constnt

This is a private individual who is suing valve for her own personal gain. This isn't a government or a class action. If they win valve gives this one lady half a billion dollars. Sounds bullshit to me.

Yes the paper is examples of both, I specifically choose it so you couldn't claim it was biased.

You think the people second-wave feminists had to fight against for equality sat around arguing, "Well, the first wave feminist made great strides but these new ones just want to ruin men"?

You can keep pushing the goal posts. First it's all feminism and now it's "oh okay just the new ones". All feminists want equality. 2nd wave, 3rd wave, and the current 4th wave.

Being a man who has had to do the inner work to break through my own toxicity I understand that feeling that comes with being surrounded by feminist anger. It seems isolating because men have issues too. Men hurt. We suffer the most homelessness. We suffer from the most suicide rates. Male disposability is a huge problem that often gets overlooked. But shitting on feminism isn't the answer. A marginalized group struggling for equality isn't your enemy. The patriarchy is the reason for all those problems. Infact, after digging through my own shit and starting to understand other people's plights has just made me feel closer to everyone and made me realize the isolating feeling wasn't coming from feminism but from my own views. If you want to discuss feminism further I'll gladly in private, but I think I'm done with the back and forth on here. Take care, friend.

I'm sorry one Google search didn't bring up populist topics you where looking for. Just because family law isn't on the forefront of the general feminist agenda doesn't mean there isn't attempts at reform or, has been in the past. It's very obvious your entire concept of feminism is rooted in ignorance at best, a misinformation at worse.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3194962

Here's a paper explaining how feminism has changed family. Giving many modern (1960 onward)examples.

1. Removed the ban on contraceptives.Allowing the individual to determine their reproductive rights. Both man and women.
2. Made it so alimony wasn't just from husband paying wife but could be from wife to pay husband.
3. Made it unconstitutional to to discriminate against children born outside of marriage. Affects men and women.
4. No-fault divorce. Allowing people to actually get divorced. Both men and women.
5. Created laws for restraining orders, and classified marital rape.
6. Increases recognition of informal relationships (not legally married).
7. Created a legal separation between sex and procreation which laid the ground work for same sex relationships. Helps men and women.
8. Helped remove gender based roles described in family law which redefined legal marriage. Helps men and women.

"I don't know off the top of my head of any feminist court reform attempts so obviously there are none."

Get over yourself

Feminism when women have issues in society: "Men, you must fix this! Or else you are an evil person!"

Feminism isn't women asking men to fix their problems. It's asking men to simply treat them the same so they can fix their own problems. And it's not even fully just men, but the patriarchy which if you don't know the difference then you need to figure that out before you start making broad sweeping generalizations of feminism.

Feminism when men have issues in society: "Ew, sort your own shit out, loser males

Except feminism is also about fixing male problems. Every single problem men face would be fixed if we got equal rights. For example one of those most prevelant problems that men face is discrimination in family court. Men almost always get screwed when it comes to parental rights. This stems from the old patriarchal view that men should be working and women taking care of the children. When divorce was first legalized courts gave the women custody of the children so men could be free to be men with out the burden of children. Now, men have grown and are starting to realize they want to be fathers. They want families. But due to old patriarchal ideals and ingrained 'traditions', often not even conscious decisions, men get screwed when it comes to parenting rights.

This reaches across all feminist ideals. Men just dont want to hear it.

I'm fully pro-abortion, pro reproductive rights, pro trans rights. I don't know where you felt I implied otherwise. Ill gladly clear it up if possible.

Role models

Boys traditionally are taught from a very young age that uncompromising, and 'unfeeling' toxic males are what we need to look up to. So that's what they gravitate towards. It's a whole other discussion about unburdening and unpacking toxic views in men that is the core issue actually at play.

Disproportional push in favor of girls and to the detriment of boys is also to blame.

Women pushing for equal rights isn't to blame for men not unpacking their own toxic baggage. If no one is standing up for boys look at the men. It's not girls' fault that no one is trying to reachout to troubled boys. The ones who are reaching out are toxic gross assholes like Tate or Rogan who are using these boys as a means to line their bank accounts.

Doesn't look like it's gonna fix itself anytime soon though.

Social inequality is never going to fix itself. There isn't a single issue in the world that is going to just fix itself.

50% of what Thanos considers life since it was powered by his will. Since he seemed to imply that nature (plants and animals) where not part of this it's safe to assume it was sapient life only.

Random internet guy called it. Pack it up boys we're going home.

https://www.meche.engineering.cmu.edu/_files/images/research-groups/whitefoot-group/WS-FootprintFuelEconomy-EP.pdf?shem=sswnst

https://me.engin.umich.edu/news-events/news/cafe-standards-could-mean-bigger-cars-not-smaller-ones/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/?shem=sswnst

https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/us-light-duty-fuel-economy-and-ghg/

The footprint-based system means that selling more small vehicles does not necessarily help manufacturers meet the standards. Smaller vehicles are subject to more stringent requirements, such that a manufacturer of smaller vehicles has a lower CO2 standard while a manufacturer of larger vehicles has a higher CO2 standard. Footprint systems encourage improvements in efficiency, regardless of vehicles size, and have relatively little impact on vehicle size mix. Unlike a weight-based standard, a footprint-based standard encourages use of lightweight materials while maintaining the vehicle size, without subjecting the manufacturers to a higher CO2 requirement.

Because car companies send lobbyists to Congress and pay to influence bills.

There is a law in the US that says trucks must meet a certain Miles per gallon fuel economy. But there is a loop hole that says trucks over a certain size are not included in that law. So as long as the trucks are ridiculously big they don't need to worry about their fuel economy.

Edit: it's the CAFE law.