This reply or at least the first source cited is a little disingenuous; modern feminism (mostly third wave and left-wing) rejects the doctrine of essentialism used by second wave feminists. Most third wave feminists are highly critical of gender essentialism (for instance on trans issues which for them must deny essentialism) to the point where you and the person you're replying to are speaking of totally different movements. It would be like saying that science can't explain the motion of the planets - but of course it can, if we're talking about the majority of scientists after Newton. The boy's hate for feminism should not right extend past the 19th century women named in the article.

If you don't believe me when it comes to what modern feminism actually believes I'd be happy to walk through a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article to make the point. Most modern feminists do not support the tender years doctrine.

> If you don't believe me when it comes to what modern feminism actually believes I'd be happy to walk through a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article to make the point. Most modern feminists do not support the tender years doctrine.

No need! Just point me to the testimony at any senate hearing where any major feminist group stood up for equality in family law or in domestic violence law. Or an endorsement of a reform law moving those towards equality.

As far as I know, most U.S. states (34 of them) reject the tender years presumption in the first place. Furthermore, there are different approaches to feminism; liberal feminism propounds formal equality, which is generally rejected by other approaches which favor more radical solutions. The issue becomes vanishingly small when it turns out that most men opt for joint custody when it comes to the choice, and this is only of the very small number of custody trials in court - the vast majority are settled out of court.

And it's a mistake to characterize opposition as only being legal; if I said I was against murder, would you only believe me if I prosecuted a murderer, or campaigned for the death penalty?

What if feminists had other (bigger) issues to fight in the name of gender equality, which would be better for them to direct money? What if they don't believe that "standing up for equality" in the way you think makes much sense compared to writing and educating in society? We can already see this at work in other areas of feminism; a great number of feminists believe that pornography is harmful, but few seek legal means against it.

You seems to have a strong opinion about what current Feminism movement stands for, so let me ask you a quick questions on their views. What is the majority opinion on who is more likely to initiate physical violence, men or women?

As far as I know, prior to Brown v. Board, most states (50 of them) legally gave equal rights to blacks and whites. The reality was different.

Joint custody is not the same as equal custody. Courts will almost always assign joint custody, but rarely equal custody and almost never primary custody to the dads, at least where I live. That's not tender years presumption; that's simple sexism. Typical arrangement is 3 nights dad, 4 nights mom.

That, in turn means a massive windfall for the mom.

In the cases I know which were settled out-of-court, the men were told, in essence, they had little chance at equal custody due to gender and sexism by the courts. In at least two cases I know, the dads were the primary caretaker before the divorce.

Virtually all the men's rights groups lobby for default equal custody. A majority of the opposition comes from feminist groups.

The majority of men in this situation voted for Trump over Clinton, and believe it or not, would still vote Trump over Warren, despite agreeing with Warren on quite literally everything else.