought is a much larger, more diverse pool, with much less immediate potential for veiled reactionary behaviour, so that kind of bigotry is less influential and less visible. Transphobic MRAs, on the other hand...
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
Something that just occurred to me: there's always the possibility the men's rights movement will grow and develop beyond its current state (it is a relatively recent arrival compared to most other social movements, after all) and we'll see less of the vocal bigotry that tars the reasonable part of the movement with its brush.
I think it's good, but I'm an impatient bastard who's waiting for it to become the overwhelming norm so that I don't have to see anymore angry blog posts about it.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
Something I probably should have mentioned earlier. Out of the 20 or so blogs where I get most of my information on this subject, only 2 or 3 are MRA only. Two others identify as feminist only, and all the others identify as egalitarian (which covers both and neither). This would suggest that even those critical of feminism are wary of identifying as MRA only.
I posit that this is partly because of crazies and partly because a lot of them really think that both genders' issues need to be addressed, a sentiment I agree with on both counts. The latter reason is explicitly stated a lot more often than the former.
I mostly agree with professor gator. I don't believe in enforcing/policing gender roles, but I don't consider myself a feminist mostly because of their lack of focus on men's issues. I think ideally, feminists and MRAs would work together rather than alienating each other, because I think a lot of the problems they're looking at stem from the same things. I believe that there are biological differences between men and women, but I don't think men or women are superior people. That said, sometimes I do get insecure about the fact that men are generally stronger in some things (like lifting stuff, but there's others, too) because I'm a woman, but maybe that belongs in the emotional problems pile and not this thread.
First, I don't see physical strength as being terribly useful nowadays. What with this, uh, information superhighway world we now live in. You can lift heavy objects! Yay!
Second, I tend to associate it with "macho" manliness and things of that sort that I'd rather not be characterized as. I find it demeaning, for some reason.
I dunno, I guess I just never cared for the "you're a BIG STRONG MAN, you should be proud of that" thing...I feel like it detracts from how I'd rather be seen.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
Physical strength is necessary for some things. If it weren't for physically strong people, we wouldn't be able to build all the structures we need for the information superhighway to exist in the first place.
However, not all men want to be physically strong, the both of us included, and that is something I think we can all agree is okay.
Speaking of which, there is a disadvantage to the physical strength aspect of the masculine role that is often overlooked (or so I've heard, at least). This is that you're expected to risk life and limb more often, and this is not a risk that everyone is willing to take.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
I'm pretty sure we're all set in our ways here. Perhaps we should move on to another topic for now.
I should make it known that I do not blindly disagree with feminists on everything. One thing I agree is a problem is that women are underrepresented in the sciences. Now, my own personal experience contradicts this a bit, since the vast majority of my biology classes have been in the range of 50-80% female. I would guess off the top of my head that 60% of the biology majors at my school are women, which matches up with what I recall to be the typical American university having 60% female students.
However, there is an important thing to take into account. The vast majority of my classmates are going into medicine, not research. This probably holds true for female biology majors elsewhere as well.
I'm fairly certain that discrimination, gender stereotypes, and general trends in personal choice are all involved here. But just how much of each contributes to it, I wonder?
personally I think that most reasonable "opponents" of feminism tend to just be hung up on semantics.
admittedly, if the movement was called something else it would probably have more people in it, but that's not something that can be helped after it's been a term for well over 50 years at least.
personally I think that most reasonable "opponents" of feminism tend to just be hung up on semantics.
admittedly, if the movement was called something else it would probably have more people in it, but that's not something that can be helped after it's been a term for well over 50 years at least.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
I still think it's more than just semantics, but I'd rather not have this thread be ten pages of us saying the same thing over and over again.
That is why I'm offering to change the subject for a bit. Hopefully, that will mean we're less likely to get fruitlessly frustrated.
That's why I'm conflicted about the term "feminism" -- on one hand it is a label used by proponents to help them work together, but on the other hand it's also misunderstood by some opponents.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
That's why I'm conflicted about the term "feminism" -- on one hand it is a label used by proponents to help them work together, but on the other hand it's also misunderstood by some opponents.
Looking back at this, I should probably clarify something. In my case, and in the case of most of the people on the community I follow, it's not the name of the movement itself or the fact that it's focused on women's issues that we take issue with. It's partly the fact that many of its members, even some of the more reasonable ones, insist that men's issues are either not serious problems or do not need to be addressed because taking care of women's issues will fix them in turn (which we don't agree with for reasons I mentioned earlier).
It's also partly because many feminists, again even some of the more reasonable ones, have quoted figures based on studies with flawed methodology.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
A fairly frequent one is the statement that 1 out of every 4 women is raped at some point in their life. First, the study it's based on dealt specifically with women on college campuses, not women in general. Second, the study itself (performed by one Dr. Mary P. Koss) had some issues.
It was ostensibly a questionnaire about rape victims' experiences, but it didn't actually ask people whether or not they had been raped. If this was an anonymous survey (I assume it was), then there should be no worry about people being afraid to speak up on this point.
It also included a very vague question along the lines of: "Were you ever offered alcohol or drugs from a stranger at a party?" While this is certainly a method frequently used to take advantage of people, Dr. Koss assumed that every person who answered yes to these questions was a victim of date rape when there could have been other outcomes. As a result, the numbers were inflated.
Someone redid the study with a different set of questions, and the numbers turned out to be around 1 in 20. Still unacceptably high, but not quite as attention-grabbing, which is how the inflated figure became popular.
While that is a fair point, I would argue that the sensationalisation of skewed statistics is sadly fairly universal within the modern media. Beyond allowing reactionary naysayers room to shout down reasonable but misinformed people, it also puts a good number of potential allies in a position of doubt, and I find that untenable. But that is not a problem with feminism; it is a problem with media.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
True, but I would also add that social justice activists, feminists and non-feminists alike, have a responsibility to make decisions based on factual evidence and ignore media sensationalization. That will allow their arguments to be more valid, truthful, and persuasive, which will make positive change more likely.
Eh, I know that people who have more physical strength are expected to do more, especially in the way of protecting and helping others. I guess part of the reason I always want to offer help to someone who's carrying something heavy is because I want people to see me as being strong.
I don't know if I have it in me to lay down my life for other people though, so I guess when you come down to it, I'm not that strong; I'm just a coward.
True, but I would also add that social justice activists, feminists and non-feminists alike, have a responsibility to make decisions based on factual evidence and ignore media sensationalization. That will allow their arguments to be more valid, truthful, and persuasive, which will make positive change more likely.
I agree, but I would argue that mistrusting a movement based on the fallibility of individuals within it is just as much, if not more, of a failing.
I'm all for curves, as I happen to have them. But once people start going all "real men like this or that and if you don't, you're not a real man," it just becomes bigotry. Admittedly, I'd probably be more bugged if it said "Real men like skinny women, only dogs go for curves," but as it stands, I still don't agree with it.
Anyway, whoever fixed that e-card (ie, crossed out the first statement and wrote on the second) deserves a round of applause.
Anyway, the whole "real man" thing is weird. For instance, people will say "Real men don't hit women" instead of "Decent humans don't hit women (or anyone, for that matter)." or "Real men don't abandon their child" rather than "Decent humans don't abandon their child." Implies that they think men care more about being seen as masculine than about doing the right thing (or even being seen as doing the right thing).
Though I will say I don't object to those kind of lessons on a base value, other than the latent sexism that it leaves imprinted on people's minds. Attributing good values like "Not hitting people and not abandoning your family" to a desired goal (that was set up there by society' mind you) is somewhat of a good goal.
If society itself is going to continue to produce the background noise of "Being a 'real' man or 'real' woman" then instilling those values into the minds of people as the definition of those values isn't necessarily "bad" It's just misleading and probably compacts the problem of trying to stem out the issue.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Things I think have objective value, and feminism undermines:
Life (by supporting abortion)
Stable families (by supporting no-fault divorce)
Classical education (by demanding fewer "dead white males")
As far as jobs, I, like Plato, favor meritocracy, though not to the extent of children being raised by people other than their parents. Every culture known to history or anthropology has sex roles, which seem to represent solutions of varying quality to basic biological issues (Men Are the Expendable Gender and mothers need to keep nursing babies near as they work), but industrial capitalism is a new life-situation.
Well, classical education and stable families are not goods in themselves, they're goods for the sake of something else. For instance, classical education is good for the sake of knowledge. But in order to provide the best knowledge to people, education needs to respond to a changing world (for instance, nowadays we have to teach computer skills.)
Stable families are good for the sake of social support and mental health. So if a family is undermining that, for instance, by being smothering or abusive, then that is not good.
Anyway, as regards sex roles, all cultures have had them, but not all cultures have had the same ones, which I think speaks to the fact that at least some of gender roles is socially constructed. (I think biology and culture both influence each other with respect to a lot of things, and gender is one of them).
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Well, classical education and stable families are not goods in themselves, they're goods for the sake of something else. For instance, classical education is good for the sake of knowledge. But in order to provide the best knowledge to people, education needs to respond to a changing world (for instance, nowadays we have to teach computer skills.)
Stable families are good for the sake of social support and mental health. So if a family is undermining that, for instance, by being smothering or abusive, then that is not good.
Anyway, as regards sex roles, all cultures have had them, but not all cultures have had the same ones, which I think speaks to the fact that at least some of gender roles is socially constructed. (I think biology and culture both influence each other with respect to a lot of things, and gender is one of them).
Basic computer skills are easily acquired, to the extent that Waldorf schools are popular in Silicon Valley. We can debate whether programming should be a required high school subject. Much more important is learning grammar from the best texts they can handle, the being equipped at the formal operations stage with cognitive tools like logic, the scientific method, and critical reading of great historians. Calling it "classical education" is a shorthand and the good-in-itself is knowledge, no question.
As far as I know, intact families lead to better outcomes for children in all cases except abuse, which would be grounds for divorce.
As to gender roles beig part social construct, no doubt, but reality imposes limits. In any case, I think we're in agreement that industrial capitalism is a new life-way that merits meritocracy.
It is an active bone of contention as to when exactly life can be considered to begin. The question, as of the present, does not have a consensus answer in society.
Also, I haven't heard any sane person support abortion itself. The "support" you speak of is supporting a person's option to the terminate a pregnancy, never advocacy that they do so.
Well, the (proper) point of divorce is to get people out of dysfunctional relationships. So one has to weigh the potentially decreased stability of a family that tries to stay together despite familial strife versus the potential lack of stability combined with a potentially greater peace of mind for those who choose to separate. Individual families are by no means necessarily more stable than individual divorced couples, even if families on average are more stable than divorced couples on average.
> Classical education (by demanding fewer "dead white males")
'S a general movement in the academic circles to include more minority authors in English classes. Y'know, mix up Shakespeare with a little Angelou and Atwood.
Frankly, as long as the writing's still of quality and the old guard of literature isn't completely wiped out, I don't see why there's an issue with it.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
It is an active bone of contention as to when exactly life can be considered to begin. The question, as of the present, does not have a consensus answer in society.
Also, I haven't heard any sane person support abortion itself. The "support" you speak of is supporting a person's option to the terminate a pregnancy, never advocacy that they do so.
Well, the (proper) point of divorce is to get people out of dysfunctional relationships. So one has to weigh the potentially decreased stability of a family that tries to stay together despite familial strife versus the potential lack of stability combined with a potentially greater peace of mind for those who choose to separate. Individual families are by no means necessarily more stable than individual divorced couples, even if families on average are more stable than divorced couples on average.
> Classical education (by demanding fewer "dead white males")
Never heard this one before.
Life: We don't need a "consensus definition" if one position is demonstrably untrue. An embryo has unique DNA, a metaboism, grows, and responds to stimuli. That's life.
"No sane person" advocates abortion to any pregnant woman?
Stable families: Again, in the absence of no-fault divorce laws, parents would still be able to get out of abusive relationships. What would change is that they'd no longer harm their children, the most vulerable members of the family, for selfish reasons.
Affirmative Actio in curricula: "Frankly, as long as the writing's still of quality and the old guard of literature isn't completely wiped out, I don't see why there's an issue with it."
If it's writing of the highest quality, it belongs i the curriculum on merit. If it's second-rate or lower, well, the opportunity cost (kicking a book of the first rank out) does a disservive to the students.
Comments
On the other hand, pretty much every MRA related blog i've followed has had definite misogynistic opinions that would show up sooner or later.
Also, I should note that I don't mean to say this never happens. The feminist blogs I lurk on call out this sort of behavior a lot, actually.
Also, re: transphobia: I shall consider myself VERY fortunate. Somehow, I've seen more horror stories about transphobic radfems than actual transphobia.
also transphobic radfems are rare and definitely not taken seriously in most circles, just sayin
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
That's how I heard about it on tumblr, at least. The real story, according to Google, is that they wouldn't let her stay in their women's facilities, and there was no other show in town, so she had to roam the streets or renounce her identity.
So, yeah, it's a good idea.
First, I don't see physical strength as being terribly useful nowadays. What with this, uh, information superhighway world we now live in. You can lift heavy objects! Yay!
Second, I tend to associate it with "macho" manliness and things of that sort that I'd rather not be characterized as. I find it demeaning, for some reason.
I dunno, I guess I just never cared for the "you're a BIG STRONG MAN, you should be proud of that" thing...I feel like it detracts from how I'd rather be seen.
personally I think that most reasonable "opponents" of feminism tend to just be hung up on semantics.
admittedly, if the movement was called something else it would probably have more people in it, but that's not something that can be helped after it's been a term for well over 50 years at least.
If so, what would it be called?
Anyway, whoever fixed that e-card (ie, crossed out the first statement and wrote on the second) deserves a round of applause.
Anyway, the whole "real man" thing is weird. For instance, people will say "Real men don't hit women" instead of "Decent humans don't hit women (or anyone, for that matter)." or "Real men don't abandon their child" rather than "Decent humans don't abandon their child." Implies that they think men care more about being seen as masculine than about doing the right thing (or even being seen as doing the right thing).
If society itself is going to continue to produce the background noise of "Being a 'real' man or 'real' woman" then instilling those values into the minds of people as the definition of those values isn't necessarily "bad" It's just misleading and probably compacts the problem of trying to stem out the issue.
Things I think have objective value, and feminism undermines:
Life (by supporting abortion)
Stable families (by supporting no-fault divorce)
Classical education (by demanding fewer "dead white males")
As far as jobs, I, like Plato, favor meritocracy, though not to the extent of children being raised by people other than their parents. Every culture known to history or anthropology has sex roles, which seem to represent solutions of varying quality to basic biological issues (Men Are the Expendable Gender and mothers need to keep nursing babies near as they work), but industrial capitalism is a new life-situation.
Stable families are good for the sake of social support and mental health. So if a family is undermining that, for instance, by being smothering or abusive, then that is not good.
Anyway, as regards sex roles, all cultures have had them, but not all cultures have had the same ones, which I think speaks to the fact that at least some of gender roles is socially constructed. (I think biology and culture both influence each other with respect to a lot of things, and gender is one of them).
Basic computer skills are easily acquired, to the extent that Waldorf schools are popular in Silicon Valley. We can debate whether programming should be a required high school subject. Much more important is learning grammar from the best texts they can handle, the being equipped at the formal operations stage with cognitive tools like logic, the scientific method, and critical reading of great historians. Calling it "classical education" is a shorthand and the good-in-itself is knowledge, no question.
As far as I know, intact families lead to better outcomes for children in all cases except abuse, which would be grounds for divorce.
As to gender roles beig part social construct, no doubt, but reality imposes limits. In any case, I think we're in agreement that industrial capitalism is a new life-way that merits meritocracy.
It is an active bone of contention as to when exactly life can be considered to begin. The question, as of the present, does not have a consensus answer in society.
Also, I haven't heard any sane person support abortion itself. The "support" you speak of is supporting a person's option to the terminate a pregnancy, never advocacy that they do so.
> Stable families (by supporting no-fault divorce)
Well, the (proper) point of divorce is to get people out of dysfunctional relationships. So one has to weigh the potentially decreased stability of a family that tries to stay together despite familial strife versus the potential lack of stability combined with a potentially greater peace of mind for those who choose to separate. Individual families are by no means necessarily more stable than individual divorced couples, even if families on average are more stable than divorced couples on average.
> Classical education (by demanding fewer "dead white males")
Never heard this one before.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Frankly, as long as the writing's still of quality and the old guard of literature isn't completely wiped out, I don't see why there's an issue with it.
huh
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
When it comes to my female African-American literature, I usually go for Morrison.
Life: We don't need a "consensus definition" if one position is demonstrably untrue. An embryo has unique DNA, a metaboism, grows, and responds to stimuli. That's life.
"No sane person" advocates abortion to any pregnant woman?
Stable families: Again, in the absence of no-fault divorce laws, parents would still be able to get out of abusive relationships. What would change is that they'd no longer harm their children, the most vulerable members of the family, for selfish reasons.
Affirmative Actio in curricula: "Frankly, as long as the writing's still of quality and the old guard of literature isn't completely wiped out, I don't see why there's an issue with it."
If it's writing of the highest quality, it belongs i the curriculum on merit. If it's second-rate or lower, well, the opportunity cost (kicking a book of the first rank out) does a disservive to the students.