Despite my one moment of sheer misandry, which I apologize for…I love you guys ❤️

I probably can’t offer much in the way of comfort…

NSFW, TMI

…I mean, all I can offer is my body, and I doubt you’d want that :P…

…but I really, truly, honestly appreciate all of you guys. Really 💜

Without men, my life would be pretty boring and honestly pointless. And I don’t just mean for sexual reasons…

NSFW, TMI

…well, the sexual reasons are a big and important part of it too, ngl, but they’re not the only reason.

I see and appreciate you. You matter 🩷
To me. To your families. To everyone here ❤️

This isn’t much comfort, but if any of you guys needs someone to talk to, my Matrix account is:
@horny_miisha:chat.blahaj.zone
Feel free to reach out!

You’re not alone. You’re never alone. I love you guys 💜

  • velma@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    21·
    1 day ago

    Patriarchy absolutely hurts men as well and I don’t want to take away from your comment. I fully support it. And I fully support men revolting against the patriarchy and living how they want to live without the pressure to conform.

    The first major legal win for feminism was about a mother being granted custody because before 1839, fathers were automatically granted custody of their children.

    The Custody of Infants Act of 1839 is often seen as the first feminist legislative victory in a long campaign to reform English marriage laws (Shanley 17, Chase and Levenson 40). While legal scholars have noted instances when a father’s total control over his legitimate children had been limited by judicial rulings prior to 1839 (Abramowicz 1345), the 1839 Act stands as the first major reform to recognize the rights of mothers. The important role played by Caroline Norton in the passage of the Act is also key to recognizing the law as a feminist triumph (Shanley 17).

    Prior to the 1839 Custody of Infants Act, a father had a right to his legitimate children and was automatically granted custody if he and his wife separated for any reason (Bailey 393). Most fathers granted custody or access to the children’s mothers because it was considered ungentlemanly to deny mothers the opportunity to be with their children. Judges could also require a father to grant access or custody to the mother in circumstances in which the children’s welfare would be in jeopardy if they were left with their father. (Bailey 394)

    Source

      • velma@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        181·
        1 day ago

        That is a perfect example of the patriarchy hurting men. Assuming men are the sole and primary earners in the family can lead to discriminatory decisions like this:

        Stephen Wiesenfeld and Paula Polatschek were married in 1970. Polatschek had worked as a teacher for the five years prior to their marriage and continued teaching after they were married. Her salary was the principle source of the couple’s income, and social security contributions were regularly deducted from her salary. In 1972, Polatschek died in childbirth, which left Wiesenfeld with the care of their newborn son. Wiesenfeld applied for social security benefits for himself and his son, and was told that his son could receive them but that he could not. Social Security Act provides benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband and father that are available to both the children and the widow. The benefits for a deceased wife and mother, however, are only available to the children.

        In 1973, Wiesenfeld sued on behalf of himself and similarly situated widowers. He claimed that the relevant section of the Social Security Act unfairly discriminated on the basis of sex and sought summary judgment. A three-judge panel of the district court granted Wiesenfeld’s motion for summary judgment

        Thanks for bringing it up!!