4 Answers

  1. Actually, feminists are different from feminists. Let's look at what I think are three main groups.
    1. Egalitarians. These are those who demand equal rights for men and women. For example, I am one of them. That is, yes, these people demand the abolition of compulsory military service for men, equalization of payment forthe same work (guy-florist in the salon where I worked, paid less than me, and I paid less for warehouse inventory, although the ceiling on a shaky ladder I climbed it), and also for the destruction of stereotypes like, “women are the weaker sex”, “male breadwinner”, �”the child needs a mother, father secondary” freedom of speech and expression. To the question. From this side, the court would consider the option of another child care or the choice of the child himself.
    2. Classical feminists. These are those who seek to eliminate sexism and empower women without infringing on the rights of men. Here I will quote the wiki, perhaps:”…their work is almost unanimously recognized as the reason for such achievements as women's suffrage, women's reproductive rights (access to contraception, the right to abortion), the right to enter into transactions and own property, and gender neutrality in the English language.”These are the ones to whom we owe the existence of women's rights, in fact. Those who are fighting for the freedom of women in Eastern countries, for education, for the freedom of contraception in Russia (of course, we have a problem with this) and much more. On the part of feminists, the fate of the child born to her should be decided by a woman.
    3. Radfem. An unfunny joke on the subject: “Do you know how a believer differs from a fanatic? A believer in rain will give you an umbrella to keep out the cold, and a fanatic will burn you at the stake.” I will not express my IMHO, because it is also based on negative communication experience. Radical feminists advocate aggressive matriarchy. You don't need Coons, you know. In such a society (if we consider it on the example of the RadFem online communities), a man or woman who mentions the possibility of a father having the right to a child is likely to be shot at.

    There are several other groups of feminist society, but they are relatively small. I can't answer for them, because I'm not familiar with the concept.

  2. As far as I know, feminists mostly just want equal obligations towards children, and they are dissatisfied with the fact that after a divorce, the father often participates in the child's life nominally (and who is happy with this, I ask? well, except for these fathers) That is, according to logic, feminism should support the order of equal upbringing by the father and mother after divorce (a week there, a week there, for example) or, however, the transfer of the child to the father. Well, to somehow straighten out the burden of raising a child that a woman carries after a divorce. In any case, I often see discussions of parenthood in femal-focused groups as a willingness to at least share parenting equally.

    But I don't think there is a single generally accepted opinion on this issue among feminists. Someone, for example, on the contrary is against categorically living a child together with the father (a particularly slippery topic with girls – pedophilia in relation to the daughters of men is not as rare as we would like, unfortunately).

    I know a couple of mothers who are not deprived of parental rights, who have a child left after a divorce from their father. In one case, the mother pays alimony. Personally, I am generally in favor of the child staying with a parent who can pay more attention and time to him, this is logical, and it is better for the child. I would also pay child support in such a situation.

    And, by the way, the existing judicial practice is basically the same – that is, it depends on the judge, of course, but there is no unspoken rule to leave the child with the mother by default. A man can achieve cohabitation with a child, provided that he has a better material base and more opportunities for the upbringing and development of the child (there is a sufficient amount of time that can be given to the child, there is a willingness to engage in child development, there are sports schools and clubs nearby, etc.)

    In my opinion, men usually do not get cohabitation with a child, not because “they do not give their children to their fathers”, but because most men have an ambush just with free time. Since for men we socially encourage careerism, men on average spend more time at work and are more likely to stay late… Even if the father has a grandmother at his disposal-if there is a less busy mother, no one will actually give the child to the grandmother for upbringing. But if you can do it yourself, why not?

  3. It depends on the feminists, their husbands and children, on this particular situation.

    Feminism deals with issues of gender equality and the right to choose for women. The issue of sharing benefits (including spiritual ones, such as communication with a child) concerns feminism indirectly. However, from the point of view of antisexism, which also includes a masculine spectrum of problems, it would be fair, firstly, to take into account the opinion of the child, secondly, to understand the level of responsibility of each parent, and, thirdly, not to miss the socio-material situation of both parties after the divorce. As you can see, the time spent with your child alone can't solve this issue unambiguously.

  4. What does the concept of feminism have to do with it? It feels like you and a lot of people see feminists as a separate species. You must understand that the essence of feminism is equal gender roles and rights, the ability of women to choose their own fate, and the absence of public condemnation of decisions made. Do you understand? Yes, there are a lot of branches of feminism now. And feminism has become a blurry concept. There are also radical feminists who are in favor of matriarchy (patriarchy, on the contrary, with the infringement of men). I think radical feminists will not give the child to her husband. But here's another point. They hate men and I don't think any of them will give birth at all. So I don't have such a question.�

    If we talk about ordinary feminists, then there is a question of the girl's desire. If she wants to leave on her own and not raise the children, if she thinks that her husband will do better, then why can't she give the children to her husband? Understand, feminism for girls ' rights. For their right to choose what is best for them. If a woman wants to leave her family and leave, then please. How is it worse than men? If he wants to stay at home and have children and cook borscht, let him cook it. If that's what she wants, please.�

    Stop thinking that feminists are some kind of creatures from another planet. These are ordinary girls who want to have the right to choose. That's all. If he wants to give up his children, what's the problem? It is important for them that no one judges them for their decisions simply because “she is a girl, she should not do this.” That's all.

Leave a Reply